Fair test? - "Forced Fetch Without The E Collar"

Description of your first forum.

Fair test? - "Forced Fetch Without The E Collar"

Post by Jerry How » Mon, 24 Dec 2001 09:55:25


> > Right. That's why you shock them in advance.
> Most of what you write is bunk.

You're a proven liar and dog abuser.

> But this particular statement is such utter bunk I have no idea where
> you made it up from.

You deny everything I get from your own written instructions and
It's in your discussion of shock collar training with Lisa B.

> Amy Dahl

Hello People,

Follow this to watch a "dog trainer" confuse and abuse a dog and then
boil it down to shocking the dog IN ADVANCE to motivate him... kinda
like HOWE she beats a restrained dog with a stick "to make him really
dig out," (as opposed to "dig in," which proves me a liar...)

Hello amy,

> Thanks, Ed, I'll take a look.  Did Jerry make a guess

Jerry don't GUESS when it comes to dog training.

> as to what the slingshot is for?

You can use your slingshot for any behavior control at a distance,
like fence jumping or barking or digging holes or eating poo, just
like it says in your koehler book. BB's are good too, so your book

> Did he correctly guess that we use it on a water blind to make a
> splash in the water ahead of the dog, to help him understand that
> there's something ahead of him to retrieve?

That's the only good use for it.

> It's a lot longer range than throwing rocks.

Why don't you just make your dummy husband go out there and snatch
her up outta the water and beat her for a while? That's what you do on
land, as articulated in your own words about Pudge being so soft
she'd avoid being beaten with a riding crop even when tied and
knowing she can't escape it. Correct? Or am I making up your own
published words again?

> Amy Dahl

I've been wanting to find out from the first time we chit chatted,
HOWE COME you've got to beat and shock your dogs to make them
reliable hunting partners. It's INSTINCTIVE in dogs, with the
Retriever Dog getting the capital R in front of his name Retrieve for
obvious reasons, and you can't even bring that out in a dog without
hurting him.

Read on and correct me, if you've got the nerve. We'll see:

About dahls "Forced Fetch Without The E Collar" article:

> > As a matter of fact, I did read it with interest.  To be
> > forthright with you, I had no response because I am not
> > experienced with retriever training. I didn't think it would be
> > right  to attempt to pick apart your post as I have no knowledge
> >  about the situation you described.

That's why I answered it.

> I would hope some other response would be possible than "picking
> it apart."

You want to talk training? That's what we do to training methods to
determine if they're going to be suitable for a particular task.
You'll notice in the "concerns about the Wits' End Dog Training
Method Manual" thread nobody bothered to discuss the techniques...
Seems the only issue they took was a couple seplling and grammer

> Every post does not require an adversarial response.

What adversarial? We examine a technique, we observe and detail the
dogs' responses, and we figger it out to see if we got it right or
not. Sometimes I spend a couple days just thinking out scenarios to
set a dog up in to get a behavior trained.

> I was and am curious if you were at all surprised to have spelled
> out the infrequency of collar use,

I pointed that out. It looked to me like it was an oversight, like
you left out half the training. I'm surprised you mention it now, makes
think you didn't think we was paying attention. That makes me think
there's something fishy going on again, eh dahl?. Let's face it, you do
have a *** record of lying.

> the importance of context, the sophistication of protocol,

Exactly. You'll see a whole lot of out of context work and q!$$ poor
planning in your post if you look at it from the perspective of a
competent trainer. I'll repost "swiss cheese training" below for

> and the sheer quantity of preliminary training used to make sure
> the response to the collar is as desired.

You make me sick. You could***a maggot. If the damned dog was
trained properly you wouldn't NEED to hurt him no matter HOWE little
you claim you HURT the dog.

> Were you surprised to learn that the "nick" from the collar,

You mean the shock? You mean the shock you gave the dog after
he'd broke his command, refused several subsequent commands,
and then FINALLY comes to command and sits facing you waiting
for instructions...THEN YOU BURN HIM?

That's absurd. The whole scenario you proposed was bunk.

> when delivered, is not some mondo-punishment designed
> to make the dog behave out of fear,

Right. It's like beating the dog with a switch after you've tied him
down and thrown a dummy for him to retrieve that he can't get to;

It's intended to motivate the dog and demonstrate teamwork, pack
cohesiveness, and cooperation. The dog learns to respect the Thug
wielding the switch and shows his eagerness to work by jumping
e***dly when shown the switch and chain.

> but a mild stimulus which functions more as communication,

Yeah? A static like stimulation from a medical grade shock-like
device. Dogs don't shock each other to communicate. And they don't
slap each other. And hitting dogs is not clear communication despite
what steve boyer says. And chin cuff DOES mean slap the damned
dog. And nick? I don't know what nick means. I know what shock

> and which the dog has previously been taught not to fear?

What is this with you? You think we believe you give a damn about
what the dog thinks? You HURT dogs to train them. Chin cuff don't
mean slap the dog according to your pal professora gingold. You
pinch but don't twist ears, and you never mentioned twisting toes or
the toe hitch.

