Another dog abuse PB Fla.Sheriff s Dept - Page 7

Look, I informed you of something that was not my creation, I was a part of and I saw the effectiveness and the results healthwise and trainwise. There are no smoke screens nor a need to justify anything to anybody on this forum. After my experiences and successes in the breed over the years, unfortunately, I don't come here to understand or be educated on what is now constituted as abuse.
If you think it is abuse, fine....that's why there is chocolate and vanilla. I, personally, find that many of you have whole different concepts on many things, than I do. Maybe you are right and I am wrong about this, or Black and Red SL dogs, or the differences in civilian/ military and or LE concepts. It really doesn't make a difference, because tomorrow I will be me and you will be you concerning what we know or don't know about the breed, training, experiences, abuse,etc.
I have seen well respected sport people who have created food drive in dogs for tracking, that have gone three days with dog only getting food on track and dog was not picking up food. Most folks aren't going to come on here and acknowledge some of the things they have used/done in training, because they know the counter experts will scream.
Look, I'm not condemning or condoning anything I read on this forum, unless I have the understanding or first hand knowledge of whether I think it is good or bad. By the same token, I honestly feel I have the common sense to recognize, and certainly to know if abuse is taking place based on the effects and results of the dogs. Others may see things differently, fine for you, it has really little or no concern to me.
When I am old man that no one listens to or seeks out my opinions, I will acknowledge the world has passed me by, but for now we can agree to disagree, and if you feel THAT strongly about this practice is abuse, you should not want to understand or for me to elaborate.!!!! ...no smokescreen here whatsoever, just not willing to engage further on this issue as I'm not looking to change your minds, and you certainly won't change my mind. ( BTW, I never said this was my way of training, but there are elements or modifications of it that are in my tool box and I really don't feel a need to have it examined by internet experts....and I don't mean that snarky, just being truthful)......also, when I say internet experts that does not mean given people do not have experience in dogs or training dogs, or dog practices, they may or may not.....but it does mean they are talking about something they haven't experienced in any depth yet feel free to judge and determine effectiveness or even morality.....I very seldom, if ever, speak on issues I don't have firsthand knowledge of, ( like how to prepare or train a show dog for the ring, or how to train agility, etc), by the same token I use the same principle in valuing opinions from people with little experience or hands on in given venues.....that's me, it has worked for me in this life and therefore you have the reason I would probably only go further with this with Deacon, and maybe Centurian, and let let others believe what they want.
Sorry for the length, I'm done with subject....take care.  If anyone posts anymore on this subject that I feel I have to address, I will pm them.

Sorry, I am not done yet...

"Most folks aren't going to come on here and acknowledge some of the things they have used/done in training, because they know the counter experts will scream."

You realise you were using the past perfect? At least I do not have any problems to talk about things I have used/done 40 years ago, too, but during this time frame the knowledge about animal behavior as a whole, and the knowledge about dog training tremeandously increased.

An example: When I trained my first GSDs in the late seventies, it was common practise in bitework to built up as much drive as possible, no matter obedience, barking, out.

The result: we had to use overly strong physical power later on ( shaped pinch collars, hefty stick hits in the blind, self made "e-collars" without limits, and so on ( and I was part of it ).
Once again - common practise - nobody questioned this kind of training...

Over the years smart trainers realised all of this doesn´t make sense, there are way more humane ways to not only reach the same goal, but to even get way BETTER results. There still are "oldtimers" around, insisting on the "old style" training methods, but thankfully they die out.

I make use of those "modern" training methods, because they not only make sense, but are better for the dogs, too. There is no reason to abuse a dog in case there are better techniques out there ( and even in case there is no "better" technique, I have to ask myself if the dog in itself is genetically capable for the "tricks" I ask it to do ).

When you say " I have seen well respected sport people who have created food drive in dogs for tracking, that have gone three days with dog only getting food on track and dog was not picking up food,... "

the mistake was laid during foundation work, withholding food for days the result of it.

When I was a child my parents used corporal punishment on us when needed...today many of you think corporal punishment by parents or in any form is abuse....yes we have raised a different kind of kid today with the newer methods, are they better?? I'll let folks in society judge that, but you will never convince me that my folks or other folks in my community were abusive because a segment of society has deemed corporal punishment by parents abusive.
So if you feel that way about that past behavior because sociologists have deemed it so....God Bless....I'll stick to what I have found that works in either area.

You know as I reflect on this, I guess the way you view me is the same as the animal rights people view you IPO folks. In their mind they think aspects of IPO is abusive, of course you are right in your feelings of me and they are wrong in their feelings of IPO....I just love irony!

Oh, the irony! And now, a hot mess of emotion, too. I feel bad that I am laughing!

