[nq:2](You'd think she's talking about, [nq:1]Lucy doesn't have very demanding, [nq:1]Bad, bad,

Janet B:

[nq:1]Bad, bad, baad Google! It keeps your pearls of wisdom forever. So you better be careful what you say - and what you deny.[/nq]
Careful? I am truthful - why would you think this should be a problem?
[nq:1]The owners did invest in an IF and a cage. And - oh, a dog trainer.[/nq]
The male owner invested in and IF and they misused it. Invest in me? Hardly. One visit that didn't give them a magic pill.
[nq:1]Jerry's manual WASN'T even given a try. But JANET'S training skills WERE. What has become of that dog, Janet?[/nq]
My training skills? Nope - the owners were given options. They didn't want to put the work into the dog they had ruined.
[nq:1]You have your little obsessions, but they won't help you, here. The question was: does a trainer like you and ... case as the one we were talking about, YOUR training has failed and the owner could perhaps find help elsewhere?[/nq]
My training didn't fail you imbecile.
[nq:1]Or does that trainer blame the owner, the dog's genes, the dog's breeder or the dog's breed for the failure and recommend that the dog be put down?[/nq]
Blame the dog's owner? You bet. Recommend that the ONLY option is to put the dog down? Nope. did you read the post? I don't remember how much detail I provided anymore, as it's years old.
[nq:1]Now, try to look for a second from the owner's point of view: here stands our friend Janet telling us ... - with so many good dogs being destroyed all the time - would that really be such a big loss?[/nq]
I think you're a really bad reviewer. Don't try to get a critic's job, ok?
[nq:1]And thank you, Janet. You haven't changed much in 5 years, have you.[/nq]
I would not rehome a dog such as this one. That's responsibility. You wouldn't know about that, because you don't actually train or work on rehoming dogs!

Janet B
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Anonymous:

[nq:2](You'd think she's talking about a tiger. Hey, Janet, he was just a little dog. TRAINABLE, according to HJM. But, obviously, not trainable by you)[/nq]
[nq:1]He wasn't "little",[/nq]
OO...! Scary!
>. How BIG would that be?
[nq:1]Of course he was trainable.[/nq]
Then why didn't you train him?
[nq:1]But he had a bad history and caution would always be very wise.[/nq]
So he WASN'T so very trainable, after all. Can't have it both ways, Janet: either the dog was "trainable" (that is, it was possible to make it safe around people), or he wasn't (never completely safe, trustworthy, good to have around. I doubt that "trainable", in this case, meant able to hunt like Jack's dogs, or perform like your dogs).
[nq:1]The difference here is the question of is he trainable and PLACEABLE.[/nq]
If a trained dog can't live with people - normal, ordinary people - his training isn't worth much, is it? This was a pet dog - "trainable", for a pet dog, should mean "able to be made to fit in a normal, ordinary home". If you have to keep it caged, supervised and managed with several collars that ordinary people don't have a chance to handle properly, this animal has no place in an ordinary home.
[nq:1]The owners were not willing to commit.[/nq]
To commit - to what? What did exactly that training entail?
[nq:1]With a bajillion dogs who DON'T and NEVER HAVE bite(ten), why would anyone look to adopt this gem?[/nq]
This "gem" had a home. At least SOMEONE in the family wanted him, at least in the beginning, when he didn't bite and was out of control. Instead of rehoming him, if you COULD have trained him, he would have had a home - the one he was in, when you first met him. The way you presented the options to the owners didn't leave much of a chance to this dog, though:
>
Who in their right mind would want a dog about which a trainer says "There will always be risks with this animal, no matter how well managed"?
But if the dog is TRAINED, Janet, there should be no more risks than with any one of those good dogs that have never bitten. Otherwise, what IS the "training" worth?
[nq:2]No, my point was that the dog was declared untrainable ... agree) who claimed to know what they were talking about.[/nq]
[nq:1]Please show me where I said the dog was untrainable.[/nq]
>
What exactly do you understand by a dog whom you wouldn't ever consider as "safe" around people? Untrainable, perhaps? Or are your TRAINED dogs unsafe around people?
Lucy

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Janet B:

[nq:1]>. How BIG would that be?>>[/nq]
Not huge but not "little". IIRC ~60#
[nq:2]Of course he was trainable.[/nq]
[nq:1]Then why didn't you train him?[/nq]
I've already explained that the owners weren't willing.
[nq:1]So he WASN'T so very trainable, after all. Can't have it both ways, Janet: either the dog was "trainable" (that ... around. I doubt that "trainable", in this case, meant able to hunt like Jack's dogs, or perform like your dogs).[/nq]
You really are stupid.
[nq:1]If a trained dog can't live with people - normal, ordinary people - his training isn't worth much, is it? ... collars that ordinary people don't have a chance to handle properly, this animal has no place in an ordinary home.[/nq]
I don't know where you got this "several collars" bit. Yes, the dog should not be out unsupervised.
[nq:2]The owners were not willing to commit.[/nq]
[nq:1]To commit - to what? What did exactly that training entail?[/nq]
They weren't willing to commit to the CONCEPT of training at all.
[nq:1]This "gem" had a home. At least SOMEONE in the family wanted him, at least in the beginning, when he didn't bite and was out of control.[/nq]
The husband wanted him. The wife never did, even before the biting.
[nq:1]Instead of rehoming him, if you COULD have trained him, he would have had a home - the one he was in, when you first met him.[/nq]
I can't train him without the cooperation of the family who owns him, no.
[nq:1]Who in their right mind would want a dog about which a trainer says "There will always be risks with this animal, no matter how well managed"?[/nq]
They needed a reality check.
[nq:1]But if the dog is TRAINED, Janet, there should be no more risks than with any one of those good dogs that have never bitten. Otherwise, what IS the "training" worth?[/nq]
EVERY dog is a potential biter - you DO understand that, right?
[nq:1]What exactly do you understand by a dog whom you wouldn't ever consider as "safe" around people? Untrainable, perhaps? Or are your TRAINED dogs unsafe around people?[/nq]
Oh yeah - they're very unsafe. Training never ends you dimwit. The family was so oblivious that they needed to hear that they would need to be on their toes for the rest of the dog's life. How many dogs like this have you rehabbed in this kind of home, Lucy?

