Behold the Apocalypse.

Scratching your head yet? Is your palm placed squarely on your forehead? Don't stop just yet, you simply must take a gander at the whole plan! Care to read about David Pearce, the guy who thinks this should be new New Way?

One of my favorite movies deals with a very similar topic.

"Libria: I congratulate you. At last, peace reigns in the heart of man. At last, war is but a word whose meaning fades from our understanding. At last, we are home.

"Libirians, there is a disease in the heart of man. It's symptom is hate; it's symptom is anger; it's symptom is rage; it's symptom is war. The disease is human emotion.

"But Libria, I congratulate you, for there is a cure for this disease. At the cost of the dizzying highes of human emotion, we have suppressed its abysmal lows. And you, as a society, have embraced this cure: Prozium. Now we are at peace with ourselves, and humankind is one. War is gone; hate, a memory. We are our own conscience now, and it is this conscience that guides us to rate EC-10 for emotional content, all those things that might tempt us to feel again and destroy them. Librians, you have won against all odds, and your own natures. You have survived!"

But let us elaborate on the cure for human emotion...

"Prozium - The great nepenthe. Opiate of our masses. Glue of our great society. Salve and salvation, it has delivered us from pathos, from sorrow, the deepest chasms of melancholy and hate. With it, we anesthetize grief, annihilate jealousy, obliterate rage. Those sister impulses towards joy, love, and elation are anesthetized in stride, we accept as fair sacrifice. For we embrace Prozium in its unifying fullness and all that it has done to make us great."

Predation and the entire range of human feeling, both positive and negative, are not EC-10-worthy.

The Abolitionist Project is.

Then, we came to acquire another family dog who pretty much has a stomach of steel. In fact, this very afternoon, I found her dining on the dirt plugs that come with a lawn aeration treatment when I realized that she was taking an inordinate amount of time to retrieve her toy from the yard. She pretty much will eat anything and everything with the worst effects coming from the fermentation of excess sugar.

So I bought her a frozen raw bone to chew on one afternoon. Dear Mallory went through a quick learning curve when she discovered that the leftover meat on the bone was only the beginning of a wonderful and time-consuming activity. She thoroughly enjoyed herself as we both sat outside: me doing my medical terminology homework while she gnawed happily for a few hours at the end of a buffalo bone.

Much to my dismay and apparent ignorance, this practice is highly frowned upon by our vet, and I decided to schedule a counseling appointment so that I might discover her reasoning. Of course, seeing as how I am in school to become a future technologist, I figured it wasn't a bad idea to hear a valued medical professional discuss both sides of the raw bone issue and elaborate on the side which she had chosen to support. I had certainly heard enough of the benefits from raw-feeding laypersons, holistic nutritionists and trainers. I had also found a website detailing some disastrous cases of raw bone ingestion and even had some X-ray pictures to show the extent of the damage in the dogs examined. Not to mention that pretty much any toy or chew has its inherent dangers of ingestion and intestinal blockage. I was armed with information and open to respectful discussion on the matter.

Was I ever in for a surprise when Dr Vet stepped into the exam room and began conversation.

After pleasantries were exchanged, I brought up the issue of appropriate chew toys. At the time, Mallory expressed no interest whatsoever in any artificial chew toy, and while she enjoyed the rawhide that accompanied her from her foster home in prison, the experiences we had with Zeke turned us off to using rawhide as a safe chew. I detailed how much she enjoyed the raw bone and the evidence expressed by other raw feeders that the bones cleaned teeth and provided a small amount of extra calcium in the diet. Because I am a helicopter pet owner, most of Mallory's activities occur under supervision, and since she is never outside without one of us and raw bones are messy enough to be an outside-only chew for her, I would be able to monitor her chewing and the degree to which the bone was ingested. However, I would have to trust, just like any other raw feeder, that the bone would pass through (it did) without causing her distress or blockage. I certainly understood that, being a health provider, she might have indeed seen some nasty cases where things did go wrong with raw bones, but between the prevalence of these cases compared with the number of people who give raw bones with little or no issue, it wasn't something about which I was overly concerned. With emphasis on a healthy balance between the benefits and dangers of raw bones as well as a respect for Dr Vet as the more medically knowledgeable between us, I was certain that we could get to the bottom of the matter with little issue and mutual agreement.

And then came the reasoning from Dr Vet. First of all, I learned quite quickly that, no matter what, Mallory is not my dog and I should not be doing with her what my parents don't want done with her. My opinion is appreciated and acknowledged, but since the adoption papers are not in my name and I do not pay the vet bills, I need smile and nod and let my parents do with her what they want, and meekly follow along with it. (Reading between the lines, I might have almost heard it as "I understand you're a legal adult in age, but that doesn't mean you know everything. Please just be your parents' child." I've got enough issues in that department!)

