I'd heard of ear pinch, but toe pinch?
- Thread starter Danefied
- Start date
Okay, I think there are 14 different issues being discussed here and that's adding to the confusion.
The point that if the method improves the dogs' life then who am I to judge the method is a perfectly valid point. But this thread is specifically about retrieves. How does knowing a retrieve improve a dog's life? I don't see how it does. I have 4 dogs and I can assure you the one who knows how to retrieve (however poorly he does it, I'll get to that in a minute) does not lead a better life than the other three because he knows how to retrieve.
Does TRAINING improve a dog's life? Sure does, no argument there. And frankly if a dog needs to wear a prong or a head halter or a feather boa to walk nicely I don't really give a flying flamigo. Most dogs lives are absolutely better being walked than not. But we're not talking basic training here. We're talking pinching a dog's ear or toe. And you're tryint to tell me that the pain the dog endures to learn to retrieve is justified because the retrieve will ultumately enhance the dog's life. Sorry, I call BS.
RTH, read your own post: They sure do don't they?
As for my dog's retrieve, I posted it with all the disclaimers you've already so generously pointed out, so you're not telling me anything I don't already know, but thanks for the critique
Did you watch the video of the SchH dog doing a motivational retrieve?
Did you post a video of your work? I'm sorry if I missed it
Just a note on the "show me you can do it better" argument, because I've gotten caught up in a few of those myself. It tends to get in to a war of "yeah buts". A video of Susan Garrett's dogs gets a "yeah but" they're border collies. A video of a dog recalling of a live chase gets a "yeah but" the breed isn't as prey driven as XYZ breed. A video of a motivational retrieve gets a "yeah but" that's SchH, not duck hunting.
So no, I won't be "getting back to you when I can train something even close to this level". Though I will happily continue to post videos of my dogs' training, I have a feeling I'm not the only one who enjoys them. And hey, if it helps you feel better about yourself to point out what a crappy trainer I am and how pitiful my dogs' work is, I'm happy to help.
Oh, one last thing... In case it wasn't clear, I don't give a crap what you think. I think training a dog as food driven as mine to hold a raw hot dog in his mouth without biting it in half or having it dissappear down his gullet is pretty impressive.
The point that if the method improves the dogs' life then who am I to judge the method is a perfectly valid point. But this thread is specifically about retrieves. How does knowing a retrieve improve a dog's life? I don't see how it does. I have 4 dogs and I can assure you the one who knows how to retrieve (however poorly he does it, I'll get to that in a minute) does not lead a better life than the other three because he knows how to retrieve.
Does TRAINING improve a dog's life? Sure does, no argument there. And frankly if a dog needs to wear a prong or a head halter or a feather boa to walk nicely I don't really give a flying flamigo. Most dogs lives are absolutely better being walked than not. But we're not talking basic training here. We're talking pinching a dog's ear or toe. And you're tryint to tell me that the pain the dog endures to learn to retrieve is justified because the retrieve will ultumately enhance the dog's life. Sorry, I call BS.
RTH, read your own post: They sure do don't they?
As for my dog's retrieve, I posted it with all the disclaimers you've already so generously pointed out, so you're not telling me anything I don't already know, but thanks for the critique
Did you watch the video of the SchH dog doing a motivational retrieve?
Did you post a video of your work? I'm sorry if I missed it
Just a note on the "show me you can do it better" argument, because I've gotten caught up in a few of those myself. It tends to get in to a war of "yeah buts". A video of Susan Garrett's dogs gets a "yeah but" they're border collies. A video of a dog recalling of a live chase gets a "yeah but" the breed isn't as prey driven as XYZ breed. A video of a motivational retrieve gets a "yeah but" that's SchH, not duck hunting.
So no, I won't be "getting back to you when I can train something even close to this level". Though I will happily continue to post videos of my dogs' training, I have a feeling I'm not the only one who enjoys them. And hey, if it helps you feel better about yourself to point out what a crappy trainer I am and how pitiful my dogs' work is, I'm happy to help.
Oh, one last thing... In case it wasn't clear, I don't give a crap what you think. I think training a dog as food driven as mine to hold a raw hot dog in his mouth without biting it in half or having it dissappear down his gullet is pretty impressive.
It is totally off topic and all I will do is repeat myself. "However, every dog and handler team has needs as individuals, and there are times when those needs will be met with a head halter." It's really that simple.
