Is it possible they stretch the truth and bring up particular things that people not on dog borstal should learn.

I don't know at all how much info/input the trainers get or give. I doubt they are involved in approving the edited final cut before it goes out.

Would be interesting to know.

The way the episode with Taz came over to me is like this-

Taz,s diet consisted of take-aways and junk food. Scattered around were empty big-mac cartons, indicating that he was given those foods regularly. His "diet" was behind his behavioural problems. His owner was told off for feeding junk food to Taz, and made to look like an irresponsible owner.

Obviously, none of that was true! And if that was how the episode came across to me, it mustve came across like that to loads of viewers. If I were Faye, Id be pretty upset that Id been portrayed like that, shes obviously a far better owner than DB wanted viewers to think she is.

One big-mac hardly constitutes bad-ownership, Taz,s abuse at the hands at whoever stole him and fought him was obviously a major factor in his behaviour, but wasnt mentioned.

The cartons were filled with chocolate drops, Im assuming to encourage Taz to shove his nose in them to look as if he was trying to scoff a big-mac, AFTER DB had filmed the training. Im sure thats not the first time filming has been done out of sequence, that in itself could be confusing for a dog, if for example, it was trained on DB not to jump up and grab a coat-sleeve, then, at the end of filming, encouraged to do exactly that, as a "before" shot.

Not liking the program doesnt mean anything personal against the trainers, and Rob in particular seems a decent bloke and very likeable, but by putting your reputation on the line by appearing in a program like this, I think he should care what people think.

The GSD and the little girl was uncomfortable to watch, and not safe, in my humble opinion. But then, I find most of DB uncomfortable viewing, I rarely watch it tbh, but its a bit like car-crash tv, you dont WANT to look, but sometimes you just cant help it.

Excellent post Bebe, particularly the bit i`ve highlighted. If a non-trainer pet owner can see the wrong in that, it speaks volumes that the `trainers` not only dont seem to see it but are the ones encouraging it.
Not something I would do to a dog and owner thats for sure.

I suppose the wildly expanded (which, let's face it, is as close to fiction as you can get) story of Taz just proves the point that you should never believe anything you read in the papers or see on TV.

I don't think there's anyone who doesn't expect some elaboration in the name of entertainment, but, heck, 'before' being filmed 'after' is stretching the 'truth' too far even if the embroidered story isn't and let's not get into the baited fast food cartons. Ah well, I suppose it draws in the viewers

It possibly does, although if viewers knew about it maybe they'd feel patronised and insulted, as I do

I did, like a mug, believe that story. I recall it quite well now (the old memory cogs are turning ) and thought even at the time that the portrayal showed Faye was a rather um - silly owner . Of course, she's not and it turns out she is far more intelligent and sensible an owner than portrayed.

As for Rob's comment, he's quite simply wrong because at least one trainer did totally fake something!

Bebe has pointed out, viewers were led to believe that the problem behaviour was partly due to the dog's apparently atrocious diet. It's not good

It doesn't make me happy - it actually makes me sad that the programme appears to put itself above criticism, which is in fact very valid criticism!


Wys
x

I personally wouldn't mind if it was obvious what they were doing, if you see what I mean

Diets are important, and they can effect canine behaviour - perhaps this problem could have been addressed in a different way.


Wys
x

3rd post in a row again, how embarrassing

I just wanted to relate the tale of a lady who once had a film crew and a well known behaviourist to her home. It's quite funny, but does show what can happen and how things can be edited to show anything the producers want

This owner had a very basic problem which should have been easily fixed, so contacted the producers of the show. They came over and the behaviourist did not address the problem, but the finished version showed the lady's dogs lying down and playing nicely, which they had all been doing anyway, before the well known behaviourist visited!

The behaviourist claimed that he/she had got the dogs to behave so well, when in fact he/she did nothing - but, the final editing etc showed the behaviourist in the programme as having sorted out these dogs

The owner is now a trainer herself - guess she decided DIY was the best way after her experience Of course, she'd been made to sign a contract so wasn't able to make any comment about the show.

I just wanted to post this as it shows what can happen and how easy it is to be misled, as a viewer, by any programme! Would also point out that the behaviourist wasn't a member of any particular organisation as far as I know.

Wys
x

Yes i was a silly owner which was why i knew i needed help.... and i got it!

Well, you were portrayed as a silly owner but that's not the same as being one, Faye

Glad you got help with Taz and also am glad that he had no lasting bad effects from being stolen.

Wys
x

I dont think you were a silly owner at all , I think your a very good, caring owner who sought help from professionals ( cant spell that, sorry ), and was taken advantage of slightly, thats all.

Editing tried to make you look silly, and thats not your fault at all.