I'm not a fan of anybody fan is short for fanatic and that's not me, but the way I see the use of a treadmill is..... Yes it will take 30mins or maybe more to get a dog used to using a treadmill. Once the dog is used to it however it wont take 30 mins close observation, so while I would never leave a dog unattended on a treadmill I wouldn't be focused completely on them once they were accustomed to using it. I could be working on the pc or whatever close by. I also wouldn't attach a dog to a treadmill, if they're really comfortable using it there would be no need to. A walk may not be possible for several reasons to be fair and that includes the owner having an injury that prevents them walking any distance. A dog recovering from injury can also benefit from using one, the surface is padded and therefore there is less impact and no danger of sticking a recovering leg or paw down a hole. Of course walking in the fresh air is far more enjoyable for both owner and dog and the treadmill is never supposed to replace that. As said previously one of my dogs loves the treadmill and will hop on for as long as he fancies and hop back off again when he's finished, his choice.

Yes, this is correct, but I don't think my methods are negative ! How can they be when they work, and Tai is so blissfully happy and settled with us?

The opposite of positive is of course negative, but I just wondered what my methods should be called in your opinion Tassle?

i can see your point trouble and the fact your dog chooses to use it means he's happy too.

i was looking more at the cases where there doesn't seem to be any reason other than laziness on the behalf of the owner. i have seen a few cases on dw where cm actually has said that if they don't have time to walk, the dog needs to go on the treadmill. he's not stated any of the reasons you have listed above either.

personally i don't think it should be used as an alternative to a walk outside.

Negative methods do work its just not the way many people want to get thier dog to behave.

I would class any reward based training as positive....

If you are using physical force to get the dog to behave in a certain way that would be negative.

(EG- Lead walking - luring and rewarding the dog for being in the right place = positive, Pulling the lead back to get the dog in the right place = negative)

Not very in depth I'm afraid but gives you the gist. As to your methids - I have no idea about your methods, but if you do not feel they are positive then they must be negavtive. I would call Ceasers 'bite' negative, as well as the illusion collar and the alpha rolling etc. I have seen him using tactile praise once (positive), but only after forcing a dog into a position.

With regards to the noise - it is just a noise unless it has been coupled with a negative or positive ('bite' or reward) from that the noise will start to have implications to eth dog - so if you have used the 'Tsst' with the 'bite' it becomes a negative, if you hvae used it wiuth a reward it becomes a positive - if you have used it with both you have a confused dog!

I agree completely it should never replace a walk outside, but I also know an awful lot of Americans do not walk their dogs for various reasons. A great deal of them seem to think having access to the yard is sufficient, so I do see where he's coming from on that one too. Lots of people do seem to claim they don't have the time to walk etc. which should beg the question why get a blimin dog in the first place, but I've never heard that said. I think he tries to do the best for the dogs in those circumstances, because those owners are simply not meeting their dogs needs on any level. Shoot the damn owners, I say.

I haven't had time to read all the thread (it's quite long, as they usually are ) but wanted to add something to it, I am sorry if it's already been mentioned or referred to!

During one programme (not sure if it's been shown in the UK)there is evidence of lack of oxygen in the dog.

The programme was concerning the dog "Shadow". After CM had "dealt" with him, the dog actually had an engorged penis. This is a physiological sign of oxygen deprivation and proves that CM does indeed partially strangle dogs at times during use of his methods.

Whatever the views, I wanted to put this on here because as far as I'm concerned it needs to be absolutely confirmed that he does do this - not just have them on a tight high up lead or anything - and it does seem that the evidence is there.



Wys
x

Blimey Syd must be deprived of oxygen on a regular basis cos he frequently has an engorged penis and he does it to himself without a lead in sight.

Yet what was it CM said to explain that one... dominance (the dog was trying to dominate ) I think.


The man has no idea on anythign canine other than believing they are all out to dominate us and over throw the human race if we allow them too.

Sad really he can get it so wrong , and so many buy into his theories too

Yes - he did say if I recall that it was dominance. It actually shows he half strangled a dog (in the UK this would be against the law and anyone doing it would find themselves defending their actions in court).

It's incredibly sad he has no idea that the penis engorgement shows the physiological effect of his actions.

It is terrible to half strangle a dog (ultimately because he set it up to fight him, which is what he likes so he can force it to submit) and to then suggest the penis engorgement is due to "dominance".

When will the dominance c*** from him ever stop?

If he was half strangled he might show an engorged penis - and no doubt he'd agree with me if I suggested he was trying to be "dominant" at that point. Ho hum.


Wys
x

Thats probably excitement though, not fear and oxygen starvation.