> Did it help you understand any of the
> things you did wrong with your Dal?

Yeah. It showed me you don't know any better than the shock collar
salesman. If you was such a hot shot trainer you wouldn't NEED to
hurt dogs to train them.

> What happened to your e-collar after you quit using it?

Make her an offer for it. She don't need it no moore. She trained
her dogs in just a few days using my FREE Wits' End Dog Training
Method manual without hurting nobody.

> Amy Dahl

Now take a look at the whole story:

Hello Amy,


> > Thanks for your reply... it is informative but not quite what I
> > was seeking.

Of course not. She's given you an example that is so far fetched (no
pun intended) from anyone's experience, familiarity, and ability to
discuss as a training problem, that she's confounded all but the
"experts" who are into "advanced" training...cindy mooron, dogman,
all our koehler fans.

That's why I came in here, because our "experts" have a long history
of confounding the issues to make competent trainers seem
unknowledgeable, in order to protect their alleged right to hurt
dogs to train them.

> > I was looking for an actual example of what is done
> > using an e collar.

Well, that's something you've got to ask an expert about. I'll
answer the questions if you'd like.

> > Do you recall any of your training sessions in
> > which you used an e collar?

The ecollar is generally used after the dog has been meticulously
trained by an expert trainer and the introduction of the e collar
done in the proscribed manner to insure reliability.

> > Again, I'm not going to use one;

Good idea, because there's never any need to hurt or intimidate a
dog to train them.

> > I only wanted to know how such training was
> > accomplished in one specific example.

The usual answer is that you need an expert to show you because it's
too complicated for our scientists and engineers here to detail in
writing. It requires in person teaching at the heel of a master
trainer who train dogs to the highest degree of expertise, and then
shocks the dog for not performing it's allegedly properly trained
and conditioned commands.

> Let's see.

Yeah. Let's see...

> Suppose you are trying to teach a retriever something
> like going over a point of land and continuing in the water.

You mean to move out in a straight line.

> This is something which needs to be taught if you want your dog to
> be at all versatile in doing blind retrieves

Seems to me straight means in a straight, straight line.

> (taking direction to pick up birds he hasn't seen fall).

You mean go where I point? Seems to me left is left and right is
right. I always look at my hand to be sure. I line the thumbs up
with the big toe, and cipher from there, which one is left or right.

> The reason is,

Well, the reason is I'd want to be sure I'm using the same left and
same right as the dog knows, or I'd really***him up when I
burned him.

> of course,

Of course. That's one reason why I don't ever "correct" or hurt dogs
to train them, we sometimes get it wrong and louse the dog up.

> that although people tend to think in terms of straight
> lines and directions, a dog is contending with aspects of terrain
> and landscape and needs to learn how to negotiate a variety of
> those in order to understand the directions a person may give him.

Seems to me straight means straight. What's the problem for the
terrain if the dog is taught to go out straight, and turn left or
right "righty tighty lefty loosy." That's another trick I use to
know my lefts' from rights'.

> In a hunting or competition situation, a dog may well have to
> pass an area of irregular shoreline and needs to know how not
> to get hung up there.

Seems to me he'd do what he has to do to continue on his straight
send out. He wouldn't even have to check his dewclaws, just keep his
***to your face.

read more »


Fair test? - "Forced Fetch Without The E Collar"

Post by Amy Dah » Wed, 26 Dec 2001 05:36:11


> > > Right. That's why you shock them in advance.

> > Most of what you write is bunk.
> > But this particular statement is such utter bunk I have no idea where
> > you made it up from.

> You deny everything I get from your own written instructions and
> examples.

I deny the ***you make up, and the falsified "quotations"
you continually post, despite the occasional insertion of
end-quotes and begin-quotes to make it appear as though
you haven't cobbled together unrelated phrases.

> It's in your discussion of shock collar training with Lisa B.

No it isn't.  It is not in the method, generally known as
attrition and indirect pressure, and it is not in the
explanation I gave Lisa.  In two weeks (24 training sessions)
a dog might get one nick from the e-collar, and it is certainly
not in advance.

And while we're at it, the bit about tying a dog to a tree
and hitting it is a fabrication as well.

We may use a breaking cord to steady a retriever, but that
is just a matter of making sure he does not make the retrieve
until he is released to do so.  No "beating," hitting, e-collar
use, or any aversive is used.

In the stick fetch, where a stick is used, the dog is not
tied, and we want him to pick up the dummy, not to be
prevented from doing so.  He couldn't "dig out" if he were
restrained, now, could he?

Anybody who wants to see what John and I have *actually* written,
in context, can go to
The Retriever Journal.  Jerry Howe, of course, has never
trained a working retriever, has never seen us work a dog,
has made his ignorance of retriever work abundantly clear,
and obviously and deliberately distorts what he has read.

Amy Dahl