Don't like it, don't take my class.
Don't like it, don't take my class.
If the head halter is the best option then no argument. I agree there are a few times when it is the best tool.
Why do you (even in a basic family class) let people persist in things that are not in the best interest of their partnership. I teach classes too. If people don't want to try what I am suggesting/teaching, that is fine but I then suggest a class that is more up their alley. I don't keep taking their money.
Ie if someone wanted to use a choke chain and no rewards.. and wasn't even willing to give another method a go I would suggest a local trainer that loves choke chains and corrections.
Just curious, not saying it doesn't work for you... I come from a horse training back ground. People there generally wouldn't dare use a method that was thought to be harmful/counterproductive by the trainer with that trainer. If you don't like what they are teaching, don't take lessons from them. If you figure you like what they do then try and embrace their methodology for a while, out of respect if nothing else, and see how it goes...
This is the first time I have come across this and I find in interesting. But if you do not wish to discuss it thats ok. I am sure it will come again some time with someone else
I don't.
One more time, "However, every dog and handler team has needs as individuals, and there are times when those needs will be met with a head halter."
I just... I really don't how to make it any clearer to you, sorry. I don't know where you're getting this idea I would let people just do whatever the hell they wanted. It's just not true. I don't know how to help you understand. Sorry.
One more time, "However, every dog and handler team has needs as individuals, and there are times when those needs will be met with a head halter."
I just... I really don't how to make it any clearer to you, sorry. I don't know where you're getting this idea I would let people just do whatever the hell they wanted. It's just not true. I don't know how to help you understand. Sorry.
I think what Emily is trying to say, Dekka, is that she will let people use the tools they want to train their dog if it is working. Obviously, if it isn't in the best interest of their partnership, then it isn't working.
For example, let's say I was a student in Emily's class.
Sadie, the guide dog pup I raised, was taught to walk on a loose leash via a Gentle Leader. If I were in Emily's class, she wouldn't tell me to NOT use one because, with Sadie, it worked. She was happy, I was happy, our training went about at a great pace, and we had fun. Sadie has now been a guide dog for four years.
Now, I tried to use the the Gentle Leader on Chloe as a pup and Chloe FLIPPED. It made her more reactive, it caused her stress levels to spike, and she shut down. She was miserable, I was frustrated, and training stalled. If we were in Emily's class, she would say, "The Gentle Leader isn't my first choice because of XYZ, why don't you try XYZ instead?" (In Chloe's case, I switched from the GL to a prong and it solved all of the problems we were having. Now, of course, we don't need the prong, just as Sadie is a guide dog without using a GL.)
Thus, With Sadie, our need was met with a head halter. With Chloe, our need was met with a prong. Two different dogs, two completely different temperaments/stability levels, two different situations, two different tools used. On its own, one was not more right or wrong than the other, but when used in conjunction with a dog one was clearly a better choice than the other for that dog.
So, if someone is using a method that you aren't 100% fond of but the dog and handler are having fun and making progress...who are you to say that the method shouldn't be used?
I should also add that how comfortable the handler feels using a certain method is important. If I was hesitant/unsure/unhappy about using the GL or the prong, then that would most likely have effected how I worked with it, which would have then transferred over to the dog.
So let's say I'm more comfortable with a GL than I am with a prong. I may get better progress with my dog with the GL than the prong not because of how the tool works, but because I as a trainer am more comfortable and thus able to make better judgement calls (rewards, corrections, whatever) with a certain tool than another.
Now, Emily, if that isn't what you mean...then I apologize. But that is how I'm reading it.
________________________________________
Silly question.
I haven't watched any of the videos, nor do I know how one goes about utilizing a toe pinch/ear pinch in training a retrieve. But, I'm of the understanding that the pinch occurs and doesn't stop until the dog performs correctly. Yes? Or no? If yes, how is this any different than using a stim to teach recall? Other than that it is physical pressure/pain versus an electric stimulation?
(For the record: I am not opposed to the proper use of e-collars.)
For example, let's say I was a student in Emily's class.
Sadie, the guide dog pup I raised, was taught to walk on a loose leash via a Gentle Leader. If I were in Emily's class, she wouldn't tell me to NOT use one because, with Sadie, it worked. She was happy, I was happy, our training went about at a great pace, and we had fun. Sadie has now been a guide dog for four years.
