by Dog Traning As A Model For Demonstrated
SELF DISCIPLINE, TRUST And UNCONDITIONAL
LOVE In Child Rearing, Development, And
Interpersonal Relationships,
by Jerry Howe,
The Amazing Puppy Wizard <{) ; ~ ) >
HOWEDY People,
Here's MOORE of the same doubletalk that's got you
frustrated and jerking, ***, shocking, crating, and
spraying aversives on and competing with and generally
being out of sorts with your dogs:
> LESSONS from the MASTERS:
> Learning About Punishment
> from Dogs Themselves
> By Suzanne Clothier
suzanne is struggling to stop hurting and killing dogs, and
not doing a very good job of controlling her emotions. This
attempt at clarifying and defining appropriate punishment
is an effort to console her conscience as much as to
preserve what's left of her miserable career and hertofore
undeserved fine reptuation.
A dog abuser is a dog abuser, from the git go. Justifying it
is a symptom of their HUMAN NATURE that compells them
to confront, punish, confine, berate, and kill their dogs for
being obstinate when punishment fails to sufficintly teach
respect, gentleness, and love.
> NOTE: This orginally appeared in the
> April/May 2002 APDT newsletter,
Our apdt is a loosely organized collections of halfwitted self
proclaimed trainers like captain haggarty, ***y maida,
professora gingold, uncle matty, sue sternberg, and other
pupular loosers who couldn't outwit the cunning of the
domestic puppy dog, even after my students tell them HOWE.
> written at the request of the newsletter editor after I had
> written a Letter to the Editor noting that there was a lot
> we could learn about an appropriate & fair use of punishment
> from dogs themselves.
Naturally. Our dog lovers are getting a lot of
heat lately for HURTING and KILLING dogs.
> This is NOT a defense of punitive training methodology -
Most certainly is, because you can't train all dogs without
HURTING and KILLING some of them, to be fair.
> and "punishment" is defined as
DANGEROUS and INEFFECTIVE.
> all students of operant conditioning
> understand it to be defined:
Sorry suzanne, Jerry and his students
don't punish hurt or kill our dogs.
> one of the four possible consequences of a behavior.
There's a fifth consequece that you're not familiar with,
suzie Q. It's called 100% total non physical, non force, non
confrontational natural control. It's what makes the pack a
pack, suzie Q.
> There's an old lady I know who has been training puppies for
> years. And she does a very good job of it. Funny thing,
> though, she routinely uses positive punishment as part of
> her approach.
Perhaps that's because she was taught to do
that by her abusive mom, or her loathesome handler?
> Always has, always will.
Because you're not capable of teaching her any better,
becauase YOU APPROVE of her punishing tactics,
because that's the nature of a dog abuser, suzie Q.
> She's completely unaware of learning theories,
Like yourself, suzie.
> has never attended a conference or seminar,
> and never once read a book about dogs.
That's an advantage. Sounds like she's a good
candidate for RETRAINING.
> Yet the puppies she's trained are happy, respectful, and
> well mannered, and calmly attentive to her subtlest gesture.
And they'll run away from their HOWES if they feel like it.
> How is it that she uses positive punishment
> to such good effect,
Because it's an illusion. Sure, she gets the "RESPECT"
our dog abusers LOVE, but the "respect" doesn't include
LOVE, it's only got FEAR and PAIN associated with it.
> without creating desensitization or panic or
> resentment in her pupils?
That'd be on account of impeccable timing. The kind
of timing I teach my student's to capitalize on as they
learn to recognize their dog's are thinking through
behaviors we're training.
> And how does she do it without collar, leash,
> head halter, treats or clickers?
The chin CHUCK and SCRUFF SHAKE come to mind, suzie Q.
> Because this old lady is a dog.
Oh. She started off setting the foundation for being allowed
to abuse her puppies by***ing their butts and eatin their
shit for a month or longer...
> This experienced trainer of puppies is my
> retired brood *** Carson.
Amazing. You let your dog discipline other dogs for you?
> There's a growing tendency among many dog trainers to
> denounce the use of positive punishment (P+),
That's cause we've learned that punishing dogs causes
mistrust and teaches dogs to attack their abusers.
> though properly defined it means only this:
Means you're a doubletalking dog abusing Thug, suzie Q. Means
you got NO INFORMATION, only fear, force, and confrontation
when your clicker, bribes, and punishment fails. You'll kill
any dog that won't knuckle under to INTIMIDATION.
> "the presentation of an undesirable consequence."
That'd be JERRY.
> For many trainers,
JERRY means the end of their worthless careers abusing dogs
and getting away with it. We're looking forward to going into
courts and suing behaviorists and trainers for teaching folks
to ***shock crate and kill their dogs.
