Questions about Leerburg.....

The thing is, my dogs are always under MY supervision as well and they are ok with kids.  But, a few months back I had some little kid come tearing out of a park on the far side of the street, dash across the road and throw herself on my dog.  It happened in the blink of an eye and we were staying away from the park side of the road because of the loose children.
 
Bottom line is that the little buggers are just about anyplace that you can take a dog.

ORIGINAL: snownose

and I know that, using CM's TV techniques, you will successfully rehab them all. When do we get started?????

Anne, come on, temper check....that was uncalled for.

IMO, every avenue should be tried before putting a dog to sleep, but in reality I know that is hard to achieve.......remember, I rescue.....[]

We were talking about Frawley hanging dogs to get rid of aggression, so we have the cruel method of "Hanging", versus the "Needle"....you pick.

I don't know how I can put this more plainly.  You never "get rid" of aggression - it always lurks under the surface.  And, to be honest, if I have to abuse a dog that severely, I'd rather it went to sleep peacefully in my vet's care, than had to experience the terror of repeatedly hanging at the end of Ed Frawley's leash.  That, IMO, does nothing to effect rehabilitation.  He's a barbarian, just like Koehler, cut from the same cloth. 
And, you are right if you think my temper is not in check.  This crap makes me so angry I could spit, mainly because it perpetuates false hope, abuse, and the idol worship of those who perpetrate it.  The dogs still suffer, just quietly - until.....and then, they are euth'd anyway, but someone is injured in the process. 
I've actually had owners of aggressive dogs tell me that they want to rehabilitate their dog, but they don't want to pay for a lot of lessons, and they don't want to muzzle the dog because they don't want anyone to think he's mean.  Huh????  This is the ignorance you are dealing with.  Good luck.

If you rescue, and you place dogs with aggression, you are asking for trouble.  Just because you place dogs in adult homes, and just because you don't like kids, so you think that it's ok that your dogs don't either, that does NOT absolve you of responsibility or liability.
There are kids in the Universe, and one of your rescues may come into contact with one eventually.  Or, one of the homes may decide, "oh, I think he'd get to love our child if we have one" and elect to get preggers - then your rehomed dog will almost certainly get euth'd or tossed again once they realize that their toddler is in danger because Fido snapped at him.  You are not living in the real world on this issue, because you really do want to believe that any dog can be rehabbed.  Maybe they can, but I'm telling you that Joe Q. Public doesn't often want to be the one to do it.  They want instant help. They want Lassie. 

You are not living in the real world on this issue, because you really do want to believe that any dog can be rehabbed. Maybe they can, but I'm telling you that Joe Q. Public doesn't often want to be the one to do it. They want instant help. They want Lassie.

 
No, you are misreading me here, I know not all dogs can be rehabbed, but I also know that placing dogs with  aggression under control is being done every day. One cannot just place the dog with anybody, kids are totally off the list.
 
There are cases where the dog needs to be put down, but there again, who's fault is that?
2 of my 5 are not 100% around children, I know this, and I take actions to keep the 2 far, far away from a situation like that.
 
How many times have we seen posters come on this board asking question about a relationship between the family dog and their child? Maybe,at that point it hasn't escalated to a bad situation, yet, but it easily could.
 
There are no guarantees for anything, if there were, there would be no bites.

I don't think Mr. Ed understands aggression at all. If you actually read his stuff, you see he often mis-diagnoses leash reactivity as "aggression" and "dominance", and advocates really cruel "retraining" methods.
What I find so fascinating about his articles is how bizarre the mixture is-- well thought out understanding of dogs and behavioral modification mixed at random with old-fashioned incorrect ideas about dominance and truly brutal corrections. Yes, the dogs he is familar with are very hard dogs bred to hang onto the bad guy no matter what, but that doesn't mean they don't respond well to +R training. In fact, since they are bred to ignore beatings, they would probably respond much better to +R than to "corrections" they barely notice.