I don't remember the next line of reasoning. I just remember a lot of hemming and hawing which didn't really produce any real justification of merit. I could pretty much see where this was going.

And then came the major issue and kicker: Resource guarding. Raw bones were indeed a high-value item because dogs find them so good. (News flash, Earth to Dr Vet: so are toys, food, and space.) At this point, Mallory had only been with us for about 3 months, so she was settling in her new home and well into an obedience program to polish up some rusty skills. Due to Zeke's almost obsessive possession of his ball, though, we made sure to incorporate any excuse we could into doing exercises in which Mallory would drop items into our hands, we would gently take them from her mouth, or she would also drop any item wherever, whenever she was commanded. With this we had great success, and still do to this day. I noted that she had shown no desire even to guard anything, and any attempts to reach into her food bowl or take it away, take a toy from her or reach into her crate were met with a tail wag and a friendly smile as if to say "Would you like some too? There's plenty for all, but do take what you want first! I'll take any leftovers you leave."

Dr Vet indicated not sternly that this is the wrong way to teach this concept because it produces anxiety. Why not approach the bowl with something more desirable, like chicken? And then when the dog turns around to look, you give it some chicken so it knows that you approach with good things? Because, you see, if she was eating her meal and someone kept taking her food away and giving it back, or if someone kept rummaging their hands in her food, she would get very anxious.

If I remember correctly, my blood pressure went up a little bit right about now because this strikes a nerve. I am a very food-possessive person. I do not like to share the food from my plate (from my cookware is a different matter!). But coming at me with a slice of cheesecake really doesn't seem like the ideal way to make me WANT to share or make me respect you enough to voluntarily give you any of my food. It'll get my attention off my food long enough for you to grab some. But in the end, did I want to share and respect you enough to do it, or did you make me share against my will?

On the other hand, if you made sharing a daily part of my meal, then I'm sure even my belligerent attitude about it would go away. (We really are more doglike than many people think!)

See, Dr Vet states that training shouldn't produce anxiety. In past visits, my parents (who usually take the dog for its annual wellness exams) have updated her on my interest in the veterinary and behavioral field, and a statement that I worked for a dog training site online obviously resonated with her. "Your mother tells me that you do some 'internet training,'" she stated, "and that's very suspect."

If I could do "internet training," I'd do a send-out with YouTube and never give it a recall. If I could do "internet training," I'd announce that Twitter, Facebook and MySpace are beyond behavioral help and recommend them for euthanasia. If I could do "internet training," I'd teach it proper English spelling and grammar, and by default, let it decide if it wants someone to access the web based on how maturely they present themselves. Oh, if only I could do "internet training." Not everyone would like my trained internet, but the fact remains that you can't please everyone.

Not only are my "internet training" activities "suspect," but also our chosen method of training our dog is worthless. Using "That evil, Cesar Millan, 'I'm-dominant' method" was ovbiously the way in which we went most wrong. At this point, my brain froze to such a degree that I failed to remind her that the reason Zeke was so docile and easy to work with was that he learned that we were in control. When we said "Jump," he said "Sure!" (I never noticed that he made efforts to ask how high...he didn't need to. What he did, he did with the all the spirit he had...including things we didn't want him to do at times.) When we put him in control of who to visit during his therapy work, he learned to make his own decisions. Our sweet, gentle therapy dog didn't just happen, he didn't just fall out of the sky...he learned through mistakes, missteps, corrections, and praise.

I don't mean to get off on a Cesar Millan tangent. Suffice to say that, though I appreciate, respect, and agree with him on a lot of things, I do not fully 100% agree with him. In fact, take a look at every opinion you hold and the reasoning and support of the people or activities behind it: is there anyone with whose opinion, application or technique you can ever agree 100%, from politics to workplaces to social circles and beyond? Or do you just agree with a portion of their attitudes, enough to support those people or not?

I then mentioned that yes, I do have experience in training through several reputable resources, and my interest lies in pet obedience and the Schutzhund/K9 field.

"But those are two completely different things!"

Really? So police dogs, subjected to tools such as pinch collars, fur savers and e-collars in the course of their training, can turn out to be confident, well-behaved citizens with a job and purpose out in the public eye...but pet dogs are only fit for the likes of headcollars and hilariously laughable "no-pull harnesses" while never suffering the indignity of being told "No"? These are not different species we are discussing. Different temperaments and personalities? Of course. But let's not beat around the bush on this: all dogs communicate the same way. Why is that so difficult? What's good for the goose is good for the gander...the only potential difference being the degree to which technique is applied. What may pass as a motivational correction for one dog might be blown off by another or even overkill for a softer dog. I may have to vary the degree to which it is applied...but it is still a correction. The way I praise and reward one dog might make an extremely shy dog cower, or might not even garner so much as a tail wag from another. I may have to vary the degree to which it is applied...but it is still praise.

