That's pretty much exactly what they did. The instructor and I had a couple of debates about whether food rewards are bribes or not and agreed to disagree. Same with dominance and how you make the dog "see you as alpha". It's not a class I'd recommend for people wanting to learn to train their dog simply because of the methods used but for me it was almost perfect.

I can't think of a situation where I'd actually recommend a choke chain but if somebody was insistent on using one I'd show them how to use it properly. Better that, imo, than them using it incorrectly. And constantly getting on at them would just make them go elsewhere wouldn't it? A dog can wear a choke chain and still be taught using positive methods for the most part. Not ideal I suppose but I'd take what I could get.

But even agreeing to disagree can be a good exercise in re-examining views, even if it does end with everyone standing by their original views. Even that in itself demonstrates there is no one answer

I wouldn't use a check chain as standard but I wouldn't universally rule it out for all dogs at all times either.

Imo in some cases a correctly used chain, for the right dog, in the right circumstances, can be very much kinder than ineffectively letting it constantly choke itself on a flat buckle collar. I also like the flexibility of using them in the same manner as training discs and so as a remote method when necessary, not something you can achieve with a head collar.

Yes I know there are other ways but my point is there is no one way that works for everyone everytime.

As I have said before, John Rogerson returned to check chains for some dogs when he found he didn't get the same results without them.

But each to their own, just don't try to force everyone else to that same view. Agreeing to disagree is a more "positive" view.

What about the people who come on here and talk about hitting their dogs with newspapers
Rubbing dogs noses in their poo to toilet train
Alpha rolling puppies

Should we all just go 'ho hum each to their own'? No one method works for all dogs
Punishments DO work
but
I personaly cannot agree with them and will always try and speak out against them
Hopefully I will try and think about HOW I talk out against them but I will still talk out against them

I was trying to explain about positive training methods on my car boot sale on Saturday morning

I was selling some dog books and a lady was telling me about the problems she had with her dog who was very barky when there was someone about and she got a stick and banged it on the floor near the dog when it did this.
The dog may go on to get a fear of people with walking sticks-better not meet it when my elderly Mum is about with hers!

So what if John Rogerson did anything----why does that make it right?

I am not a sheep who thinks that because a 'named' dog trainer does it is it OK. Thats just a cop out for bad training.

rune

I am not saying anyone should say nothing if they don't agree with something but if one is going to speak out against something that someone else has experienced success with, such as punishment, that is all the more reason why you need to have a reasoned position, presented politely, positively and convincingly.

Trying to harague someone into giving up something that works for them is unlikely to be successful, not least as they will not be receptive.

If one can maintain lines of communication, even if you are unsuccessful on that occasion you may manage to convince them over time, so as you say it is also about how you go about it.

My point is he is one example of one person who tried abandoning a method and went back to it for his own reasons, not because he had not tried any alternatives. He was open minded enough to leave using chains and to go back to them.

I am not stating everything he does is right (I don't think anyone is infallible), in fact I disagreed with him about something else he said at the same time, but that is another story.

I didn't judge his decision to be right or wrong, just open minded and open to exploring alternatives.

I don't think it is open minded to return to something that you used years ago and know is not kind and can cause damage to dogs simply because you are stumped.

Cutting the hands off thieves works as a deterrant---would we be open minded if we went back to doing it or would we be going backwards as a society.

rune

I hardly think that is a like-for-like appropriate comparison! If you were to ask if we should go back to longer prison sentences as a deterrent, I would consider we should.

I also consider we should go back to telling children when they are wrong at school so they can improve and strive for something, rather than dumbing down education and telling them everything they do is wonderful, regardless of spelling, punctuation etc.

I have no doubt there will be others who disagree with both those views.

Pretty much anything can damage dogs if misused, very much including treats with all the problems of obesity, malnutrition and people in parks doling out unsuitable treats to dogs on exclusion diets without asking the owners' permission, or encouraging behaviour than can cause other problems such as resource guarding between dogs, jumping up at strangers etc.

Some dogs can also be scared by clickers and a number of trainers dismiss check chains in favour of "kinder" head collars which can also cause damage, as can standard collars e.g horrendously embedded flat collars. You might as well ask does that mean flat collars should never be used?

Even doing nothing can damage dogs, in all sorts of situations.

As I keep saying, no one way suits every situation ime.

Wouldn't a better comparison be the birch for prisoners and the cane for school children?

Whilst cutting off a hand is too strong comparison as a dog isn't dismembered by a choke chain, longer sentences and tellings off is too mild a comparison as neither involves a physical punishment.