that made me laugh actually

[QUOTE=Moonstone;2149757]The trainer you posted had the "dog aggressive" pit being shocked in the presence of a Gsd pup, who was definitely not a stooge dog, but some random dog she had passed. I doubt the experience, did either dog much good.


I'm sorry, why would I have videos of dog aggressive dogs?[/QUOTE

The vid with the big barky gsd on the lead, lunging at the pit who went into a down when told instead of attacking it!

Adam

Why would you admit that you think that is good training but then say you wont do it or even try it though? It dosnt make sense. I hope you are not as dangerous on the roads.

The only reason I can think that you would even use such an example is of you thinking about driving the dog. Driving means being in control of something, being in control rather than shaping something. So is it just purely the control/ego/insecurity that makes you revert to the e-collar then? (since you admitted that was good training but then say you dont even want to try it and so will use an e-collar anyway)

As a general rule driving is considered the best method of general travel in those circumstances.

Hence my analogy.

Adam

Okay Adam, so what happens when the Pit goes out with it's owners in the real world, without the E Collar, and meets another gobby dog. What then?

That dog was shocked into a down, that isn't training, what happens when the collar comes off, dog trainers, real ones don't need sadistic instruments to teach a dog better ways of coping when they are stressed,

Or is your training a dog must wear the collar all the time, so that isn't training or helping the dog, that is masking the problem and a quick fix to me, plus a dog is abused in the process.

All I will say is Michael Vicks, lots of his fighting pits are now in family homes, these were dogs that were abused mentally and physically to fight, bred to fight, and many of them were rehabilitated with time, care and patience, not a zap of a collar.

1/2 were pts.

Some dogs will need collars long term, They will be controllable, none aggressive and have freedoms they wouldn't have without the collar.

Others won't need collars long term.

Adam

Adam, that is such a sick statement!!

Honestly, how can you say that about your own dog?!

So if he wasnt good at agility then he wouldnt be worth saving?! If he couldnt be a stooge, then he wouldnt be worth saving?!

and btw he cannot be very good at either - not if you need to use electric shocks to teach a right and left, or have to shock him into not moving while he has aggressive dogs approach him.......then again you only get what you put in.

How can you just think that you should 'teach' everything with an electric shock collar? How can you say you are a dog trainer when you will not even try +R before resorting to this method.

Even other trainers who have and would use a shock collar would try other things first...

What exactly do you find hard about offering stability and reward to a dog?

or is it just that you are too stubborn to actually say 'y'know what I will give it a try'?

But the ones that were saved, which I think is pretty amazing when you consider their life, were rehabilitated in ways you don't seem to want to embrace.


But your method of shocking them doesn't help them, it only masks the problem, can't you see that, if you need to electrocute a dog everytime it get stressed about another dog, what quality of life is that. No dog lover would advocate that. There are many trainers who deal with aggressive dogs , day after day, and do it without hurting an animal.

That would depend if you classed anxiety and wariness as freedom, Adam.

thats how i got your analogy, i thought it was obvious.