This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Abby Normal on 05 April 2013 - 06:04
What do I hope to get? Some real nasty dogs
Hans, read the above statement again. This attitude is going to achieve exactly what you are fighting against..... Hundmutter is right, it is diverting the thread to some degree, so is my last word on the subject, but if that is the prevailing attitude among breeders/competitors of work and sport dogs and they are seeking to produce 'real nasty dogs' then we're more messed up than I thought. There was I just thinking SL conformation was a bit of an issue. Sorry to have diverted the thread.
Hans, read the above statement again. This attitude is going to achieve exactly what you are fighting against..... Hundmutter is right, it is diverting the thread to some degree, so is my last word on the subject, but if that is the prevailing attitude among breeders/competitors of work and sport dogs and they are seeking to produce 'real nasty dogs' then we're more messed up than I thought. There was I just thinking SL conformation was a bit of an issue. Sorry to have diverted the thread.
by bubbabooboo on 05 April 2013 - 11:04
Hans .. My point is that the FCI is not very important and is just a worldwide version of the AKC or the United Nations of dogs. All of the money and the power the FCI has is derived from the member nations and their breed club registries. Also worth noting is that the USA and several other of the largest Breed Club Organizations formerly aligned with the UK historically do not belong to the FCI so the FCI is the UN for dogs less half the security council. The FCI GSD standards are written by the VDH and predominately by the SV. Trainers in Germany still use E-collars and prong or pinch collars if they want but in private. E-collars were widely abused in the USA with all sport and hunting breeds when first introduced as the predominate training methods during that time were much more punishment oriented. Having the money to buy an E-collar does not make anyone an expert on it's use. Things have changed in dog training but the public perception has not. Large breed dogs are still popular in the USA as the Lab and the GSD are #1 and #2 respectively but certainly the restrictions on large breed dogs in rental housing and city ordinances combined with hard economic times tend to favor smaller breeds of dogs at present.
by Prager on 05 April 2013 - 15:04
Abby Normal:Why should it be the end of good dogs? Your title would seem to imply that the only way of producing 'good dogs' is by using these methods, which is frankly nonsense.
Do you actually believe that you can have a hard protection dog and NEVER use correction?
And to answer your question: Are you are suggesting that good dogs can't be produced using positive training methods only?
Yes but only in Lala land. Most importantly,....To qualify I would like to ask you a question:
Do you recognize a difference between teaching faze of the training and training/conditioning faze of training?
Do you actually believe that you can have a hard protection dog and NEVER use correction?
And to answer your question: Are you are suggesting that good dogs can't be produced using positive training methods only?
Yes but only in Lala land. Most importantly,....To qualify I would like to ask you a question:
Do you recognize a difference between teaching faze of the training and training/conditioning faze of training?
by bubbabooboo on 05 April 2013 - 15:04
The truth is that the vast majority of dog owners in the USA (and likely the world) should not own an e-collar or a prong collar because they don't know how to use them, aren't willing to put in the work to learn how to use them properly, and are likely going to do more harm than good to their dogs by using them due to their ignorance and sloth. Very similar to the sale of handguns in the United States at present.
by Prager on 05 April 2013 - 17:04
bubbabooboo: The truth is that the vast majority of dog owners in the USA (and likely the world) should not own an e-collar or a prong collar because they don't know how to use them, aren't willing to put in the work to learn how to use them properly, and are likely going to do more harm than good to their dogs by using them due to their ignorance and sloth. Very similar to the sale of handguns in the United States at present.
Should they be forbidden then?
Should they be forbidden then?
by bubbabooboo on 05 April 2013 - 20:04
In reality proficiency and knowledge of proper use should be the determining factor over who uses training tools which if improperly or unwisely used will cause psychological and physical harm to dogs. Since politicians answer to the voters and most voters own neither a prong collar or an e-collar ( unless you count wireless fences which should be counted as an e-collar) the political answer is to ban them should problems arise. The e-fence which is much more prone to abusing the dog may be the salvation of the e-collar in the USA as they are very popular, cheap and seen as just fine.
by Prager on 06 April 2013 - 00:04
bubbabooboo:Since politicians answer to the voters and most voters own neither a prong collar or an e-collar ( unless you count wireless fences which should be counted as an e-collar) the political answer is to ban them should problems arise.