Dr Vet has two golden retrievers that she frequently works into conversations (who DOESN'T work their dog into conversations, anyway?). In regards to obedience, "The one was very easy to train, but the other--" and here is the exasperated sigh-- "we are lucky that she knows what she does on any given day." I'm sure the trainer to whom we took Zeke for his aggression back in 1998 would disagree. Were any Sit Means Sit trainer to work with the dog, they would also disagree. Were Adam or I to spend some time with it, I'm sure it would learn quite a bit. And with each trainer, the dog would still be happy and execute commands willingly, with a tail wag, a smile and no spirit whatsoever lost.

There is no excuse for dogs to not learn how to assume some very natural positions and actions on command that are considered the most basic in obedience training, unless the dog is physically or truly mentally infirm.

At that point I asked her "Dr Vet, don't you believe that there is a reason we drive in the center of the road and have the gutters on the extreme sides?" I outlined how we do use praise and rewards in training, but we balance them out with appropriate corrections for misbehaviors, and allow for genuine mistakes to give our dog a chance to learn from them. Our dogs have loved us, are not fearful or afraid of us, are not cowed and overly submissive, are not resigned and depressed, and in general have an air of confidence about themselves. Maybe I am disillusioned about canine behavior, but our dogs have not radiated the traditional hallmarks touted by those who completely oppose the use of fair and appropriate corrections in training. Such "confrontational" methods decried by "dog-friendly," "on the cutting edge of behavioral science" trainers that can be found in grocery-list form on websites galore often contain things that no real-world, balanced trainer would even recommend. Hitting? Alpha roll? Staring down? Spraying with a water pistol (and how hypocritical is if that such a 'confrontational' method is advocated by pure-positive trainers in place of a collar correction!)? Yelling? These people claim that such training methods are archaic and old-fashioned...yet they themselves don't appear to have moved completely out of the Koehler era!

In my Client Relations class, we learned that one fundamental is to treat the cause for which the patient is present. The client who walks in to get a toenail trim, but leaves with joint supplements, antibiotics for a UTI, therapeutic shampoo for a skin condition, and a tube of doggy toothpaste may be a happy client for getting all those problems taken care of. Yet, whatever happened to the simple toenail trim? It didn't happen, and the client is not the one at fault.

I went into the veterinary hospital to discuss one issue only. I left with no answer that made any sense whatsoever, and wasn't even vaguely related to the issue at hand. In no way was our discussion intelligent, respectful of each other's views, or even remotely two-sided. I was belittled, insulted and looked down upon as someone who not only overstepped boundaries by discussing an issue regarding a dog on whose adoption papers my name was not written, but also someone who didn't even know a thing about what I really wanted in life. Rarely, RARELY am I pushed to the point of tears. Thankfully, the ones shed in anger and frustration after that appointment only served to significantly thicken my skin against those whose best interests involve negating mine.

The moral of this story?

Don't let this happen to you. Take your dog and your money somewhere else. At the very least, learn basic first aid on a dog, how to give shots yourself (hint: they're a lot cheaper from vet supply catalogs [also here and here] and, contrary to what we are told, yearly boosters are not necessary for a majority of them and even have the potential to be counter-productive!), learn to use antibiotics as needed and which ones are best for which problems (this page is a good start), and do consult a reputable medical professional with whom you are comfortable for valid concerns about any medical issue about which you might have any questions!

AHA, yes indeed it is acceptable. This doesn't mean it is required.

The use of food reinforcements in a training program is very much a gray area in dog training. Let's examine some reasons why some trainers might or might not prefer to use it.

The biggest argument for using food treat is, undoubtedly, DRIVE. Indeed, it is the rare dog (or child?) that will turn down a tasty morsel, and trainers take advantage of this greed (for lack of a better word) in order to make a dog learn and/or execute a command. It's amazing what even a tiny piece of stinky goodness can do to even the most lazy dog, and trainers want clients to see their dogs performing happily and with gusto. These results can be achieved easily be a dog who is motivated by the possibility that it will get to have a treat, especially if it can already see and/or smell it.

