This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Kaffirdog on 22 February 2013 - 09:02
" The question I ask is : why such bans and policies and laws were not necessary in former times?
The answer is because common sense was more common and proper methods of training were used and people would not say oh - my and faint when you showed them a pinch or chock collar. ".
Remembering my childhood where dogs were not confined the way they are today and simply ran around as they pleased with all the kids in the neighbourhood, I think "dog sense" came with exposure and experience. Dogs were very well socialised with everything as a result and there was more mutual respect, kids knew not to pull a dogs tail or touch its bone and also knew if they did and got bitten, they would get no sympathy, dog were expected to be dogs. On the other hand, antisocial dogs did not last long, if they bit their owners or anyone else without provocation, they were simply put to sleep. Kept us all safer and kept them out of the gene pool. Nobody was a behaviourist, we just knew the basics of living in harmony with dogs, even if we didn't have one in the family, respected them and that was enough.
These days, family pet dogs are expected to tolerate all kinds of physical and mental abuse, live very restricted lives by comparison with very little outlets to keep their natural instincts in balance and tend to only come in prolonged contact with other dog owners, there are now generations of people who have never had real contact with a dog beyond Walt Disney films so no wonder they get into trouble when they decide to interact with one or, worse, get one.
Margaret N-J
The answer is because common sense was more common and proper methods of training were used and people would not say oh - my and faint when you showed them a pinch or chock collar. ".
Remembering my childhood where dogs were not confined the way they are today and simply ran around as they pleased with all the kids in the neighbourhood, I think "dog sense" came with exposure and experience. Dogs were very well socialised with everything as a result and there was more mutual respect, kids knew not to pull a dogs tail or touch its bone and also knew if they did and got bitten, they would get no sympathy, dog were expected to be dogs. On the other hand, antisocial dogs did not last long, if they bit their owners or anyone else without provocation, they were simply put to sleep. Kept us all safer and kept them out of the gene pool. Nobody was a behaviourist, we just knew the basics of living in harmony with dogs, even if we didn't have one in the family, respected them and that was enough.
These days, family pet dogs are expected to tolerate all kinds of physical and mental abuse, live very restricted lives by comparison with very little outlets to keep their natural instincts in balance and tend to only come in prolonged contact with other dog owners, there are now generations of people who have never had real contact with a dog beyond Walt Disney films so no wonder they get into trouble when they decide to interact with one or, worse, get one.
Margaret N-J
by MightyZeus on 22 February 2013 - 09:02
That's quiet an alias you got there Margaret, what does it mean?
by Kaffirdog on 22 February 2013 - 10:02
Hi Mightyzeus
It means I used to have a dog called Kaffir back in the days when I first entered the world of the internet. He is long gone of course, but I kept the name as a tribute to him.
Margaret N-J
It means I used to have a dog called Kaffir back in the days when I first entered the world of the internet. He is long gone of course, but I kept the name as a tribute to him.
Margaret N-J
by Gustav on 22 February 2013 - 12:02
LOL....half the people that call me in tell me they tried an all positive person first and they walked away from the situation after a few attempts. Hear it time and time again. Nobody I think is trying to sell anyone on CM, he is successful in what he does. I know people who think GS should live outside....does it make that right?.....no just their opinion. Common sense people can see and understand what he is doing that is why he is in demand. There will always be opposition, and there is nothing wrong with seeing things differently. 
by laura271 on 22 February 2013 - 13:02
"I don't think anyone can judge his methods until they themselves have dealt with a headstrong dominate dog."
"Half the people that call me in tell me they tried an all positive person first and they walked away from the situation after a few attempts."
This is our experience ...if you've only had the experience of training soft, friendly dogs like Senta then a purely positive reward based system can seem like the only training model necessary. Then we got Bosco and learned some really hard lessons. He terrified the positive only trainer we spent a stupid amount of money on for one session; it made us really appreciate the experience and the balanced training approach that Bosco's breeder uses. Learning to train Bosco required a real mental shift for us and we didn't see results until Martin and I both got there.
"Half the people that call me in tell me they tried an all positive person first and they walked away from the situation after a few attempts."
This is our experience ...if you've only had the experience of training soft, friendly dogs like Senta then a purely positive reward based system can seem like the only training model necessary. Then we got Bosco and learned some really hard lessons. He terrified the positive only trainer we spent a stupid amount of money on for one session; it made us really appreciate the experience and the balanced training approach that Bosco's breeder uses. Learning to train Bosco required a real mental shift for us and we didn't see results until Martin and I both got there.
by Hired Dog on 22 February 2013 - 13:02
First, there is no such thing as "only positive", even the act of not giving the reward is negative. Second, dogs are not humans, they do not understand the concept of time out. Third, ALL training works because of consequences, good and bad, but, they both must be used as needed. Fourth, without the use of compulsion, neither human nor canine education is possible according to the wise words of Col Conrad Most...and I believe him.
by Blitzen on 22 February 2013 - 13:02
How can anyone here assume how CM would train a problem dog? He doesn't subscribe to a one method fits all dogs. All this about his hanging dogs is very exagerated. If it comes down to hanging the dog or being attacked by that dog or having the dog kill another dog, which it often does, what is the alternative? A clicker? A pupperoni? An atta boy?
by Hired Dog on 22 February 2013 - 14:02
Hanging a dog is not training, its "saving your ass" technique. Were it me the dog was seriously trying to hurt, it would have hang too...
by Blitzen on 22 February 2013 - 14:02
You betcha it's a save your ass technique (or in my case, save another dog's ass).
by Hundmutter on 22 February 2013 - 18:02
Kaffirdog; Blitzen. & sympathy to Laura, been there ! 
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
