Re: Last bit on pups

HOWEDY pups,

"Kind2dogs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: Last bit on pups
> >From: shelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Date: Tue, Nov 11, 2003 12:42 PM
> >Message-id:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Kind2dogs wrote:
> >
> >>>I would venture to say *most* of your give-ups also came
> >>>from unethical, irresponsible breeders that did not
> >>>interview and or take the time to evaluate said home.
>

BWEEEAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

You bums choke and shock and spray aversives
in dogs eyes and lock them in boxes... THAT'S
a RESPONSIBLE HOWEShold, eh pups?

> > by definition, responsible breeding means taking care
> > in placement and keeping in contact with the
> >new owners after placement.
>

NO. You ain't gettin away with blamin the dog noMOORE.

> Yes, just  like I think the same should be said of rescue,

Most of HOWER RESCUE dog lovers are FRAUDS.

> but this is not always the case either.

Right. Some are for real. MOST are dHOWEbletalkers
and dog abusers who make money off of depriving
folks in NEED of INFORMATION and INSTEAD takin
their dogs and SELLIN THEM.

> You have to be wicked organized and manic or dogs fall thru the
cracks.

All behavior problems are caused by mishandling.

> Anyway,

You mean anyHOWE.

>  FWIW, I wish all and any breeder would think before they breed
and make
> sure they have the room time and money  to take back any dog in
their line that
> needs a home.

DUMPING dogs is NOT RESPONSIBLE.

> Paulette~

Here's your RESPONSIBLE BREEDER PAL
lyingdogDUMMY BEATIN a dog to HOWEsbreak IT:


"Handsome Jack Morrison"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 26 Jul 2003 22:14:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DogStar716)
> wrote:
>
> >>>Never mind dogman :)
> >>
> >>You too?  Some folks just never learn.
> >
> >Uh huh :)
>
> One of the signs of mental illness is to say "Uh huh" a lot.
>
> >>PS: If the "trainer" you were talking about isn't on this
> >>list, he (or she) is NOT an approved Koehler trainer, no
> >>matter how loud you scream otherwise.
> >
> >May I laugh again?  LOL!  One doesn't need to be on a list
> >to use Koehlers methods or teach his methods.
>
> Let me be among the first (apparently) to tell you that not
> every trainer who uses a leash is a *Koehler* trainer.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> This person may call herself a Koehler trainer, but if she's
> hanging 12 week old puppies, she's about as far from a
> Koehler trainer as a dog trainer can possibly be.
>
> Again, this is just your IGNORANCE showing.
>
> I can call myself a devout Christian, but if I'm not
> adhering to the doctrine, I'm something else.
>
> >>http://www.koehlerdogtraining.com/patoflearn.html
> >Sorry, the very first sentences make me aware that whoever
> >wrote it knows nothing about PR based training:
> >
> >"Amidst the current (and politically correct) trend in
> >Positive Reinforcement
> >Only training systems"
> >
> >You cannot use PR only.
>
> Au contraire.  Many, many posters to r.p.d.b. (and many
> other places as well) *claim* that they use nothing but R.
> You know, the PPers.
>
> And they do it quite loudly, too.
>
> Surely you aren't blind (and deaf), as well as ignorant?
>
> Those are hard handicaps to overcome, Dogstar.
>
> >And if you knew anything about PR BASED training, you would
> >realize that.  It's not all cookies and babytalk.
>
> There is no stronger supporter of R than Handsome Jack
> Morrison, but I also use every behavioral tool in my bag,
> including R-, P, and P-, because I know that even R has its
> limits.
>
> You'd know that too, if you didn't have your head in the
> sand.
>
> > But that seems to be the battle cry of the Koehler-ites.
>
> The Koehlerites have no battle cry.
>
> They have behaviorism on their side, and that's more than
> enough.
>
> >I don't need instruction on how to give my dogs a proper
> >leash correction as I
> >do not rely on a leash to control or teach my dog.
>
> That may or may not be suitable for your needs, but it's not
> suitable for the majority of dog owners, especially since
> the advent of leash laws.
>
> Besides, after just a few weeks of proper Koehler training,
> Koehler dogs likewise are no longer in need of a leash.
>
> That you apparently don't know that, once again shows me
> just how ignorant of anything to do with Koehler you are.
>
> >My last two dogs have been trained offleash right from the
> >start, using rewards for what I like, and nothing for what
> >I don't like.
>
> Good for you, and if that level of training is good enough
> for you, fine.  But it's not good enough for many of the
> rest of us.
>
> >Again, I'm not saying Koehler doesn't work.
>
> I really have no idea what you're saying anymore, because
> you apparently know so damn little about Koehler and
> behavioral principles in general that it's hard to have an
> informed discussion with you.
>
> PS: It boggles my mind at how stupid you must be to keep
> denying that those certain harsh methods are only for LAST
> RESORT situations, intended only to SAVE A DOG'S LIFE, even
> after I've repeatedly given you direct *quotes* from
> Koehler's book saying just that. It's like you don't even
> care how stupid people think you are, or how devious you
> are, etc.  That can't help your cause any.  You'd think that
> you'd at least want to *appear* to be honest, even if you're
> not. -- Handsome Jack Morrison *gently remove the detonator
> to reply via e-mail

