Dogs were trained in the old days without halters, clickers, and no-pull harnesses. Indeed, they were trained with harsh collar corrections that were, more often than not, way above what would be considered the minimum motivational level; any sort of e-collar used in the 50s and 60s were one level of shock, and one level only; and it was far more common to discipline using the no-so-gentle laying on of hands, feet, newspapers, or other solid objects.

They seemed to come out of it all right, with a basic knowledge of behavior. Funny, however, how some back-woods' types yearn for the return of the 'hard' dog, the one blessed with stubborn temperament and personality to grind down even the toughest stone on the block...they lament how dogs have 'gone soft' over the years as a result of dithering idiots who dare to humanize their dogs and allow them to live inside with as humans do.

That's because dogs had to be tough to survive the Yank-n-Crank era.

My pictures below, of the raw muzzles from a supposedly 'gentle' training tool, are only part of the debate. What of injuries from collars such as the truly questionable, yet rarely seen Jasa force collar? What of dogs who endure raw necks or tracheal/cervical damage from zipping nooses of chokers? Or even dogs whose owners do not fit the pinch collar correctly, letting them slam into it from a too-loose position, causing it to puncture the dog's neck?

I am discovering that, in being bound by rules that make no sense, are overly restrictive, and allow no wiggle room despite fair debate and experience, I am doing what is simply natural: forming almost a knee-jerk reaction to something I do not appreciate, and this makes things seem...overboard.

The average reader might find here that I rant and rail against things as if I want to see them all burn. Some days this is the case! However, my intent has gone from informing to alienating; simply put, I am disobeying one of my own tenets set forth in a paragraph of my own writing!

Thanks for a bit of perspective and introspection. You know who you are.

Please keep in mind that these headcollars are fit according to the directions that come with the product. The neck strap is snug and the nose loop can be pulled down the fleshy part of the nose. All efforts are made to keep the dogs' paws away from their faces with little success (aka simply pulling up and forward is pretty useless when the dog's weight is already rocked back onto its haunches). Only when the dogs decide to give up and live with it do they not have their paws on their faces; and after a period of time, without warning, they are back to pawing themselves. (Click the thumbnails for more detail!)

Is this really the image we want to conjure when the word "gentle" is involved? Is it really necessary for a dog to have to mutilate itself like this and have its face scar over before it even shows one iota of acceptance (followed by more resistance) towards a training tool?

I'm not the first one to say it, but I'll repeat it just for the sake of it: if a dog is resisting a tool more than it is willing to listen and work with me, then something is wrong. To have this go on is nothing short of cruel. The fact that IACUC allows this in the name of "humane" treatment and that veterinarians and behaviorists recommend this type of tool simply because it isn't a "collar" that fits on the neck is not right.

Thanks to Roger Hild, we have a good analysis for why 'Gentle Leaders' might not be so 'gentle' after all.

(And pretty much anytime I refer to them in the future, there WILL be quotes around that whole 'Gentle' part. It's about as 'gentle' as an angry hornet is to someone invading the nest.)

Between the headcollar propaganda handed out to us at the beginning of the quarter and the time from then until now that I have worked with dogs of varying personalities on the 'Gentle' Leader, I've decided that it's really official now: I don't like them at all. I'd venture to even use the word "hate," which is something I really prefer to not do...maybe "abhor" is better.

I abhor headcollars. Especially the 'Gentle' Leader. To get an idea of what points on which I'll be elaborating, please take a look at Roger's article first. I will reference it from time to time and hit on some points from the pamphlet that comes with the product that I think need nitpicking. We weren't given the full 64-page packet, so I'll just work with what I have and try to keep his format going for clarity.

- On the first page, there is a stop sign telling the owner to please read the literature, because the 'Gentle' Leader "fits and works differently than any other collar or halter you may have used before." (This writer notes: The only thing special about this design is that is meant to be fitted tightly...SO tightly, in fact, that if you can fit a finger through it, it is too loose. Adding to this pressure by pulling on the leash attached at the bottom of the jaw to, for example, make an unruly dog sit [as we are instructed to do quite firmly when needed] creates an enormous pull on a sensitive area. And since we know that pressure is the measure of force over area [Chad explains it nicely in regards to corrections on a buckle collar], we are not just setting up the dog for some type of cervical vertebral injury...we all but guaranteeing it. Add to this the extremely narrow [padding be damned] noseband that is tight even when fitted properly, and the only difference between how this collar works versus other collars/headcollars is that the dog might be in more physical discomfort.)