One rather large argument that contradicts this is the notion that a dog should work for the person, and this is undoubtedly what the bulleted phrase in my Monster is referring to. It is the idea that the person working the dog, whether that be the trainer, handler/owner, etc, must use enthusiasm and energy to motivate the dog to perform rather than the impersonal crunch of a treat. This completely eliminates the need to carry a treat bag as well as 'phase out' the use of treats so that one may not have to carry a treat bag around for life, because the dog receives the same reward with same value all the time, from when it first begins to learn a command to 3 years later when it still executes that command.

Does that mean that all trainers who choose to not use food treats are against the concept? Of course not! They just prefer to not bring out the hot dog chunks first thing outright, and that is what upsets people who believe that treats are a necessity in training. It is similar to what we hear regarding headcollars, especially as quoted in the previous blog and even in the literature sold with the product: people are led to believe that they NEED this in order to make their dog the best it can be...even if the dog is only 12 weeks old and just leaving the litter! Never mind starting with basics and foundation obedience to figure out the personality, drive and temperament of the individual dog; no, the puppy MUST leave that first vet's appointment with a signed, dispense-as-written prescription for a headcollar and training that includes food treats! (For the record, I do think treats are just fine for puppy training. They should just be used in conjunction with praise and an interactive play/toy reward as well.)

Even if a trainer who is open to the idea of food encounters a dog that might benefit, the first course of action is to determine why and treat the problem from there. Perhaps the client has a dog who really doesn't care if the trainer is dancing around using a high-pitched voice, but when something else, maybe a toy, is brought out, the dog perks up. Aha! So now the trainer is still applying himself to motivate the dog, but now has added another level of excitement without using food treats. The toy is one item that doens't have to be bought over and over again (like commercially-made treats), and it has the benefit of making the dog interact with the trainer in playing with it rather than just having a goody popped in its mouth.

Where most people go wrong is that they either bring out the food immediately without even trying to use themselves or a toy to motivate the dog, or they just jump from using themselves straight to food.

Of course the dog's going to sit at attention when the goodies come out! You think I'd slouch in class if my professor gave me potato chips?!

But there's the rub: professors don't use goodies all the time. Sure, the occasional candy day comes and goes once every couple of months, but otherwise professors need to use themselves and their subjects at hand in order to motivate the students. And of course, there will always be students who really don't care and don't put forth the effort to apply themselves (thankfully that's rather few and far between in career programs!), and I'd say that's their own darn fault. Learning the basic commands for dogs may not be all that fun, but there ARE ways to make it fun without using food.

And if a trainer decides that a little morsel might actually benefit the dog in moving it forward in training? GO FOR IT! If someone is doing desensitization exercises on their dog (such as what we are doing with the dremel), it's FINE to bring out some treats!

We are too quick as a society to not start with the basics and try some logical things first before moving to the high-value items. We use this process in many facets of life: most guys I know don't go on a first date with a diamond ring in their pocket. Most teenagers don't start out behind the wheel of the fastest hot rod they (or their parents, more likely!) can get their hands on, or at least that's not what's recommended. NFL players weren't tossed into full-tackle football when they were 4 years old.

So why do we jump immediately to the food treats when we find that nothing else grabs a dog's attention?

Because using ourselves as a motivation in a basic, low-distraction environment (whoever has seen this in a traditional pure-positive group class?) and issuing appropriate corrections for inappropriate behavior (whoever has seen this in a traditional pure-positive training class?) is simply too logical, maybe even "old-school" style of thinking...and anything/everything "old-school" is automatically bad with dogs. Of course, they have the 'Praise' part down pat...combined with either a clicker or a food treat.

That is why it's called Praise-Motivation-Correction. Praise the dog for doing the right thing. Motivate it to do the right thing using whatever is necessary, starting with the most basic application. Correct the dog for misbehaviors or not doing the right thing.

When I start out training a horse ground manners, I start with the most basic pressure to ask it to move in a certain direction. Namely, I start by using body language and my stick to ask the horse to, say, move it's butt away from me. If that doesn't make headway, then I will tell the horse what I want it to do by adding a little bit of physical pressure via taps on the hindquarters with the stick. If that doesn't work, then I will raise the pressure and intensity of taps at increasing intervals until I get what I ask for...even if it's just one step. And then I reward by removing all pressure.

If someone just went straight to that last step and went to whacking my horse just to make it yield its hindquarters, you bet I'd be hauling both myself and my horse out of there within a few minutes! But then why do we stick around with, and even encourage owners to use the services of, dog trainers who automatically jump to the most positively motivational tool they can use with many pet dogs?

No real balanced pet obedience trainer advertises with phrases like "Cutting-edge science," "dog-friendly," "violence-free," or "No tools of this type used." That's because they don't need to. Their results speak volumes for anyone observing their clients and personal dogs. Labels and pathos-laden catchphrases do not. They use training techniques that work and are willing to mold it to each individual dog's personality, temperament and level of drive. They just don't feel it necessary to give the Lamborghini keys out that first day, if at all if the dog doesn't even need them.

That's pretty much how the next two years are going to be.

My mouth will probably get me into trouble and whoever makes blood pressure medication will probably ask me to make commercials when I start downing pills by the dozen.

Having graduated last May with a Bachelor's, I'm just starting school (again!) to become a vet tech. And since vet tech school is not dog training school, I've agreed to keep my mouth shut (aka "Smile and nod") whenever we go through the behavior segments, as well as do my job whenever I have to care for the dogs...who are required to wear headcollars. Gentlemen and ladies, start your bets as to when I blow a gasket.

Anyway, the chapter on animal behavior in the $88, 10-lb monster of a book is quite amusing. That phrase on "technicians should encourage owners to use [a head halter] as standard practice in place of choke chains or pinch collars"? Nope. They'll hate me for it. I'll begrudgingly walk their dogs on them (with a backup kennel lead), but you will not hear such recommendations coming out of my mouth. Maybe out of the mouth of the tech standing next to me. But not mine.

I'd also like to discuss something else in that chapter that makes training a little touchy. As you've probably guessed, when referring to dog behavior, everything is all behaviorism and "Punishment doesn't work." There's also a section in here that I'll dissect over a few blogs called "Guidelines for evaluating a dog trainer or behavioral consultant" with a subheading of "Finding and working with dog trainers."

One bullet notes "Avoid trainers who offer guarantees about results. They are either ignoring or do not understand the complexity of animal behavior."

The problem with this is that it puts you, the consumer and dog owner, in danger.

Dog training is both an art and a business with a little science thrown in for good measure. Behavior is something that is indeed complex, I'll give them that. But to not offer a guarantee from a business standpoint is suicide for the company. Any good businessman wants someone to use his product and be satisfied with it, but if he does not back it up with some type of guarantee and money-back offer, three things will happen: unsatisfied customers, many of whom can be quite outspoken, can spread the word that some of your products are of iffy quality, others will sue you to get their money back since they have no other recourse, and unles he's doing some deals involving offshore accounts, the business will most likely lose revenue.

In the sense of dog training, many trainers and training classes will outline what is expected during the course of the class. The dog will learn sit, heel, down, etc etc. But is this guaranteed? Will the dog KNOW for sure how to do those by the end of the session, or will it just know how to perform for a cookie? Everyone here knows the story after story we get of dogs who have graduated petstore training classes who act as if they know nothing.

This, in my opinion, is why guarantees are necessary.

The class has expectations of the dogs and a list of goals for them to meet, and I'm sure every person who takes their dog in there just wants a well-behaved pet they can take anywhere. And the truth is, every dog out there (physically and mentally able) is capable of being That Dog, which is why good trainers DO offer a guarantee on their services. Making excuses for why a dog cannot do a particular exercise gets you nowhere, and in fact sets the dog back, not because of its own limitations (real or imagined), but because the owner sets HER OWN limitations. Human limitations are not shared by dogs, and nor are excuses.

When I come out of a training class, I want to know that my dog can sit, down, heel, come, etc. on command, the first time, and with a wag in his tail and spring in his step. These results should be GUARANTEED in any training program, if nothing else, because they are the most basic things a dog should know. I can be a bit more lenient on other things: competition obedience isn't for every dog, nor is Schutzhund or agility. Anyone who offers guarantees that my dog will break speed records in agility after taking a few classes is wearing a bumhat!

Simply put, money-back guarantees are necessary in dog training and should be required. Too many dogs are abandoned for behavior issues already, and to not be able to tell an owner "I CAN fix this, and if not, then my efforts are at no cost to you" starts up the big flashing neon warning sign in my mind that reads "This is a fraud." Unfortunately, I am not everyone (let's all give thanks for that!), but in this case, a word to the wise is imperative.

As for those poor sods who paid money for a course in cookie-bribery? Refund all expenses paid to every one of them. I know they worked hard to try and make their dogs understand what they want, but until each dog comes out of those classes on the road to knowing the most basic commands under the most pressing of distractions and any behavioral issues successfuly cleared up, don't make their owners pay a cent. In the end, they'll just spend the money they saved on a trainer who will actually help them with their dog rather than dispense feel-good advice on the guise of being "on the cutting edge of behavioral science" and "dog-friendly."