=========

"Handsome Jack Morrison"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:52:18 -0400, "Krishur"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Good books huh?
>
> Absolutely.  Some are, in fact, classics.
>
> >Which idea was your favorite, the one where they tell you
> >to alpha roll a "dominant" dog,
>
> There's nothing inherently wrong with rolling a dog (i.e.,
> it *can* and *does* work in *some* situations).
> Unfortunately, most people either do it incorrectly, do it
> at the wrong time, etc.
>
> >or where they tell you that you didn't hit him hard enough
> >if he doesn't yelp or approaches you within 5 minutes of
> >his punishment?
>
> If physical discipline is deemed necessary (after careful
> evaluation), it's much more cruel not to get it over with
> quickly than it is to do it incrementally and
> half-heartedly, which usually only invites the need for even
> more discipline.
>
> >Maybe you liked when they recommend these beatings for
> >housebreaking accidents, chewing/destructive behavior,
> >stealing, trying to get on your bed
> >at night and dog on dog aggression.
>
> At no time do the Monks *ever* advocate beating a dog. A
> swat on the rump or a check to the chin does *not*
> constitute a "beating."
>
> I'm sorry if you don't agree.
>
> And each of those behavior "problems" needs to be looked at
> in its proper context.
>
>  A quote from the Monks:
>
> "We repeat, these situations may merit physical discipline.
> Since no book can pretend to analyze every individual dog
> and situation, we feel obligated to emphasize from the
> outset that discipline is never an arbitrary training
> technique to be applied to each and every dog for all
> offenses. We do, however, believe that physical and verbal
> discipline can be an effective technique. The best policy if
> you experience any of the above problems is to consult a
> qualified trainer or veterinarian for evaluation of your
> individual situation....
>
> "If discipline is decided upon as a training technique, it
> should be the proper technique.  We feel we have developed
> several methods that depend less on violent physical force
> than timing, a flair for drama, and the element of surprise.
>  We feel an obligation, as responsible trainers, to map out
> these methods, rather than simply skip the topic because it
> is unpleasant. Dog owners want to know what to do."
>
> In other words, physical discipline is reserved for those
> serious, special occasions when other methods have failed.
>
> For example, they do not recommend using physical discipline
> for *routine* housebreaking chores -- only on those rare
> occasions when an already reliably housebroken dog is (after
> careful evaluation) deemed to be soiling the house on
> purpose, backsliding, etc.
>
> I'll give you an actual example.  Years ago, an adult dog
> was brought to me as an *incurable* house-soiler.  It was
> either get the dog reliably housetrained or the dog was
> going on a one way trip to the pound. Being the kind,
> compassionate trainer that I am, I was prepared to do
> whatever it took to get this dog house-trained and save his
> life.
>
> After several weeks of more or less traditional training,
> and to poor result, I brought out the big guns -- physical
> and verbal discipline. Whenever the dog soiled the house
> (no, you don't even have to catch him in the act), I
> immediately (but very calmly) tossed a leash on his collar,
> dragged him to the scene of the crime, and (using a large
> chair as a prop) tethered him to the leg of the chair, with
> his nose about two inches away from the poop.  After a
> couple of swats on the rump, some loud vocalizing, and a
> wait of about 20 minutes, I'd release the dog and then
> ignore him for a while. I had to repeat this process *three*
> times, I think -- and the house-soiling miraculously
> stopped. The dog went home to enjoy a long and contented
> life with his original owners, and I got to feel good about
> myself.
>
> So, yes, the Monk's books are good ones.  Even for novices.
>
> Yup, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
>
> -- Handsome Jack Morrison *gently remove the detonator to
> reply via e-mail