I don't think Mr. Ed understands aggression at all. If you actually read his stuff, you see he often mis-diagnoses leash reactivity as "aggression" and "dominance", and advocates really cruel "retraining" methods.

I agree.

Snownose, what's your experience with dangerously aggressive dogs?

As someone who has owned a dangerously aggressive dog, I find your assesment that any dog can be "cured" of aggression by a "last resort" hanging by a leash or other aggression from a handler wildly optimistic.

There are human beings who will keep hurting no matter what. We call them sociopaths, and we don't cure them--we manage their behavior by institutionalizing and drugging them. Or, we kill them. Why should any other breed of animal be expected not to exhibit uncurable pathological behavior? And in the absence of doggy mental institutions where dogs that repeatedly inflict serious, mauling bites can be managed by professionals 24 hours a day, what is the occasional dog owner faced with such a terrible decision to do?

I am not talking about the dog that bites the screaming little kid running past it, like any poorly trained, high-drive dog would do, or any of the other ridiculous "aggression" issues in dogs that are really normal dog behavior. There is no reason to kill a dog for being a dog. I am talking about a well-trained, cared-for dog that repeatedly inflicts deep puncture and tearing wounds that could kill a small child under otherwise "normal" circumstances, and that goes after children with the intent to inflict such damage while on the street.

You seem to think that there is no such thing as a dog that cannot be "saved" from its own aggression if only the owner will go "all the way" with training. I want you to know that this is the *exact opposite* of my experience of owning a dangerously aggressive dog. I came into this experience a strong Monks of New Skete (modified Koehler method) follower, and I responded swiftly to my dog's reactivity and initial displays of aggression with strong corrections.

My aggressive reaction to my dog's aggression made the dog's aggression escalate very quickly.

Working with positive reinforcement instead made changes in that dog's behavior that I thought would be impossible actually pretty fun and easy. The difference in her behavior was dramatic and wholesale. This was a dog that was learning new ways to live--not learning to be afraid to aggress.

But you can't teach a dog not to bite. You can give a dog routines that make it less likely to bite. You can teach incompatible behaviors like "watch me." You can make the dog more confident by providing a lot of structure, and not put the dog in situations where it is likely to bite. You may or may not be able to scare the poop out of a dog and make it less likely to bite... although in my experience making a dog frightened tends to make it more likely to bite, not less.

But you cannot promise your community that your dog won't bite. And when your dog has really hurt people and dogs and keeps doing so despite all that structure and learning (that is, without a doubt, working better than traditional training methods that I had ten years of experience using)

... there is no amount of money you can spend or "last resort" options that will make your dog really and truly not bite.

It's not that I am a pansy or that I am too lazy to "try everything" or "go all the way." I would have chopped off my dog's left front leg if I thought it would "correct" her behavior. Really. I loved that dog so much and worked so hard to help her.

Please understand that from the perspective of someone who really has done the hard work of going all the way to the end of this dog's life--all the while spending all the time and money and brainpower I had to make her into a dog that wouldn't hurt anyone else in my community--your position on this issue seems quite ignorant.

You seem to think that there is no such thing as a dog that cannot be "saved" from its own aggression if only the owner will go "all the way" with training.

Maybe it would help if you read my whole post, and take it all in[]:
 
<<>>

Who is ignorant???
 
I also wanted to add, if I had children 2 of my rescues would not be with me, that is where responsibility kicks in[]
 
 
On a sidenote, one cannot guarantee the behavior of many dogs, how many times have you heard somebody making a statement as " I didn't think the dog would bite, he was never mean", dogs bite everyday, and really when least expected.

ORIGINAL: snownose

I also wanted to add, if I had children 2 of my rescues would not be with me, that is where responsibility kicks in[]

On a sidenote, one cannot guarantee the behavior of many dogs, how many times have you heard somebody making a statement as " I didn't think the dog would bite, he was never mean", dogs bite everyday, and really when least expected.