- Page One, under the "Why/How the 'Gentle' Leader Works" states: "'Gentle' Leader's patented design places 80% of the pressure at the back of the neck, taking advantage of the opposition reflex. Your dog will instinctively lean back against the pressure, putting an end to leash pulling forever." (This writer notes: If indeed this were true, then dogs would not be able to be walked at all with this headcollar. Were the dog to lean back against the leash, the pressure from the handler pulling forward on the leash translates to even more pressure at the back of the neck...and were the opposition reflex working at the time, the only thing driving the dog forward would be immeasurable discomfort. By looking at the design of the headcollar, it's also obvious that when the dog actively pulls forward [or the handler back], all of the pressure is directed through the nose loop and onto the muzzle, with no engagement whatsoever from the neck strap. Again, this translates to anything from mere annoyance to outright discomfort for the dog...and that's if it even acknowledges that it's wearing the headcollar.)

- Again, on Page One: "Never jerk or yank the leash...A smooth, gentle pull is all you'll need." (This writer notes: Somebody misunderstood something here; the reason dogs pull on the leash is because the owner is pulling back. With a dog who is intent on pulling, there is no such things as a "gentle pull" back toward the handler, and we've already discussed how the combination of neck strap fit and leash handling is setting up the dog for injury. A pull can be countered by another pull. A pull countered by a quick jerk-and-release can only be countered by not pulling...and thus eliminating the problem. Most of the dogs I have walked on this headcollar, no matter how much 'gentle pulling' I do, will still pull. They just get annoyed that I'm interrupting their outdoor time with something so trivial as making them come back to me.)

- Page Two goes over the fit, writing that "The neck strap MUST be...positioned above the Adam's apple in front...and fit very snugly so that you can barely only squeeze one finger underneath." (This writer notes: They go on in the video to outline how this is natural and all fine, since, if you place the edge of your hand right underneath your jaw above your Adam's apple, you can still breathe just fine. Of course you can! You're not being strangled by a strap that you can barely fit a finger through! There's a reason that dogs on a properly-fitted 'Gentle' Leader all sound like those who pull like a train on a choker: they can't breathe properly.)

- Roger goes over the part where you should begin using the headcollar at 8-10 weeks of age if possible. I'd like to add the question as to Why? Why are we using maximum force and compulsion on a puppy, who is supposed to be learning positive things about her environment and some basic foundation obedience? Why do we want to begin using the mythical "opposition reflex" on a puppy who doesn't even know what a collar is, much less how to walk on a leash?

- Page Three adds a warning about using the "Gentle" Leader on brachycephalic dogs, noting that "It is typical for these dogs to frequently experience breathing difficulties when under stress because of their physically limited airways. If their usual breathing difficulties increase when wearing the headcollar, immediately discontinue and consult your veterinarian." (This writer notes: So we are already admitting that brachycephalic breeds have trouble breathing to begin with. Why are we following such 'professional' advice to restrict their airway even more? And how, in regards to the likes of English Bulldogs, are we even supposed to fit the nose loop over that huge rope between their nose and eyes? Not only are we making breathing even more difficult for them, but we are now also introducing the possibility that they might actively resist and fight the headcollar, adding even more stress to the situation and creating even more of a breathing problem since they are in fight-or-flight mode and have a need for even more oxygen?)

- Page Four begins with some excuses about how "It may take your dog several minutes to adjust to the new sensation of the 'Gentle' Leader." (This writer notes: Try several months, even years. The dog which has given up pawing at his nose resorts to rubbing it on the grass whenever possible, or acting catlike and rubbing his face against any human who might offer some sympathy. Resistance need not always overt: however, because many people refuse to look at alternatives to these headcollars, it is almost always futile for the dog.)

- Page Four goes on to justify how, the more the dog fights the headcollar, the worse off he would be without it: "...the dogs that resist the most are those who want to remain 'top dog'--so you might say they're the ones who need it the most!" (This writer notes: Bullocks. Cowpie. Horse manure. Yeah, right. However you choose to say it along lines similar to those, you will most likely not be wrong. Please refer to the Part II of the Stop Making Excuses miniseries as to why dogs fight the nose loop. It is as confrontational, if not moreso, than performing an Alpha roll on a dog. Most trainers today agree that the Alpha roll is antiquated in that it forces dogs to submit and gives them no choice in the matter, along with placing the owner/handler in danger of a bite...thus, why it is not really recommended on a widespread basis. Forcing a dog to submit through the use of a 'Gentle' Leader headcollar, as described exactly in their packet, is the same concept: no choice, no release, and as confrontational as it gets. Certainly not something a "pure-positive" trainer would ever want to recommend, right? Then why do they insist on doing so?)

I'm going to stop there. Stay tuned, and I will make every effort to provide some interesting eye candy dedicated to showing just how 'gentle' these headcollars can be to a dog. Hint: anytime I see raw skin and/or blood, 'gentle' is not exactly the first word that comes to mind!

In the meantime, I will leave you with an interesting 2AM lecture from Mike. He's a little strange, and uses some weird ways of getting his point across, but it's worth the watch. It's important, too, to watch the whole thing, to determine exactly WHY he's dressed the way he is: in fact, I have taken it to heart within reason. If I wouldn't use it on my dog, or any dog I train, then it's not going on the dog. After reading through the 'Gentle' Leader packet (even without having read Roger's article!) and analyzing what it said, no way would I use it on me! Take a look at Hunkie as well: he looks almost exactly like Zeke, but with a chunkier Lab-type body. (Thanks to him, my dog no longer wears a "pinch collar"...she now wears a Gentle Necklace!)

And then they get upset when someone points out that the dog is choking itself because it's pulling so hard and the collar isn't allowed to release. "It's the way we've ALWAYS done it and he's just fine!"

(This happened to me a few years ago: someone came into the store where I worked at the time and her dog was hacking and wheezing from a tight choker. As I was one of the only employees who understood how to properly apply a training collar, I decided to step in and politely explain what exactly was going on and, for the benefit of the dog and to make her outings a little more fun for both, here's a tip on how to use the choker correctly. She got upset that someone was "telling her how to walk her dog," yelled at my manager about it, and I was reprimanded. I see both sides on this, where both of us went wrong...but to this day, I have no remorse about attempting to help that dog breathe easier.)

Here's the point: the tool is not a magic bullet. There is no such thing as any tool that, once applied (or even merely PLACED on) to the dog, will magically fix the problem at hand.

Case in point...a horse and all it's appropriate tack will not make you a first-place jumper. If you think the first couple of jumps are bad, keep watching (and don't ask me HOW the guy picked that stirrup back up at the two-minute mark)! The text at the end translates roughly to "We guarantee that the animal was left with [only one ligera??] back pain and the next day was in perfect condition to return to jumping."

There's something missing from this picture, and it's something a LOT of people tend to leave out: good ol' elbow grease and a healthy relationship. Put it this way: giving me a tire iron neither makes me a mechanic nor makes my plebian sedan a flashy hot rod! Sure, I can use the thing...but do I do something to the lug nuts with it, or do I whack people or cars with it, or is it some kind of fancy paperweight? (For the record, I do know how to properly use one, thank you very much!)

Simply buying a training collar and putting it on the dog will pretty much get you nowhere.

You must know how to fit it correctly. This doesn't mean "Can I toss it around his neck like I'm playing horseshoes?" It doesn't mean "I don't want him escaping from it, tighten it as FAR AS IT WILL GO!" Nor does it mean "I don't want to hurt the poor baby, it must only touch his neck as lightly as a butterfly would land on a flower."

You must know when to properly use it. Contrary to the advertising on a certain agility starter kit, this doesn't mean "What do you mean, we can't use it as his permanent/everyday collar?" It means that you take into account the inherent risks of what COULD happen when you are not around or you are too far away to do anything quickly in the event of an emergency. [Disclaimer: I am not against agility or any particular agility sets. Please make sure your dog is decked out appropriately with a buckle-type collar that has a low risk of catching on something, and be sure the set is safe for your dog to use!]

You must understand what role it plays in accordance with dog psychology, not yours. Does that extra-large tuff-looking 3" spike collar do a better job on your mojo than that Viagra from overseas? Great! Now, what does it do for the dog? Is he really any better for wearing it, or do you think that he might benefit from something that might help you a little more with his misbehaviors?

You must understand what role it plays with dog physiology. If you can see raw skin after applying said tool, you are either using it incorrectly or it is simply not meant for use on dogs. If your dog is tearing his face raw because you can't distract him with a treat long enough to KEEP him from trying to get that headcollar off, he might really be trying to tell you something (and no it's not "I know you're trying to take control from me and I don't want that!"). If the choker you're using is breaking off all the hairs around his neck so that the hair is significantly shorter and/or you can see his skin, it might be time to either look at another type of training collar, or think critically about how exactly (and how many times!) you're correcting this dog.