Let me add also that this blog is applying the assumption that anyone who goes into training with a professional is actively working with their dog using that professional's advice and seeking to get the most for their money out of that particular training program. Unfortunately, many people who go into a training class do it with the attitude that all they need to do is find that one magic moment when things just "fall into place" or apply that one "magic tool" and from that moment on, the dog will be perfect. This is where the guarantee falls apart, and as Adam describes in his book, the dog might work for the trainer...but when it comes to working for the owner, the dog all of a sudden turns back into its old self, responding inconsistently or not listening at all. Professional dog trainers can pretty much tell this type of owner, and they're not fooled by the excuses that "But we worked on it!" when obviously, the lesson was neglected. This post then, is geared more toward the owner/handler who is actively seeking to make a change in his dog's behavior and using all advice offered by the trainer.

I first thought about it when I started reading about these new halter things for dogs and how they were much more painless, funfun, etc...and I thought "Oh, OK" and moved on. It wasn't until I recently read through a dog magazine (pet products for people who think their dogs need poofy spa stuff), observed people interacting with pups at the pet store and read a spot-on entry on a horse-related blog that it all came together.

I call it the Gentle Overload. I'm sure there's a more appropriate word for it consisting of four letters, but I'll refrain from that.

See, when I started reading about halters, the advertising suggested how gently you were to use it: it "gently" turns the dog's head to the side using only "gentle" pressure from you. The no-pull harnesses "gently" guide the dog to the side when it pulls.

Please note: there is NOTHING 'gentle' about putting one of these restraint devices on a dog, especially for a dog that really doesn't a) WANT to wear one, or b) ACKNOWLEDGE that it is even wearing one!

Various pet products tout their comfort and how they take the main idea above and beyond [with my comments in brackets]: booties "protect precious paws from mud, sale, fire ants" among other things [I didn't know I should walk my dog where there's mud? Should I not have played in that area where I saw them spraying fire ants?], high-priced Dremels "gently grind away nails...without scaring your pet" [how can one 'gently' grind away something? Should I tell my manicurist to not be as rough with those nasty nail files? Or should my farrier get a finer rasp so he doesn't slough away too much of my horse's little hoovsie?], and an eye cleaner "gently cleans lids and lashes" [yeah, right! If it's needed, of course, but I don't think your dog so much cares that its eyes look battingly beautiful as much as it wants your darn fingers off a very sensitive area!].

Maybe someone can enlighten me on why we suddenly have to treat our pets with kid gloves. Just like with the mustang on the horse blog (which can be read here, but the way), it seems more and more these days that our pets are made of the most fragile bone china, or the lightest balsa wood. We must understand that they can hurt us very badly, but to otherwise lift a finger against them is to fracture their fragile self-esteem, or even cause them to wither to dust and blow away.

Is it something to do with the fact that more and more people are relating to their dogs as children and treating them as such? If so, let me say this: you may have a dog in PLACE of a child, but your dog is NOT a child! Oh, I understand that dogs communicate better with humans that our closest relatives, but that doesn't make them human. It's similar to children who dress up dolls and put them in strollers as if they were real children: the child might relate well to the doll because it is so similar to being a real person, but it is still not real. (Thank goodness for this, because I'd just come unglued if TODDLERS starting having children. Heaven knows that I go on enough rants about teen pregnancy!)

Or perhaps this craze has something to do with how dogs are being treated nowadays? Recent news polls indicate that people (Americans in this case, but I suspect we are not alone) consider pets family. More and more pets are kept in the home these days, and in the home comes more interactions and a closer relationship. Unfortunately, we are back to the argument that keeping a pet in the house doesn't make it human: it simply means that at the very best, your dog gets a higher quantity of attention, interaction and care. While I VERY tempted to say that it is a "quality relationship" the dog gets by living inside, sometimes it is not. A quality relationship is a healthy one in which the dog respects the owners and their belongings, where the dog is well-behaved and responds to requests and commands in a prompt, relaxed, confident manner. (This would explain why, while my friend owns the dog, I have a more quality relationship with it when I am over there because I don't accept dominance behaviors!) However, this seems not to be the case for many dog owners. Because of their proximity to what we define as family, this mindset starts becoming something of a problem: Would I treat my little brother as I treat the dog? Why should I, when the dog is family?

Maybe the pure-positive advocates are at fault for the Gentle craze. In expecting us to train dogs without the use of a fair correction, they are in fact pushing pacifist regimes upon an animal that doesn't understand the use of checks and balances: indeed, we use the figurative imagery of the phrase "give and take," while the dog instead uses the literal meaning! I was once given the excuse that "Mother nature is harsh and we don't have to be." Whew, good thing we've found a way to tell her to stop all those tornadoes in Dixie alley, keep those darn plates still so we don't have earthquakes and tsunamis, and stop those nasty hurricanes that destroy luxury beach houses! I guess we aren't so cruel after all anyway, what with all those wars we have going on, assaults, robberies, scammers, murders, and those pedophiles are just filling a need, right? Good thing us humans are so much more peaceful than those nasty berries that give us the runs!

Dogs are extremely resilient creatures, as are most animals. We've all seen the cases where the dog or cat or horse could be used as an effective anatomy lesson on the skeletal structure, and with some care, medication if needed, and properly rationed food, the physical condition of the animal will improve. Their bodies are tough and can go through things that we humans cringe merely thinking about: what normal person looks forward getting kicked in the groin by a cow or running up and down the fells all day collecting errant sheep? What human will remain stoic and silent after a hit-and-run when a bone is sticking out of the leg, or the leg is connected by a fragment of skin?

Just as dogs' bodies are not fragile, neither are their minds. They have personalities and temperaments just like people, and some people take this to mean that their dog MUST be human, because obviously resemblance equals BEING. Oh I wish that were the case sometimes, although the thought of having to pick micro-mini horse turds out of the far corners of my room is debatable! The mind (and body) of a dog is, simply put, unbreakable through most pet owners' means: there are few things the average dog owner can do to truly break his dog short of actually trying to, and at that point we no longer call him the average dog owner. We do not put our dogs' bodies to the test with beatings, starvations and harsh chemical treatments. Even a lack of training doesn't break the mind; it only indicates that there is a relationship void that needs filled, and behavioral connections that need rewired.

So whose fault is it that we are so afraid to hurt our poor babies?

I'm guessing it's somewhere on the other end of the leash from the four-legger.

The case of Innotek Australia (Orion Pet Products) vs RSPCA

A private blog keeping up-to-date (though not anymore, sadly) of the laws regarding the pinch collar in Australia

Some Aussies with working dogs have had success ordering equipment (including pinch collars) from Euro Joe, but again, I'm not sure about the import situation.

K9 Force is located in Australia and has prong collars available for any size within the country. PLEASE NOTE there is no order form, as you must email in an order as specified on this page. I recommend looking around this site if you are in need of some hands-on help in Australia; it has some great information.

Another working dog site that sells pinch collars in Australia, but make sure to take out a second mortgage...this place tends to run a little pricey (unless I'm just naive and think they get any cheaper than that in a place where they're essentially banned).

A letter to the Victorian government to lift the ban on prong collars. This site is full of working dog owners in Australia. It's a good look-around too. Be warned that links are hidden unless you are a registered member. [It's come to my attention that this direct link, copied and pasted, to what I consider a well-written piece is consistently coming up 404. If that happens to you, click on the "Blogs" link in the bar under the cool-looking banner and scroll down to the writings. Member 'Top Dog' has the only two blog entries currently, and the letter is the second one.]

Chris Flegler has a Sit Means Sit satellite in Brisbane. If you are near that area, I highly recommend checking him out. He even has some videos up, among other SMS trainers nationwide. Sit Means Sit is a highly respected organization of trainers who use the e-collar, and their results are fantastic. It's quite the opposite of what the RSPCA wants you to believe regarding dogs who've been trained with an e-collar!

Suzi Jones has a tip straight from customs: "A tip from another forum I belong to: one person said they had their prong collar sent in 2 boxes and it made it through customs (and that this tip came from the customs office).

If you want to get a prong collar for your dogs sent in from another country Have the links sent in a separate box then the chain piece. Cost a bit more for the shipping but better then the 100 or so Aussie dollars to buy on in country."

Again, if anyone has any other link submissions or information regarding the laws of training collars in the general Oceania area, create a thread for it for the forum.

In reading through Suzanne Clothier's book, she has a few pages deicated to the concept of a dog pulling its owner along on a leash. She mentions, and I paraphrase...

When we see someone dragging a dog behind them, it is cause for an argument of cruelty. Yet when a dog is in front of the owner, dragging him along with a possible accompaniment of hacks, wheezes and coughs because of the tight collar, all of a sudden it becomes normal, accepted and OK.

I think a lot of people call it 'being a dog.' I'd go so far as to say that this is an excuse to make up for a lack of training or motivation to train the dog, but I'll draw the line at the owner who knows differently and is actively searching on how to make 'being a dog' into 'being my dog.'

It drew me to how we raise (raised?) children. We teach them society's rules as well as how to be polite and do something like ask if they want to pet a strange dog. I have been lucky with Mallory so far, and every child who's petted her at the park has asked my permission first. This gave me a moment to explain to them how she likes to be petted, as well as warn them that they'll inevitably get a SLURP on their hands. There's nothing like a dog and kid team who's happy because they're doing things right.