Now, I tried to use the the Gentle Leader on Chloe as a pup and Chloe FLIPPED. It made her more reactive, it caused her stress levels to spike, and she shut down. She was miserable, I was frustrated, and training stalled. If we were in Emily's class, she would say, "The Gentle Leader isn't my first choice because of XYZ, why don't you try XYZ instead?" (In Chloe's case, I switched from the GL to a prong and it solved all of the problems we were having. Now, of course, we don't need the prong, just as Sadie is a guide dog without using a GL.)
Thus, With Sadie, our need was met with a head halter. With Chloe, our need was met with a prong. Two different dogs, two completely different temperaments/stability levels, two different situations, two different tools used. On its own, one was not more right or wrong than the other, but when used in conjunction with a dog one was clearly a better choice than the other for that dog.
So, if someone is using a method that you aren't 100% fond of but the dog and handler are having fun and making progress...who are you to say that the method shouldn't be used?
I should also add that how comfortable the handler feels using a certain method is important. If I was hesitant/unsure/unhappy about using the GL or the prong, then that would most likely have effected how I worked with it, which would have then transferred over to the dog.
So let's say I'm more comfortable with a GL than I am with a prong. I may get better progress with my dog with the GL than the prong not because of how the tool works, but because I as a trainer am more comfortable and thus able to make better judgement calls (rewards, corrections, whatever) with a certain tool than another.
Now, Emily, if that isn't what you mean...then I apologize.
But that is how I'm reading it.________________________________________
Silly question.
I haven't watched any of the videos, nor do I know how one goes about utilizing a toe pinch/ear pinch in training a retrieve. But, I'm of the understanding that the pinch occurs and doesn't stop until the dog performs correctly. Yes? Or no? If yes, how is this any different than using a stim to teach recall? Other than that it is physical pressure/pain versus an electric stimulation?
(For the record: I am not opposed to the proper use of e-collars.)
Last edited:
I think what Emily is trying to say, Dekka, is that she will let people use the tools they want to train their dog if it is working. Obviously, if it isn't in the best interest of their partnership, then it isn't working.
For example, let's say I was a student in Emily's class.
Sadie, the guide dog pup I raised, was taught to walk on a loose leash via a Gentle Leader. If I were in Emily's class, she wouldn't tell me to NOT use one because, with Sadie, it worked. She was happy, I was happy, our training went about at a great pace, and we had fun. Sadie has now been a guide dog for four years.
Now, I tried to use the the Gentle Leader on Chloe as a pup and Chloe FLIPPED. It made her more reactive, it caused her stress levels to spike, and she shut down. She was miserable, I was frustrated, and training stalled. If we were in Emily's class, she would say, "The Gentle Leader isn't my first choice because of XYZ, why don't you try XYZ instead?" (In Chloe's case, I switched from the GL to a prong and it solved all of the problems we were having. Now, of course, we don't need the prong, just as Sadie is a guide dog without using a GL.)
Thus,
With Sadie, our need was met with a head halter. With Chloe, our need was met with a prong. Two different dogs, two completely different temperaments/stability levels, two different situations, two different tools used. On its own, one was not more right or wrong than the other, but when used in conjunction with a dog one was clearly a better choice than the other for that dog.
So, if someone is using a method that you aren't 100% fond of but the dog and handler are having fun and making progress...who are you to say that the method shouldn't be used?
I should also add that how comfortable the handler feels using a certain method is important. If I was hesitant/unsure/unhappy about using the GL or the prong, then that would most likely have effected how I worked with it, which would have then transferred over to the dog.
So let's say I'm more comfortable with a GL than I am with a prong. I may get better progress with my dog with the GL than the prong not because of how the tool works, but because I as a trainer am more comfortable and thus able to make better judgement calls (rewards, corrections, whatever) with a certain tool than another.
Now, Emily, if that isn't what you mean...then I apologize. But that is how I'm reading it.
For example, let's say I was a student in Emily's class.
Sadie, the guide dog pup I raised, was taught to walk on a loose leash via a Gentle Leader. If I were in Emily's class, she wouldn't tell me to NOT use one because, with Sadie, it worked. She was happy, I was happy, our training went about at a great pace, and we had fun. Sadie has now been a guide dog for four years.