Snownose, I also do rescue, foster, and place.  I lived with a very aggressive dog for 15 years and made a lot of accommodations.  I have fostered an aggressive dog and have experience with an SRS dog.  Those dogs are not adoptible.  I have been given the same lectures and speeches by the same posters but at different times.  Surprised RW didn't comment.  You are right on when you say responsibility kicks in.  You are in the situation, knowing the dog, assessing the family, making the judgement call.  It is a heavy responsibility and that burden can't be helped but be present.  It is easy to lectures and say what is right but that lecture and tone would be tempered if one was actually in the dog placement postion.

I am not going to get too involved here, but I just wanted to chime in and say that there are far, FAR worse things in this world than euthanization. Far worse things, and some of these super aggressive dogs ARE, in my opinion, living very horrible, horrible lives, in the guise of  "manage the situation instead of euthanization because euthanization is horrible!".

Perhaps it's just me, but honestly, quality of life is far more important than keeping a dog's heart beating. After all, dogs that are hung until they pass out (in the guise of "helping" aggression), spend years going, in human terms, mentally insance in no-kill shelters, or are subjected to other brutal methods of "management", are NOT living. They are merely existing, due only to human conscience that the beating heart is always better than death.

If dogs knew of suicide, I truly wonder how many of these dogs that are living (read: existing....dogs in those circumstances are NOT living) these lives would have taken their own lives long ago. Perhaps that's a shoddy example, but it is an example nonetheless.

Like I said, there are far worse things in this world, IMO, for dogs to endure, than a relatively painfree, quick, euthanization.

Give me quality (of life) over quantity any day.

Kim MacMillan

Give me quality (of life) over quantity any day.

 
Are you saying you would throw yourself over a cliff if you found your life was worthless?
 
I know all dogs can't be rescued......I think I said that how many times, now?
 
I still feel that many dogs get a bad reputation for having bit a person, and get sent to deathrow, when in fact some of them could be rehabbed, or placed in homes that offer a contolled environment.

Snownose:

You ask who is ignorant. I think you are falling for strident "Karen Pryor is a cat killer," "Plan B: Kill The Dog" kind of rhetoric that is all over the internet right now. I think that is ignorant behavior on your part. I think that it is ignorant to equate positive reinforcement training with killing dogs, and I did read your entire post, and I have been digesting your posts thoroughly, and I am pointing to a consistent thread in your logic about positive reinforcement as a training technique. This is not about one post.

I am answering your strident, emotional posts that consistently call people who use positive reinforcement weak, or assume people who have dogs that are not difficult, or say that their tune would change if their dog was going to be put down, or say that of course we must have people out there like Cesar Millan and Ed Frawley because if we don't then DOGS WILL DIE!

And I am answering your posts with facts and personal observation. What you are arguing is not true in my experience. Acting just like Koehler/CM/Leerburg made my dog's aggression worse. I would have ended my dog's life much, much sooner if I hadn't worked very closely with a very smart trainer who uses positive reinforcement techniques. I bought my dog almost a year and much comfort, a much higher quality of life than she would have had if I had kept correcting her physically.

Since this is a thread about Ed Frawley, I will tell you that I have been training my dogs for fifteen years, and have read Koehler, Kilcommons, Woodhouse, The Monks of New Skete and Leerburg *extensively*, and not to poke fun, but to learn. These people know a lot about dogs and about learning. I don't physically correct my dog right now, but have done so in the past. I don't think it's evil, I just don't think it works as well as positive reinforcement.

And in my experience this is *particularly* true if the dog in question is aggressive.

The irony is that I am, calmly, trying to tell you that the logic you are using could kill some dogs that don't need to die. Because I believe and honor your commitment to the welfare of animals, I feel like it would be wrong of me not to bring it up.

---

Below is an article about a woman that was killed by an adopted Doberman 10 days after bringing him home. I think this is an example of a dog that should have been destroyed vs. being adopted back out to society. It killed a person. There is no looking back or Monday morning quarterbacking. She's dead. The dog is also dead now because I have followed this story in the local news.
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
Associated Press Writer

September 9, 2003, 8:46 PM EDT


MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. -- The animal shelter that let a woman take home a dog
that killed her 10 days later should not have put a dog with a history of biting
up for adoption, animal welfare experts said Tuesday.