> P+ is a bit of jargon heavily laden with ugly images of
> pain, fear and outright cruelty.
Well, that's just plain SILLY!
> And there's no denying that historically, dog training has
> leaned heavily on punitive methodology,
Still does, and right here, starting with you,
suzie Q. You're a dog abusing Thug.
> much of which is thinly disguised abuse
> in the name of training.
Teach us HOWE to use your pronged spiked
pinch ***collar to inspire trust, confidence,
and respect?
> But when we mistakenly equate P+ with abuse,
Right. We wouldn't want to think of punishing a dumb animal
as being abusive. It's all in HOWE we twist the words to suite
your miserable career goals of working another day without
ever learning the basics of handling and training a dog.
All you understand is punishment and ***.
> we are ignoring what dogs themselves can
> tell us about the value of P+.
Dogs attack dogs that correct them. Dogs leave
packs that are run by abusive dogs.
> Whether we like it or not,
Whether you like it or not, Jerry's here to put you outta
business.
> P+ is quite natural in animal-to-animal interactions.
INDEED. They fight, hurt, and kill each other. They're
ANIMALS. You tolerate and expect that, cause you're an animal
abuser.
> For example, Carson is resting on a sofa. The puppy Ruby
> approaches, thinking about jumping up to share the space.
A fine idea!
> Hardening her eyes
SOUND/PRAISE and that'll put an end to that CRAP. We don't
tolerate inappropriate behaviors in a well run HOWEShold.
> and holding her head very still,
ANOTHER SOUND/PRAISE to break THAT thought.
> Carson growls softly,
Ask her to come and praise her, tell her she's good, and
tell her she's FREE and let her go back to interacting with
the pup if she'd like and is able to control herself.
> her message clear: "Leave me alone."
SOUND/PRAISE and work through her objections. Nobody's
got the right to INTIMIDATE nobody in a properly managed
HOWEShold or pack.
> Ruby ignores this.
If Ruby is doing anything inappropriate make a sound
distraction and praise THAT thought and work the problem
through so nobody gets out of sorts with nobody, so you can
maintain a stable, loving, trusting HOWEShold and pack.
> Carson escalates the warning to a loud, scary air snap,
That's cause you didn't interrupt through brief distraction
followed by prolonged non physical praise, the inappropriate
behavior. That's on account of YOU LIKE that behavior. It
takes some of the job of PUNISHING PUPPIES away from YOU.
> and the puppy dances back a step but returns almost
> immediately,
To learn BONDING?
> clearly thinking this may be a new game.
INDEED! It IS a new game. It's called LIFE, and DEATH.
> Carson's next move is a threatening lunge that ends in
> grabbing the offending puppy by the muzzle for a few beats.
And you approve of such behavior? Isn't that HOWE COME
mom dogs got to be separated from their *** puppies when
they mature, suzie Q?
ANY BREEDER KNOWS THEY'LL FIGHT.
> Now Ruby gets the message and wisely retreats.
But only till she's maybe nine months old, then she's gonna
turn the tables on that old *** and shake the ***outta her
and take her spot on the couch.
> As classically defined, Carson's intent in meting out this
> punishment is to "decrease the likelihood of the behavior
> in the future."
As is my intent in metting out THIS punishment, suzie Q.
> P+ adds something unpleasant as a consequence for a
> behavior.
INDEED. Didn't you say the puppy was looking
for FUN and BONDING?
> Being no fool,
You're the fool, suzie Q. The DOG is USURPING your
"authority." You've got NO status in your pack, the old ***
laying on the couch does, and you'll be next if she wants to
keep YOU off the couch.
> Ruby learns that jumping on top of her grandmother has
> unpleasant consequences;
For BONDING???
> an unoccupied sofa is a better choice.
You mean a SAFER place... like her crate.
> P+ is employed by dogs among themselves all the time.
And *** ***es FIGHT mom dogs, sometimes killing them.
> Dire warnings about the effects of using P+
> have their basis in fact.
INDEED. HOWE many dogs has suzie Q
KILLED in her illustrious career?
> Improperly applied, P+
There is no way to properly PUNISH a DUMB ANIMAL. That's
HOWE COME they're called DUMB. They don't understand your
PUNISHMENT, suzie Q.
Dogs fight, hurt, and KILL EACH OTHER, as part of their
NATURAL EXPERIENCE with FEAR, FORCE, and ABUSE.
> can undermine the relationship,
Studies have shown that pups raised by AGGRESSIVE mom
dogs as you've got, tend to be aggressive and punitative with
their own pups, AND their human families. Once again, suzie Q,
HOWE MANY DOGS HAVE YOU KILLED AS A DIRECT RESULT
OF YOUR INCOMPETENCE and DESIRE
...
read more »