You must not be ashamed to use it. This doesn't mean apologizing for why your dog is rasping his face on the ground while saying "Tsk, he's been wearing it for months and he still doesn't like it!" This also doesn't mean showing it off and attempting to alienate as many people as possible because you choose to be a jerk (no pun intended) about how you use it. It means educating yourself about the tool and being able to show both sides of how it works, and why it may not be right if someone's just looking for a quick fix. (My response to someone who told me what a cruel collar I had was something like "You're right! Some people don't know how to fit pinch collars properly, or how to use them fairly and humanely! I'd be happy to help you understand where these people go wrong so you might learn why my dog is well-behaved, confident and happy.")

You must seek advice from a professional if you do not know how to use it. This doesn't mean "My friend/neighbor/boss told me..." Unless your friend/neighbor/boss has direct first- or second-hand experience with the tool (such as what can be found here), it's best to look for more opinions from someone who actually knows what they are talking about. Hint: Yahoo! Answers is not a good place to start. While some products do come with fitting and usage instructions, these are pretty much the "How-to" bare bones. Pretty much nothing that comes with any tool will tell you HOW to make it work the way it was intended, or what happens if something goes utterly wrong.

So do some research into what tool you choose to use and learn how it can both positively and negatively impact you, from either how you use/apply it, or even just how it's made. If a trainer can't give you such an analysis for most commonly used training tools out there, whether or not they use it...then you might want to look elsewhere.

I wish I could say that they went to a shelter and gave a rescue a good home. In all truth, so do they!

In fact, they had their potential child picked out when, in the adoption interview, the shelter learned that they lived in a rented apartment. Upon hearing this, they flat-out denied (nicely, of course) my friends the privilege of acquiring one of their dogs. Never mind that their lease allows pets, never mind that they are capable dog people with sound heads on their respective shoulders, never mind that the dog would be able to be a pet and not just an accessory...the shelter refused to give them one of their dogs. Their reasoning consisted of something along the lines of "People who live in apartments cannot give their pets adequate care."

Way to paint everyone with the same little-kid, "let's-make-as-much-mess-possible-with-as-little-effort" brush! You don't fulfill our requirements. Sorry, but you can't have one of our dogs.

So where did they go next? Naturally, the pet store, where they found Daizy, a shih-tzu/Bichon mix who happened to catch their heart and win out over the boistrous Golden Retriever that, both admitted, would be too big and slightly less manageable than a similarly-spoiled small dog. Please note that, while my friends are not trainers, they do have some reasonable expectations for behavior and know at what point to seek help. This puppy is in quite capable hands. As of currently, potty training is progressing and the soon-to-be-married couple is enjoying having responsibility without diapers, a new car or a college tuition payment (other than what they themselves have, of course!).

I've heard stories similar to this, in which breed rescues who proclaim to do the right thing to try and place dogs into good homes do TOO well of a job and end up rejecting homes that are indeed ready and appropriate homes for their dogs.

A woman here on the forum who was looking to adopt a miniature Schnauzer from her local breed rescue group provided all information necessary, received glowing reviews from her vet and dogsitter, and passed what she referred to as the rescue's "preliminary test." Despite her experience with terriers and having owned many such dogs in the past, the rescue then decided to deny her a dog until she submitted to them two more names of unrelated persons who would vouch that she is a "good dog owner."

A man came into my store one day glowing with pride over his newest pet, a medium-sized black mixed-breed. I asked where she came from, and he explained the hurdles through which he had to jump just to get her out of the shelter. Seems that our local shelter must have a question in their adoption process inquiring if the potential adopter had ever given away a dog or otherwise disposed of it. To this question, my customer did the right thing: he told the truth. Yes, he had a dog...but he was in such straits at the time that he couldn't take care of himself, much less himself and a dog. It went to a home of someone he knew and was able to visit it until he had to move to a different town.

In response to his truthfulness and willingness to own up, the shelter politely replied "Very well, but we must now reject your application because we don't know that the same thing would happen to whichever one of our dogs you would care to adopt."

My customer was understandably upset by this decision and appealed it. For whatever reason, the shelter decided that the fact that he went to such efforts to show them his dedication was enough to overturn the rejection, and he left with the dog who managed to ensnare his heart.

Another woman decided to rescue a Great Dane from her local rescue, and ended up doing the same thing as my dear friends. I'll let her tell the story, though!