Gustav, puh-leaze... I was not expecting you as an individual to defend the policies and practices of a whole Army. As Susie says, for you it was the past; Deacon refers to it being done elsewhere but discontinued; the dog in the OP is still happening NOW. You may well feel that back then, and even now, you understand the rational behind this policy / 'training method'; fine, you have your opinion. There is no rule that says an Army can never get it wrong, though.

I just hate hypocrisy!...That's all!

Let's try a parallel: maybe we agree (and after all this time you ought surely to have realised that neither Susie nor myself are likely to be paid up members of PETA) that there isn't so much wrong with the odd slap. Sometimes it can be quite effective, with dog or child. And almost certainly does no lasting damage. But ... the fact that we have so much anti-cruelty legislation these days has arisen from that being taken too far, hasn't it ? Leaving aside the drama-queen tendency, you surely would not argue there should be no legislation that prevents children (or dogs !) being thrashed till they can't stand ? A clip round the ear, or a night with no supper, may well convince a child that it was not a good idea to break the classroom window. (Apart from teaching them that other lesson: that humans bigger than you can hit you, but you must not hit them back - at least not until you have grown as big as they are).
Trouble is with the 'parents' who think its equally okay to lock a kid in a room with no food for a week, because they want to go out on a drunk. How do you legislate against that ? Where do you set the number of days & nights without food, before you make it criminal ?
7 ? 5 ? 3 ?

Nothing hypocritical in pointing out that times, and practices, in dog training have moved on since the 1970s. The science relating to, and understanding of, canine learning behaviour has moved on, too. The fact that I may have got some desired result by using an older method some years ago does not mean I should not do all in my power to learn, and check that there were no damage effects from that method, and that if I want to use it again now that there is no better / kinder way. Where is the hypocrisy in thinking we should all always strive to do better, rather than simply defend what was 'because it worked' ? No one would think any LESS of the Military if those in control said: "well, we've reviewed that, rather than just go on and on using it because we never have to justify it."

The hypocrisy is NOT in learning new ways, if you knew me you would know I have learned the new ways, competed in the new ways and even judged the new ways. Many of them I have moved toward as routine, except when the dog in front of me is better suited for other methods.
Look, it's not that important, and we are just prolonging this thread...I hope folks have found some value in this thread, and if all of you see me as wrong....that's OKAY....because I have already received PMs and emails indicating they don't see my posts as you do....and that's what's important to me. Take care, Hundmutter!

Btw, I defend the past ( dogs and training) because in my opinion based on experiences they had value then and in some cases still have value. That some don't see it that way is fine, they aren't me.

I do not doubt that you are capable of, and actually have, learnt new things, Cliff; yes, I have understood that about you for a long time now. But the concern here isn't really about what YOU (or any of us) have, or have not, learned & done, is it ? It is about what is happening with the "PB Fla. Sheriff " and those in charge of LE and military dog training TODAY.

What any of us got out of what we were doing 40 years ago is coloured by what we knew then, what we expected then; so that's what we measured success or failure against. We may have seen differently, had we known then what we have learned since, is what I'm saying. As I think Susie is saying, too.

Take the thing about whether the dog in question, looking - as he does - like a hat-rack, is still 'healthy'. Doesn't that depend on just how healthy that is, in comparison to 'normal' health ?
At the end of WWll those few people who survived the Nazi camps; or were released from the 'care' of the Japanese where they'd been building the Burma Railway; or more recently, people at the end of the Biafran war & famine, came out with every rib visible like that. Its still happening with East African countries NOW. They are standing. Most are even walking and talking. But "fit and healthy" ?? Maybe not so much. Subjectively, most will be able to get on with living their lives, as soon as they have eaten normally for a while and regained their body fat and tissue, etc. But some will be too internally damaged. In a good and fair world, should they have had to go through any of that, if it could have been prevented ? Do humans have the right to visit anything like that on a dog they are trying to employ as a tool, and do the humans concerned REALLY know what they are doing ? Or should we all be keeping a watch on such things, and trying to prevent them ?

"Btw, I defend the past ( dogs and training) because in my opinion based on experiences they had value then and in some cases still have value. That some don't see it that way is fine, they aren't me."

You are right, in some cases they still have value, but I tried to explain at the bottom of page 3 why this case ( not feeding for 2 1/2 days ) has no value based on the knowledge of today. I got no response...

When I NEED to fast the only dog available for 2 1/2 days to be sure it will be able to save human lifes later on I will do it - but there is no reason to do so.

With the knowledge of today the trainers of Ft Benning ( hopefully ) would base the training for bomb / scent detection not on food any more, but on hunt and prey drive first and foremost.

Duke showed a very nice video of a green dog trying to get its preferred item - that´s the way to go, NOT starving ALL dogs, be them good, be them bad, be them not suitable at all.

The knowledge about the drives of dogs developed - the training in itself developed - and it´s abuse to starve a dog in case you don´t need to - and in almost all cases there is no "need".