Janet B
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Anonymous:

[nq:1]Lucy doesn't have very demanding expectations of her dogs.[/nq]
Nor do most of the dog owners who end by killing their dogs, because their dogs can't live up to those undemanding expectations. Like not ruining the house when left alone. Like not biting the vet. Like not killing the cat. Like not scaring the guests. And so on, and so on. Very undemanding, yet very difficult to achieve, sometimes.
[nq:1]So therefore they can achieve everything she demands/expects of them in the realm of her dog's lifetime.[/nq]
I bet that this is exactly what most of the people coming for help in this group want to achieve for their dogs, too.
[nq:1]Many dogs DO train very well under positive shaping methods. In fact probably most dogs that do not have "issues". Lucy unfortunately (nor does Jerry) have the experience with difficult dogs or advanced training where positive shaping ONLY so frequently fails.[/nq]
Difficult dogs? Let me tell you what a "difficult dog" is: a difficult dog is one that its OWNERS cannot manage, Diddy. It is the OWNERS who have to live with the dog, and it's the OWNERS who give the dog up when they, the owners, decide that coping with the dog is too much for them.

Most of the dog owners don't CARE about "advanced training" - all they want is a four-legged friend who can be reliable, safe and well adjusted to living with them and their family.
[nq:1]Lucy and Jerry's goals are akin to dropping a basketball in a garbage can from a foot up. A much different task than hitting the basket across the court.[/nq]
Especially when the experts make it as difficult as launching a rocket to the Moon.
Lucy

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Handsome Jack Morrison:

[nq:2]So he WASN'T so very trainable, after all. Can't have ... to hunt like Jack's dogs, or perform like your dogs).[/nq]
[nq:1]You really are stupid.[/nq]
No *** Red Ryder.
We're wasting our time. There's no there there.
Lucy just can't understand that when she uses terms like "safe around people," at least for some dogs, it's always dependent on the ability of the handler, the frequency and quality of the reinforcement of the dog's training, the common sense of the handler, etc.

Being trainable and being 100% safe in every possible situation are two different things.
She'll never get it.
Ever.
Again, there's just no there there.

Handsome Jack Morrison
*gently remove the detonator to send me e-mail
For our friends over in Europe, especially Katrina, Alison, Diana, et al.

While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within

Menace in Europe: Why the Continent's Crisis Is America's, Too:

And this one's for you, Melinda:
http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/paki-cartoonist-death-bounty-cleric.html

Mammas don't let your babies grow up to be...commies. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21366

Our State Department and university administrators are meshuginah: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008020

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Paula:

Can anyone tell me why I am suddenly thinking about the scientologists of dog training?

Paula
"Anyway, other people are weird, but sometimes they have candy, so it's best to try to get along with them." Joe Bay

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Rocky:

Paula (Email Removed) said in
[nq:1]Can anyone tell me why I am suddenly thinking about the scientologists of dog training?[/nq]
Uh oh. You spelled out the S word.

Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Paula:

[nq:2]Let's forget about Lucy, for the time being, and instead ... example above. How would you "save him from the needle"?[/nq]
[nq:1]ahh Lucy - Jerry's favorite thread to twist! The owners had no interest in actually working on the problem. the "mom" hated the dog and that was pretty much that.[/nq]
Does Jerry claim that his method works even for dogs whose owners refuse to do any training with the dog? That would be a pretty damn good method! Or a pretty damn good fantasy or something.

Paula
"Anyway, other people are weird, but sometimes they have candy, so it's best to try to get along with them." Joe Bay

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Sionnach:

"save him from the needle"?
[nq:1]ahh Lucy - Jerry's favorite thread to twist! The owners had no interest in actually working on the problem.[/nq]
It's patently and painfully obvious that among the many, many things Lucy Just Doesn't Get is that a trainer such as yourself, or Terry W. at Kinderpup, or any other trainer who is consulted in situations like this - even the "Dog Whisperer" on TV - does NOT actually train the dog. Rather, your job is to train the OWNERS to train their own dog, and/or to teach the owner what behaviours of their own they need to change. That may involve demonstrating techniques to the owners, as Milan does, but long-term changes don't happen unless the OWNERS put in daily work on the dog.

When you have an owner who isn't willing to put forth any real effort, your hands are tied.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

RE: Education about equipment page 12

Related forum topics: