I'd heard of ear pinch, but toe pinch?

[release the hounds]

some of you are really just too much. Really

i like to see how things evolve over time. Go back a few months, a year and it's always, you can't do this, the dogs will be broken. Then it was, you can't do this, the dogs will be shut down. Then it was, you can't do this, the dogs won't be happy, and you can see the ears and the tail and the whatever. Now it's, well yeah the dogs can look that way, it's only because of their wonderful ability to handle all abuse that they can be put thru abusive training yet look like a completely normal and happy dog.

warned thread after thread, time after time if you use certain methods, your'e an abuser of dogs, and if you do it, there will be fallout, there's probably a complete server from chaz that could be filled with just the warnings of abusive training and the fallout that will ensue.

now we get the excuse that even if you abuse your dog in training, there won't be fallout, because of the dogs wonderful ability to handle said abuse. but what you're doing is still abuse, because in some minds, it can't happen any other way.

 

[cliffdog]

I don't mean to be "that guy" but if this is the training that wins field trials, it is obviously what's working...

 

[Danefied]

some of you are really just too much. Really

i like to see how things evolve over time. Go back a few months, a year and it's always, you can't do this, the dogs will be broken. Then it was, you can't do this, the dogs will be shut down. Then it was, you can't do this, the dogs won't be happy, and you can see the ears and the tail and the whatever. Now it's, well yeah the dogs can look that way, it's only because of their wonderful ability to handle all abuse that they can be put thru abusive training yet look like a completely normal and happy dog.

warned thread after thread, time after time if you use certain methods, your'e an abuser of dogs, and if you do it, there will be fallout, there's probably a complete server from chaz that could be filled with just the warnings of abusive training and the fallout that will ensue.

now we get the excuse that even if you abuse your dog in training, there won't be fallout, because of the dogs wonderful ability to handle said abuse. but what you're doing is still abuse, because in some minds, it can't happen any other way.

Always a good tactic to attack the person instead of discussing the actual topic at hand. Shows definite intellect there.

Do you think its possible that seeing as dogs are such vastly different individuals that there might be room for several different reactions and ways of coping with abuse?
And here I'm talking true abuse, not training methods I'm not a fan of. I know, its hard to keep up with twists and turns these threads take.

 

[release the hounds]

Always a good tactic to attack the person instead of discussing the actual topic at hand. Shows definite intellect there.

sometimes you just gotta wonder if people ever read what is written or what they wrote

 

[Danefied]

sometimes you just gotta wonder if people ever read what is written or what they wrote

I've been wondering that this whole thread

 

[Dekka]

I don't mean to be "that guy" but if this is the training that wins field trials, it is obviously what's working...

But I believe the convo is currently even if it works is it worth it (if there are other options) I don't think if helicoptering a dog, stringing it up or punching it in the head wins trials makes it the way to go.

Beating on a dog, choking a dog and spinning it around is not worth any trophy.

 

[cliffdog]

Well, you have to remember that dogs were not created to be pets. They were made to work for us people; tools. I agree that you should treat a dog kindly, but to these people, working their dogs is a way of life so they know their methods. Besides... dogs that don't want to work don't usually win trials.

 

[Dekka]

Wanting to work is great. But abusing a dog because we can for ribbons.. that is (to me) abhorrent.

The idea that dogs are merely tools made to work for people makes me twitch. That is how they were often viewed in the past, but in the past we thought nothing of enslaving other people, and things like the Spanish inquisition.

If it was for sustenance hunting, I would be more accepting.

 

[cliffdog]

I for one do not consider the method in that video abuse... So that is a matter of opinion I suppose.

 

[lizzybeth727]

They were made to work for us people; tools.

In that case, one wonders why, after thousands of years of breeding for specific jobs, one needs to use aversive methods (or any methods at all) to get the dog to do what he's been "made" to do.

Do you think that 200 years ago people were debating over how to train their dogs? No... they'd put the dog in the field and if he didn't do the job, he wouldn't come home (or whatever). Sometimes I wonder if this wasn't such a bad idea. (Minus the leaving the dog out in the woods part.)

 

[cliffdog]

I don't have hunting dogs and have never trained one but I can offer insight as to why these methods are still widely used. The argument that most people involved in training hunting dogs have is that, so far no one has shown that they have trained even one dog to the highest levels of field trial work using positive training. Let alone having success with multiple dogs. So the results of positive training in this area are not even close to being considered proven. Until they are, you can argue that in theory using positive training for this type of work is better but don't expect that people will pay much attention. People have taught personal hunting dogs without the use of a forced fetch or ecollars but unless they train a large number of other dogs to proven reliability (such as being competitive in field trials), people aren't going to switch from long proven methods. If people were out there competing and winning at the highest levels of field trials with multiple dogs that were trained with all positive methods, other people would be eager to learn their secrets. Most people are not interested in being innovators but most are interested in newer, better, faster ways to do things once they are proven to be effective.