Now, I tried to use the the Gentle Leader on Chloe as a pup and Chloe FLIPPED. It made her more reactive, it caused her stress levels to spike, and she shut down. She was miserable, I was frustrated, and training stalled. If we were in Emily's class, she would say, "The Gentle Leader isn't my first choice because of XYZ, why don't you try XYZ instead?" (In Chloe's case, I switched from the GL to a prong and it solved all of the problems we were having. Now, of course, we don't need the prong, just as Sadie is a guide dog without using a GL.)
Thus,
With Sadie, our need was met with a head halter. With Chloe, our need was met with a prong. Two different dogs, two completely different temperaments/stability levels, two different situations, two different tools used. On its own, one was not more right or wrong than the other, but when used in conjunction with a dog one was clearly a better choice than the other for that dog.
So, if someone is using a method that you aren't 100% fond of but the dog and handler are having fun and making progress...who are you to say that the method shouldn't be used?
I should also add that how comfortable the handler feels using a certain method is important. If I was hesitant/unsure/unhappy about using the GL or the prong, then that would most likely have effected how I worked with it, which would have then transferred over to the dog.
So let's say I'm more comfortable with a GL than I am with a prong. I may get better progress with my dog with the GL than the prong not because of how the tool works, but because I as a trainer am more comfortable and thus able to make better judgement calls (rewards, corrections, whatever) with a certain tool than another.
Now, Emily, if that isn't what you mean...then I apologize.
But that is how I'm reading it.
Why?
(Honest question, not being flippant.)
If how something is being done is working (aka, providing the desired results without fallout) AND the handler and the dog are enjoying themselves...why does the how matter? If the journey is overall enjoyable and I arrive at my desired destination, does it really matter what route I took to get there?
(Honest question, not being flippant.
) If how something is being done is working (aka, providing the desired results without fallout) AND the handler and the dog are enjoying themselves...why does the how matter? If the journey is overall enjoyable and I arrive at my desired destination, does it really matter what route I took to get there?
Because if people want to use a GL to walk their dog around the neighborhood it isn't really that big of a deal in the long run? It doesn't mean there is nothing that person could learn from you because they choose to use a tool you wouldn't generally suggest.
The classes I teach currently are at an all-breed club and most people have their dogs on choke collars. It doesn't really make much difference with what I'm teaching them. If their dog is a bigger one with pulling issues, I generally suggest a prong collar. Smaller pulling dogs, a no-pull harness. The few students I've had who had a "no treat policy" with their training ended up getting some new ideas from my class (and incorporating more rewards). Mostly because I didn't make a big deal about how they were using the wrong methods.
I'd personally rather people stick around - they might learn something
The classes I teach currently are at an all-breed club and most people have their dogs on choke collars. It doesn't really make much difference with what I'm teaching them. If their dog is a bigger one with pulling issues, I generally suggest a prong collar. Smaller pulling dogs, a no-pull harness. The few students I've had who had a "no treat policy" with their training ended up getting some new ideas from my class (and incorporating more rewards). Mostly because I didn't make a big deal about how they were using the wrong methods.
I'd personally rather people stick around - they might learn something
I'd personally rather people stick around - they might learn something
This is why I pointed out not willing to try. If after a few classes they are willing to at least try it.. Sure.
But after dealing with someone who was adamant she would NOT use treats to train her dog in agility, which would have been fine but the dog was not the least bit interested in toys in class. The dog was also highly stressed and it was all the owner could do to avoid using aversives. She was convinced that treats would ruin her dog (a punishment trainer told her so) The dog made no progress and held the class back. She wouldn't work on building toy drive either.
This client ended up being a disruption to the class. The fact that she wouldn't do what we were working on, the fact that her dog was not making progress was a downer in the class. I offered her a part refund part the way through. After she left two seperate clients came and privately told me they were glad she was gone as they found her disturbing to the class.
(this woman was mostly quiet but just wouldn't join in the class using other methods. When I discussed the benefits of using all the tools you have to motivate the dog she never said much, other than she wasn't going to use food. She ended up being a good example of how one needs to use what works for the dog. But her presence was contrary to what I was teaching. Same as if I went to a 'crank and yank' class and refused to correct my dog and openly was against it... its undermining the basic principles of what you are teaching.)