"What we say to humane societies is there are millions of dogs who don't have
a habit of biting," said Martha Armstrong, a senior vice president of the
Humane Society of the United States. "Why would you place one dog with a history
of biting?"

The 3-year-old Doberman pinscher killed 67-year-old Valerie DeSwart of
Medford in an attack so gruesome that authorities first believed the death was
caused by another human. DeSwart suffered injuries to her face and neck.

The Associated Humane Societies, which placed the animal, is cooperating with
police, said Harry Jay Levin, a lawyer for the shelter. The group is not
affiliated with Humane Society of the United States.

Police saw that some of the dog's nails had been clipped, and they found a
nail clipper near the woman's body _ a possible indication as to what may have
set off the dog, Levin said.

Levin also said the animal, known in his three months in the shelter as
Charley, was never aggressive there, though he had been brought to the shelter
because his previous owner complained that the dog bit.

At least three shelter employees told DeSwart, who was found dead by her
boyfriend Sunday night, about the dog's past, according to Levin. But DeSwart
insisted she could train the dog, he said.

"We think we did everything we were supposed to do," Levin said.

Sophia Kosper, a Mill Stone veterinarian who breeds Dobermans, said a
3-year-old dog with biting problems is difficult to retrain.

Like other animal welfare experts, she said dog should have been put down
rather than adopted.

"If I wouldn't feel comfortable with the dog myself, I wouldn't ask someone
else to adopt him," she said.

Nationally, dogs kill 20 to 30 people a year, according to Armstrong of the
Humane Society. Most of the dogs that kill are not properly socialized as
puppies, not spayed or neutered and not trained, she said.

Sharon Schiele, a founder of Delaware Valley Doberman Pinscher Assistance,
Inc., of Phoenixville, Pa., said there are fewer problem Doberman pinschers now
than there were in the 1980s because fewer of them are now trained for
aggression.

"They're loyal, they're fun-loving dogs. They like to play just like a Golden
and a Lab," she said. "They like to be right with you."

The animal that killed DeSwart is in a Pennsauken shelter. Local officials in
Medford intend to have the dog put down if DeSwart's family agrees, township
solicitor Richard W. Hunt said. They have the right under a state aggressive
animal law, he said.

Again, I think we need to understand that the severity of the bite is important.  A puppy nipping children and being turned in to a shelter for it is a vastly different case than a large breed adult male dog who has punctured with a bite more than once, or even once, if severe enough.  But, today, shelters cannot afford this liability.  When you think about it, is it worth the lawsuit that this shelter faces?  It may put them out of business altogether, and then, where will even the good dogs go???

fisher6000:
 
Wow, you are all over the board here....what was the first paragraph all about????
 
Please, get a hold of yourself.....and once again, PLEASE, make sure you read everything I write in a post, and not just art of it....yes?[]

 
Shiela booth is good,
 
check out Ivan balablov also, he actually wrote a book with shiela.
 
Terri arnold has a fablous book out called "steppin up to success"
 
as for leerburg, the guy has never done anything in any protection sport, except open up a very successful GSD puppy mill.

I'm coming in super late on a thread that seems to be going downhill quickly to say thank you to Kim for that post. There are some really great "shy dog" and "aggressive dog" groups and teams of people who work exclusively with these types of dogs, as Fisher well knows.
 
One thing we haven't mentioned is seeing things from the dog's POV (point of view). We worry about euthanization, etc., but quite frankly, many maladjusted dogs live with such a high level of stress that they are NOT living normal lives and they may not be able to, Millan, Leerburg, Koehler training or not.
 
And I think it's OK to say goodbye to them. I really do. And if there is an afterlife where humans and dogs will interact (and I tend to think there better be), I think there will be no grudges. I think some of these dogs may even thank you for giving them what you could and then letting them run free when they needed it so badly.