Do you (and I mean anybody here) agree or disagree that it is absurd that people who "do not own neither prong collar or an e collar" or a dog for that matter should be determining factor of decision on their use or forbidding such?
Do you believe that because of a pressure of fanatics it is moral and ethical and up to politicians to limit liberty of even single individual, who uses an e collar and other collars and equipment responsively, properly and with knowledge on their property ( dogs are legally property) - dogs?
Do you think that it is proper, moral and ethical that people who use these devices responsibly should be criminalized even so they are not doing anything wrong? Do you believe that it is OK to generate so called victimless crimes by passing these type of laws?
Do you believe that we already have laws against cruelty against animals and thus this type of a "stuff" is just result of agenda of animal rights activists who believe that even ownership of dogs is a exploiting animals and is cruel and unethical ?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Do you (and I mean anybody here) agree or disagree that it is absurd that people who "do not own neither prong collar or an e collar" or a dog for that matter should be determining factor of decision on their use or forbidding such?
Do you believe that because of a pressure of fanatics it is moral and ethical and up to politicians to limit liberty of even single individual, who uses an e collar and other collars and equipment responsively, properly and with knowledge on their property ( dogs are legally property) - dogs?
Do you think that it is proper, moral and ethical that people who use these devices responsibly should be criminalized even so they are not doing anything wrong? Do you believe that it is OK to generate so called victimless crimes by passing these type of laws?
Do you believe that we already have laws against cruelty against animals and thus this type of a "stuff" is just result of agenda of animal rights activists who believe that even ownership of dogs is a exploiting animals and is cruel and unethical ?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
by Prager on 06 April 2013 - 01:04
by Abby Normal on 06 April 2013 - 05:04
Hans in answer to your last question. Yes and Yes. Correction does not only come in the form of e collars etc. I would refer you back to the whole previous extraordinarily long debate about the use of ecollars in training, people have differing opinions. I found flaws in your basic training methods as you described them, but they are your methods, so to each his own....so long as no harm is done to the dog. 'Finessing' with e collars seems popular to achieve that 'sharpness of performance, but if everyone operated on a level playing field, it wouldn't matter a jot. Anyway, that debate has been had.....anyone can read it if they have a few hours to spare!
In my view society does have a responsibility to ensure that animals are treated well and are not systemically abused, and as someone has implied, this may be what has brought this about. There may be some who in their desire to achieve go beyond the bounds of proper use of these aids and turn them into something else entirely. Then the question becomes do you NEED to use this equipment? Is it the ONLY way that you can train your dogs? Many, many countries are not allowed to use this equipment already.
Certainly in the UK these items have been banned for years, so we obviously cannot produce good dogs anymore, so I guess we should just pack up and go home.
In my view society does have a responsibility to ensure that animals are treated well and are not systemically abused, and as someone has implied, this may be what has brought this about. There may be some who in their desire to achieve go beyond the bounds of proper use of these aids and turn them into something else entirely. Then the question becomes do you NEED to use this equipment? Is it the ONLY way that you can train your dogs? Many, many countries are not allowed to use this equipment already.
Certainly in the UK these items have been banned for years, so we obviously cannot produce good dogs anymore, so I guess we should just pack up and go home.
by Prager on 06 April 2013 - 11:04
Abby Normal am sorry but you are living in world of wishful thinking.
First of all I have asked about negative reinforcement and not about e collars. Here is my question again:
Do you actually believe that you can have a hard protection dog and NEVER use correction? Take note that nowhere am I using word "e-collar"
The other question I will give you only one so please do not drift. These are only yes and no answers.
Do you believe that because of a pressure of fanatics it is moral and ethical and up to politicians to limit liberty of even single individual, who uses an e collar and other collars and equipment responsibly, properly and with knowledge on their property ( dogs are legally property) - dogs?
In another words :
Do you believe that majority is always right?
First of all I have asked about negative reinforcement and not about e collars. Here is my question again:
Do you actually believe that you can have a hard protection dog and NEVER use correction? Take note that nowhere am I using word "e-collar"
The other question I will give you only one so please do not drift. These are only yes and no answers.
Do you believe that because of a pressure of fanatics it is moral and ethical and up to politicians to limit liberty of even single individual, who uses an e collar and other collars and equipment responsibly, properly and with knowledge on their property ( dogs are legally property) - dogs?
In another words :
Do you believe that majority is always right?
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top