And if people aren't going to come around in the first few classes either you haven't done a good job or they are not yet ready to see. My other paying clients who are following the program and honestly trying are not going to get short shifted because someone doesn't want to try something new.
But after dealing with someone who was adamant she would NOT use treats to train her dog in agility, which would have been fine but the dog was not the least bit interested in toys in class. The dog was also highly stressed and it was all the owner could do to avoid using aversives. She was convinced that treats would ruin her dog (a punishment trainer told her so) The dog made no progress and held the class back. She wouldn't work on building toy drive either.
This client ended up being a disruption to the class. The fact that she wouldn't do what we were working on, the fact that her dog was not making progress was a downer in the class. I offered her a part refund part the way through. After she left two seperate clients came and privately told me they were glad she was gone as they found her disturbing to the class.
(this woman was mostly quiet but just wouldn't join in the class using other methods. When I discussed the benefits of using all the tools you have to motivate the dog she never said much, other than she wasn't going to use food. She ended up being a good example of how one needs to use what works for the dog. But her presence was contrary to what I was teaching. Same as if I went to a 'crank and yank' class and refused to correct my dog and openly was against it... its undermining the basic principles of what you are teaching.)
And if people aren't going to come around in the first few classes either you haven't done a good job
or they are not yet ready to see. My other paying clients who are following the program and honestly trying are not going to get short shifted because someone doesn't want to try something new.
Good question. Blackrose's definition was "providing the desire results without fallout." I suppose you could say a dog not being happy to work might be "fallout." I think others would define fallout differently; I would define it a little more extreme.
I would personally say yes, it is working, but if the dog isn't actually happy to work, it's not worth it. But for others it very well may be worth it. If you need your dog to go get a bird you shot because you might starve if it refuses the retrieve, it probably doesn't matter to you if the dog is truly happy to work or not...
(I will add that I don't think the only way to create a dog who is not happy to work involves things like ear pinches; I'm talking in a broader sense here, just dogs on the whole regardless of method.)
ETA: I think this is proof of why this discussion is so complicated. Everybody has different definitions on things. What is your definition of 'working,' what is your definition of 'fallout,' and then the question of is it worth it - and when is it worth it? Is it okay if you actually depend on your dog for food but not just for sport, is it okay if the sky is cloudy but not if the sun is shining... not a simple question with a single component involved.
I would personally say yes, it is working, but if the dog isn't actually happy to work, it's not worth it. But for others it very well may be worth it. If you need your dog to go get a bird you shot because you might starve if it refuses the retrieve, it probably doesn't matter to you if the dog is truly happy to work or not...
(I will add that I don't think the only way to create a dog who is not happy to work involves things like ear pinches; I'm talking in a broader sense here, just dogs on the whole regardless of method.)
ETA: I think this is proof of why this discussion is so complicated. Everybody has different definitions on things. What is your definition of 'working,' what is your definition of 'fallout,' and then the question of is it worth it - and when is it worth it? Is it okay if you actually depend on your dog for food but not just for sport, is it okay if the sky is cloudy but not if the sun is shining... not a simple question with a single component involved.
And then there is define happy. I have seen dogs who people say look the dog is happy. But the dog looks more appeasing than happy. Low slow wagging tail, lack of eye contact etc.
And if it happened long enough ago that the dog is happy to work (dogs are highly forgiving) now, does that mean what happened in the past doesnt' matter? I knew of a poodle (what ever the mid size is) that looked very happy in the ring doing obedience that had been trained years ago by methods that are abusive by pretty much anyone's standards. Does that make it ok? The dog learnt that when in public it was safe and loved to work.
And if it happened long enough ago that the dog is happy to work (dogs are highly forgiving) now, does that mean what happened in the past doesnt' matter? I knew of a poodle (what ever the mid size is) that looked very happy in the ring doing obedience that had been trained years ago by methods that are abusive by pretty much anyone's standards. Does that make it ok? The dog learnt that when in public it was safe and loved to work.
I would say that if the dog isn't happy to work, then the method isn't working, even if you are getting results.
This is true. I also wouldn't give a flying flip about whether or not the dog was enjoying himself if I was doing something that was saving the dogs life. (Another thread on another forum we just had a similar discussion, and someone mentioned breaking a dog from tractor chasing with an e-collar. Now, I've never had to do that and I don't know how it is done...but I'd rather a dog not enjoy that training and avoid tractors at all costs than the dog get squashed by a tractor.) Of course, if at all possible, you want to make things enjoyable...but I understand why that may not be possible in all situations.