"We contacted a rescue group...Actually we called more than one and had the same run around with all of them. We had to have a fenced in back yard (we had that), 2 vet references, 4 character references, did I own my own house, did I have experience with this breed,etc. They even wanted me to go to a doggy parent group. Then the big one was when all was said and done they wanted to charge me over $600.00 to adopt the dog, $800.00 if it was under the age of two years,and I could not pick the dog I wanted; the dog had to pick me. I was going to have to make at least 3 visits to see the dog before they would even give me a solid answer on whether or not I could even pass all their tests. Most of the dogs had come from homes where they were mistreated or ignored and all had some issues and we were willing to look past all that and give our dog a forever home.

"After a month of the run-around (endless emails and phone calls) we decided to just go out and buy a puppy. When I had had enough of their "You-are-not-good-enough-to-have-one-of-these-dogs" attitude, I called them and told them we were no longer interested in adopting from them, and that we were going that weekend and buying a puppy.

"Oh, all of a sudden they had a different attitude: 'Of course we could have any of the dogs you wanted, you would make perfect dog parents,' yadda, yadda. One week later they called me back and I told them NO Thank You we had a new puppy. They even tried to tell us that they would give us one of the dogs, as they were so short for homes for all of them--they had 42 at the time!

"I kindly told them that it was no wonder they had so many and could not find homes for them; they wanted people to jump through impossible hoops and stand on their heads just to adopt a dog. I also told them I bought the new puppy from a very good breeder and he never asked for any of the things they wanted."

Perhaps the last part of what this woman wrote is what is required for my obligatory final paragraph. I'll paraphrase it for the purpose of the topic and put her ideas in italics.

To those rescues and shelters who deny people dogs simply because they didn't check off the appropriate box on the "Perfect Dog Owner" grocery list: Please stop making excuses for why perfectly capable individuals and families can't get one of your dogs. I understand that these dogs need to go to good homes so they do not wind up in a shelter or several homes in their lifetime, but these adoption agencies need to be realistic in what they are looking for. These dogs need a home, not an FBI interview. Keep in mind that denying an application only keeps that person from taking one of YOUR precious dogs. Short of documented and court-ordered restriction from owning animals, it doesn't keep them from going somewhere else and getting another dog. They are simply exercising their freedom of choice in deciding to own a pet, and for you to demean them for supporting breeders (against most or all of whom you seem to have some type of personal vendetta) only shows the true nature of your interests: stroking your ego and standing over the rest of us holding the morally-charged contracts to dogs that some people will never get to rescue.

I am making a concerted effort to not paint all rescues, shelters, or county-run pounds one color. There are rescues out there run by people who really do it for the dogs, who seek to make sure that the home to which the dog is going is suitable and will be a good match. These people and their organizations are to be congratulated and supported. Not those who turn the pre-adoption interview into a criminal investigation and use any excuse available to find the tiniest of faults with the potential owners. That is a job for insurance companies...not rescues.

"The dogs will paw at the 'Gentle' Leader because they're bored. Keep them busy!"

"The reason dogs fight that 'Gentle' Leader when you first put it on is because they know you're taking control from them with that nose loop, and they don't appreciate that."

Let's let Roger take the stage again to go over the flipsides to some material taken straight from the "Gentle" Leader instructional packet. (By the way, I wonder how much better pinch collars would sell if they came in perky packaging that included a 64-page booklet and instructional DVD!)

Simply put, the dogs paw at the headcollar because it is placed in a very sensitive area and, when properly fit, insanely tight and most likely, insanely uncomfortable. I don't care if the occipital-cervical junction or the muzzle right under the eyes are accupressure points. They might do great for a dog needing that treatment in a veterinary setting. However, I don't believe I've seen any dog yet (possibly excluding those in the painful instructional video) acting as though they're experiencing any type of calming effect from the pressure on those points from the headcollar. Quite the contrary, in most cases!

When using a tool on a dog, it's meant as a device to enhance and make clear the communication from the handler. When the dog learns what the handler is asking of it (for example, the dog comes on command regardless of distraction), the tool is no longer necessary. Any tool I choose to use on a dog is pretty much an inert object at first, and should be. As a prime example: dogs are used to wearing collars from the day they are taken home, whether to be a pet, assistant, partner or otherwise. Hence, why should my putting a pinch collar or an e-collar on a dog give it cause to worry, regardless of my intentions or knowledge of said collar? The dog doesn't know what I'm doing, and it doesn't care what I'm doing because, honestly, my intention is not to domineer the dog with such an overwhelming event (such as putting on a headcollar) that I suddenly become the LEAST of its worries. This ultimately creates resistance, similar to someone forcing ideas down another's throat--I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows some dedicated atheists who attended parochial school as children! When I work with a dog, I don't want to create resistance: I want to allow the dog to make it's own decisions and learn from them. A dog can hardly make any decision short of "DO NOT WANT! when it is being forced, for lack of a better word, to comply.