And then there are times when I take Malgal for her walk, quite deliberately close to or during off-leash hours at the park. I take advantage of the potential distractions as well as the presence of children and their toys so she not only learns to work under some distractions, but also continue to learn that all the wheely things that kids ride aren't out to get her. (This is why summer should be a dog trainer's dream: between the multitudes of dogs outside and the noise from urchins not in school, there are more then plenty of distractions!)

Despite our common cultural thinking that dogs are our children, they are most supremely lacking in the major manners that most people try to teach their progeny, the least of which is to simply ask before allowing their dog to come up and stick their collective nose up my dog's butt. I know this is simply how dogs do things, but sometimes I do not WANT their dog's nose in my dog's butt. It is rude, and when I'm obviously walking her at a tight heel and keeping her attention on me, the least I deserve is the "Is it OK if my dog approaches yours?"

Don't get me wrong, it is nice to have a dog that socializes with others, and Mallory does get her playtime. It's just not the first thing on the agenda.

Unfortunately, adding this requirement will also bring upon me the stigma of having a dog that doesn't want to interact, whether for aggression or fear or any other reason. I don't have an aggressive dog, despite the pinch collar. My dog is most certainly confident in herself and presents herself as the queen bee when approached. I am not afraid of other dogs that might try to come up. But as usual, if their dog is denied the opportunity to interact with mine, a majority of people it seems will do some quick critical thinking that will last about a second, and as often happens, come to a conclusion that is simply wrong.

So if our dogs are indeed our children, since they cannot ask for themselves whether or not they can approach, let's do it for them. It is not OK to approach every dog anyway, and I personally make a point to walk on by another dog no matter what, and if it looks safe and the owner is interested, I will ask if it's OK that they sniff. It is simply etiquette and I know I'm not the only one who does it...am I? How come it is OK, even required that a child ask to approach any strange dog, yet we just let it happen when it's between two dogs? The same outcome can still happen, and the same people will still be upset because something happened against another dog, and "Thank heavens it wasn't a child!" That's probably because the child ASKED and was warned of what would happen otherwise.

And as an added bonus, let's start teaching them the manners we (or at least most people) expect out of our human children. That means no temper tantrums when things don't go the way they want, and things to play with during downtime so they don't run amok and destroy everything short of...well, everything.

Sweet Mallory stepped out of the car into a new environment that wasn't surrounded by fence and didn't have armed guards. She had been in a prison-training program and had some training under her belt, enough to know what she was supposed to do yet little enough to know that she was supposed to do it every time. She walked on a loose leash, sat (in a very unlady-like position), lay down, and had about a 50% recall rate. Whoever taught her, though, put their own signature onto her training: she sat on command on her hip instead of on her two back legs and her Come consisted of a good recall that would automatically turn into a finish into heel position.

Apparently in the prison, she lived in the honors dorm where the men had access to...a microwave. She was scared of the dishwasher, strangely attracted to the low rumblings of the washing machine, and if it was a strange shape or made a funny noise, she didn't like it. We're a bit concerned that she isn't going to like the target range, but so far she thinks the farm is her playground and also that the screened-in porch at home was added onto the house just for her.

Her eyes go all slanty, her ears go down and her tail just sweeps side to side when she's happy. She doesn't jump anymore, and after a few weeks of crossing her legs, she's finally learning that the one area in the backyard is her bathroom instead of the whole thing. She doesn't say a peep when she's in the crate and no matter how long she's held it, the bedding is always dry in the morning.

And my mother loves the convenience and ease of the quick-release pinch collar.

She officially knows where we live now...she ran off when she was out for a walk with our neighbor and thankfully ran straight home and waited at the back door to be let in, so we know she's adjusted to our house. We've laid down some basic rules already and only given her free run in a few rooms, but the time has come for her to officially start obedience training with my family. Her sits will be cleaned up, her recalls will become more consistent, and best of all she'll be able to have play dates with neighborhood dogs since she speaks Dog. The neighborhood German Shepherd had to repeat himself a few times when he invited her to play, but she eventually accepted and they had a fun time together! She plays pretty rough and bares her teeth a lot, but he never said a word about her being over-the-top...so I'm really looking forward to that.

In moving home, I'll be helping with retraining Mallory, so hopefully there will be more frequent updates about how she's doing and what we still have to work on. We'll be enrolling in the local training club to help her work around other dogs and maybe going back to Zeke's trainer if we need some extra hands-on professional help, but otherwise we have our work cut out for us and she's got some big pawprints to fill.