I'd say shame on that person who trained the dog that way, because at some point it WAS being abused and was suffering. There is a difference between being abused and being corrected/punished/whatever.
But, the question could be asked...did the dog find it abusive while that training was taking place? If there was no fallout from the dog...was the training really that "abusive" to that particular dog? I personally don't know how to answer that question.
This is true. I also wouldn't give a flying flip about whether or not the dog was enjoying himself if I was doing something that was saving the dogs life. (Another thread on another forum we just had a similar discussion, and someone mentioned breaking a dog from tractor chasing with an e-collar. Now, I've never had to do that and I don't know how it is done...but I'd rather a dog not enjoy that training and avoid tractors at all costs than the dog get squashed by a tractor.) Of course, if at all possible, you want to make things enjoyable...but I understand why that may not be possible in all situations.
I'd say shame on that person who trained the dog that way, because at some point it WAS being abused and was suffering. There is a difference between being abused and being corrected/punished/whatever.
But, the question could be asked...did the dog find it abusive while that training was taking place? If there was no fallout from the dog...was the training really that "abusive" to that particular dog? I personally don't know how to answer that question.
Last edited:
I think to be successful training method should always maintains a good attitude in the dog when it's working.
I do think every dog is different though and I am always hesitant to say 'x' method is cruel or unnecessary or abusive. I use an e-collar on my dog to proof recall and don't use it to blast her or correct her, it's used as a subtle cue and I don't believe it hurts her, just simply gives me the opportunity to get her attention when she is a distance away from me. I am yet to see any evidence it has impacted on her enjoyment or willingness or happiness to work. If I did, and knew the e-collar was the cause, then I wouldn't be using it.
I do think every dog is different though and I am always hesitant to say 'x' method is cruel or unnecessary or abusive. I use an e-collar on my dog to proof recall and don't use it to blast her or correct her, it's used as a subtle cue and I don't believe it hurts her, just simply gives me the opportunity to get her attention when she is a distance away from me. I am yet to see any evidence it has impacted on her enjoyment or willingness or happiness to work. If I did, and knew the e-collar was the cause, then I wouldn't be using it.
Its a good question...
One funny thing about abuse (and simply questionable training), is how dogs respond to it - through appeasement behaviors, that are often interpreted as "look how much he loves me".
I knew a gal on another forum who got sucked in to a very abusive method of training, she was in awe at how much more affectionate and attached to her her dog was, which to her was proof that the method worked and that the dog liked having "rules" that were clear. The dog wasn't affectionate and attached, he was appeasing and clingy.
I used to work with abused children. (Actually, still do.) Same dynamic there. Its a weird phenomenon and hugely reinforcing to the abuser.
I have two rescues in this house who suffered what would be considered abuse by just about anyone's standards. Not neglect. Physical abuse. Come spend an afternoon at my house, and I defy you to pick out which two were the abused dogs. You can't tell. Dogs are amazingly forgiving and resilient. Which is why it is so easy to abuse them and turn around and justify it with how they act.
So back to the question. If there is no fallout now, was the training really "that" abusive? Knowing what I know about how some dogs handle abuse, I would have to answer yes.
One funny thing about abuse (and simply questionable training), is how dogs respond to it - through appeasement behaviors, that are often interpreted as "look how much he loves me".
I knew a gal on another forum who got sucked in to a very abusive method of training, she was in awe at how much more affectionate and attached to her her dog was, which to her was proof that the method worked and that the dog liked having "rules" that were clear. The dog wasn't affectionate and attached, he was appeasing and clingy.
I used to work with abused children. (Actually, still do.) Same dynamic there. Its a weird phenomenon and hugely reinforcing to the abuser.
I have two rescues in this house who suffered what would be considered abuse by just about anyone's standards. Not neglect. Physical abuse. Come spend an afternoon at my house, and I defy you to pick out which two were the abused dogs. You can't tell. Dogs are amazingly forgiving and resilient. Which is why it is so easy to abuse them and turn around and justify it with how they act.
So back to the question. If there is no fallout now, was the training really "that" abusive? Knowing what I know about how some dogs handle abuse, I would have to answer yes.