NOTE: I mentioned not domineering a dog. That means that I am not attempting to create any resistance in the dog by forcing it or causing it undue pain and stress through such means as physical or mental abuse. Remember: anything we consider definitively inhumane, we don't use. We just like to draw the line a bit further out from most positive-reinforcement-only trainers. But there is still a line, and it's pretty consistent with most real trainers. I am not against teaching a dog that I am the dominant pack leader, but this process does not involve anything which might fit the description of domineering. Again, this is truly something that most real-world, balanced trainers would never recommend unless the dog is facing inevitable euthaniasia, and even then they set limits on what will and won't be done. Positive-only trainers, please remove your heads from the Koehler era and advance into present times. I will even be your line leader if necessary, but I believe we can all get there without holding hands.

From a veterinary standpoint, I can clearly see why control of the head is necessary, due to the sometimes-massive weapons contained in the mouth. However, vets and techs experience dogs all the time who wear no such head restraint, and are either happy, bouncy dogs who don't know to not be scared of the vet or get to wear a "party hat" (one of the more fun euphemisms of a muzzle).

I typed with one nice entity--as opposed to talked, as this was in a large Comments area on a favorite blog of mine--and she stated "If a vet tech tried to put a gentle leader [sic] on either of my dogs, I would leave and find another vet. I also wouldn't want a vet tech using a choke chain as a training tool on my dog. A vet tech that can't effectively use a simple nylon slip lead in a normal office setting wouldn't get my respect...an actual vet's office that insisted on this practice [of using only headcollars] would not see my dogs or my money."

I can't say that I disagree! Unless the client is explicitly asking for behavioral counsel, no tool other than a what the dog arrived in or a kennel slip lead should be used.

To the vets, trainers and behaviorists who recommend headcollars because of pathos-ridden, viral marketing of "dog-friendly, humane methods" and sterile "cutting edge of behavioral science" revelations: Please stop making excuses for why dogs actively resist these tools even months and years later. I certainly wouldn't enjoy wearing the equivalent of a straitjacket my whole life, which might be why my parents bothered to teach me the consequences of my actions: so that I might have the freedom to do what I want in life as a well-rounded, mature adult

The first, training, came to me from a fellow blogger who does a lot of foster work and behavioral rehabilitation wish said fosters. While she may not use the same tools we prefer to use here, she has a common sense approach similar to the one here which, in the end, results in a well-behaved dog who is more likely to be adopted. Recently, she was asked by her vet to do some consultations with some of his clients who were considering euthanasia for their dogs, all for behavioral reasons. I'll let her tell the rest:

The first question I had for him is...why would you need me? Aren't there other trainers in the area more experienced than I? His response was that the other trainers in the area aren't interested in working with these dogs or have worked with them and failed.

I am not the only one outraged by this response. In fact, I don't really think I can put my feelings into any better words than my blogger acquaintance did: There is something seriously wrong with the dog training world when they "reject" the dogs that need training.

Trainers who believe with mind, body and soul in the power of behaviorism discover limits when removing attention or throwing away a treat doesn't exactly motivate the dog to drastically change its behavior, even after several repetitions, even over days or weeks. It has its uses; it also has its limits. Most trainers who use positive-only training are also adamantly vocal about what they think they know about dogs, and what they want rather than what is necessary. I'll let Roger Hild explain it to you, mostly since he's gotten it written out already and says it so much more succinctly than I ever could. (Please note the reference to Dr Ian Dunbar! Seems that the poster child of the pure-positive movement might be a wolf in dog's clothing!)

To the pure-positive trainers who insist that their way is the only way or else the dog must die: Please stop making excuses for your inability or resistance to work with dogs that are in dire need of behavioral remediation. If you cannot get results such as my acquaintance is being asked to attain, either 1) get out of the training business so as to spare people the misery of money lost with no obvious behavioral improvement, 2) educate yourself so that you might be able to successfully help/rehab these dogs, or 3) understand that not all "cruel" trainers are out to break a dog's spirit, and learn to REFER owners out to such experts. Your business will probably not suffer for it.

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!