It would seem that competition obedience retrieves and even service dog retrieves are far less demanding than the retrieving that a dog must do in field work. In field work, the dog must be able to retrieve birds which the handler has pointed at but that he can't see, out of land and water and in the great outdoors with any number of distractions on his way to and from the bird.

This is a very good post.

 

[Dekka]

I for one do not consider the method in that video abuse... So that is a matter of opinion I suppose.

I never once in all this thread have referred in any way to any video. I have not watched any video posted in this thread in any case. I was talking about a first hand experience.

 

[cliffdog]

Do you think that 200 years ago people were debating over how to train their dogs? No... they'd put the dog in the field and if he didn't do the job, he wouldn't come home (or whatever). Sometimes I wonder if this wasn't such a bad idea. (Minus the leaving the dog out in the woods part.)

I agree...
I will get hate for this, but I believe if "that dog don't hunt, that dog don't eat"... I believe that you should "breed the best and cull the rest".
I was just saying, I wouldn't vilify someone for their training method if it is effective and the dogs don't seem to be suffering.

 

[cliffdog]

I never once in all this thread have referred in any way to any video. I have not watched any video posted in this thread in any case. I was talking about a first hand experience.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about, then? Maybe I'm off track. I was saying that I don't consider the toe pinch (nor ear pinch) method to be abusive.

 

[Emily]

In that case, one wonders why, after thousands of years of breeding for specific jobs, one needs to use aversive methods (or any methods at all) to get the dog to do what he's been "made" to do.

Do you think that 200 years ago people were debating over how to train their dogs? No... they'd put the dog in the field and if he didn't do the job, he wouldn't come home (or whatever). Sometimes I wonder if this wasn't such a bad idea. (Minus the leaving the dog out in the woods part.)

No, actually, they'd put the dog in the field, and wallop the **** out of it if it wouldn't work. If that didn't do it, they'd probably just kill it.

And, even in the case of dogs that were keen to work, their behavior was often shaped with heavy compulsion - this is still true with many herding dogs/trainers. I wish I could find the quote, but I remember that it was in a book from 1889 or so, and it was along the lines of, "There is one thing all trainers agree upon - that no dog's training is ever complete without a healthy application of shoe leather."


So no, they didn't debate it. They kicked the snot out of them. LOL Oh, the good old days. Yes, let's go back them, lol.

 

[smeagle]

In my example the dog had been helicoptered. As well as punched in the head.

However in the ring its body language said YAY... High tail, perky ears, relaxed lips...

Was the person who abused the dog the person who was handling it in the ring? sorry, can't find your original post.

 

[Dekka]

Yes it was the same person. Though I saw the dog about 3 years after it was 'trained'.

 

[smeagle]

Did the handler change her methods or do you think the dog was still being mistreated?

Only asking as I know dogs who have been trained with harsher methods and the owners have found a better way and the dogs work happily now. Of course I think it's hard to tell if the dog could be better had it been trained with better methods from the start as unless we have a time machine how can we ever really know? I used to train obedience using a check chain as that's what my obedience club taught me (I wouldnt say the methods were abusive but it was pretty old school and I cringe thinking about it now) and I had no idea how else to train, my dog hated it, hated training, had no focus and our relationship was crap - I changed methods and she's pretty good now, and our relationship is completely different. Could she have been better had I used the right methods from day one? Probably, but we'll never know so I focus on the happy dog I have now instead.

 

[Dekka]

I think she was less harsh as she saw the dog as 'knowing its job' but she was very vocal about being anti reward. She is one of those, your dog should work for you out of submission and respect and if you needed rewards your dog didn't respect you'

 

[Danefied]

In that case, one wonders why, after thousands of years of breeding for specific jobs, one needs to use aversive methods (or any methods at all) to get the dog to do what he's been "made" to do.

LOL Love it!

Do you think that 200 years ago people were debating over how to train their dogs? No... they'd put the dog in the field and if he didn't do the job, he wouldn't come home (or whatever). Sometimes I wonder if this wasn't such a bad idea. (Minus the leaving the dog out in the woods part.)

Oh, I dunno... I think it has been debated forever. James Herriot has some good stories that examine much of this.
But I agree with you with the whole futility of trying to fit a square peg in to a round hole. I don't care if you do it with force or try to lube and sweet talk the thing in. At some point its not going to go in anymore regardless of method.