Another Potentially Dangerous Dog Trainer Article

[animalia]

I just saw this article about dog trainers, the link was on the APDT facebook site.

http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/another-potentially-dangerous-dog-trainer

Edited September 21, 2011 by animalia

[corvus]

Gah! I only skimmed it, because I kept reading rants and wild assumptions. But Bob Bailey is freaking awesome. No one knows training like he does.

[huski]

Yawn. Another self righteous rant. Do these people think that writing these articles where the end result is that they are pat on the back and congratulated by all their friends who share the same misconceptions and assumptions, actually achieve anything? Any potentially valid points were lost for me amongst all the arrogant ranting.

[Luke GSP]

Wow what an earth shattering observation :rolleyes: Whats that there are good and bad trainers? One training method does not fit all dogs? The wrong training method applied to a dog with a different temp could have a negative outcome!

These revelations are incredible, the man is obviously a genius!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Erny]

Skimmed through as Corvus did. I agree that Bob Bailey has a good reputation and from what I have read of his works, he deserves it.

However, the article posted uses words that suggests directly and/or indirectly that all e-collar work achieves a messed-up dog. That is not fact. It also suggests that if a trainer should ever inform an owner that e-collars, used correctly, can well assist and achieve good training, don't believe him/her. It is a pile of propaganda diarrohea that uses emotive words to conjur up an abusive, violent image of anyone who would do anything with a dog other than to offer it a biscuit. Do all dogs wearing a check chain encounter the "hang 'em up" experience as described in the script? Nope. There is so much in that article that is misleading and non-factual.

And I will say that I don't necessarily tell people what method I will use in the training or behaviour modification of a dog either .... not until I've met the dog and the owner. I am versed in just about every method of training, some aspects moreso, some aspects less so, but at least a good cross-section allowing me to utilise successfully the four principals of learning. Unlike some orgs and people who, without the possibility of negotiation, chop those four principals down to two. Sometimes I only use two specific principals for some dogs. Sometimes I use a different pair of principals. How could I possibly "tout" what methods I use before I know what will work for the dog in its current situation the best?

I can't help but doubt anyone who makes a firm statement about how they will train a dog before they've met it.

[corvus]

Skimmed through as Corvus did. I agree that Bob Bailey has a good reputation and from what I have read of his works, he deserves it.

He's only the father of modern animal training.

There is so much in that article that is misleading and non-factual.

*twitches* Probably the first time I would agree with Erny about something methodology-related, but oh how I HATE misinformation. The article is full of misleading and non-factual information. It's like someone rubbing a balloon in my hair.

I can't help but doubt anyone who makes a firm statement about how they will train a dog before they've met it.

I will:

I'm always going to assess the cause of a behaviour based on what I perceive to be the balance of reinforcers and the emotional state of the dog, I will always formulate a method from there based on the ability of the handler to control those reinforcers and the degree to which I believe the associations the dog has with the stimuli in question drive the behaviour, and I will ALWAYS test my assumptions by measuring the change in frequency of the behaviour after treatment.

Did I miss anything? :D

[Erny]

Skimmed through as Corvus did. I agree that Bob Bailey has a good reputation and from what I have read of his works, he deserves it.

He's only the father of modern animal training.

So? What's the comment and the laugh emoticon for?

[Erny]

I can't help but doubt anyone who makes a firm statement about how they will train a dog before they've met it.

I will:

I'm always going to assess the cause of a behaviour based on what I perceive to be the balance of reinforcers and the emotional state of the dog, I will always formulate a method from there based on the ability of the handler to control those reinforcers and the degree to which I believe the associations the dog has with the stimuli in question drive the behaviour, and I will ALWAYS test my assumptions by measuring the change in frequency of the behaviour after treatment.

I would imagine people would walk away for the mere fact they wouldn't understand a word you said,

[Nekhbet]

because apparently some reputation makes your rants validated. I think I lost interest after the first pop of rant began.

Too used to all this rubbish it's not even worth reading anymore.

I would imagine people would walk away for the mere fact they wouldn't understand a word you said,

Hey hey hey now, Corvus spent a lot of time at university and reading books to get to this level. ALL HAIL THE BIG WORDS

[Staff'n'Toller]

And the yelling word, and the lack of commas, or full-stops. :worship:

[corvus]

So? What's the comment and the laugh emoticon for?

He's a demi-god to me! I was laughing because compared to the way my eyes light up when I hear Bob Bailey's name, your comment was so low key I was keenly aware of what a groupie I am. ;) I was just poking fun at myself.

Awww, Nekhbet. And here I was thinking I might have a career in writing policy. But come on, be fair. I was limited to a single statement. And I kinda cheated by cramming several ideas into the one sentence. Sometimes big words just say it better. ;)

[Staff'n'Toller]

So? What's the comment and the laugh emoticon for?

He's a demi-god to me! I was laughing because compared to the way my eyes light up when I hear Bob Bailey's name, your comment was so low key I was keenly aware of what a groupie I am. ;) I was just poking fun at myself.

Awww, Nekhbet. And here I was thinking I might have a career in writing policy. But come on, be fair. I was limited to a single statement. And I kinda cheated by cramming several ideas into the one sentence. Sometimes big words just say it better. ;)

Going by your paragraph I would say that you most likely do!

That's laughing with you not at you. ;)

[corvus]

That's laughing with you not at you. ;)

In my world, everyone is laughing with me, unless I'm laughing at them. :D