I don't understand why...

Do you condsider "mental illness" an illness?  I am not being sarcastic or disrespectful of your feelings but I am truly astounded at some of the results you have achieved with your methods.  I must admit I don't really have  a good understanding of your methods.  I have read your posts and have seen you mention that you give the dog what it needs and that solves the problems.  In a case recently you had a dog that wouldn't get out of the car and you finally figured out what the dog needed (the leash) but that is the only time I have seen such a specific answer to giving the dog what it needs.  Of course, I could easily have missed many of your posts since I am relatively new on this forum.  I am intensely interested to understand but realize you probably would have to make a movie and write a book to make it clear to me. 

It is pretty easy to understand why, by making the simple observation that there are a LOT of ignorant and irresponsible people out there. So many in fact, that there is no way that one single person can change the fact that ignorance and irresponsibility will remain around as long as people remain on this planet.

Sorry, but it is true.

If you can keep this in mind, then maybe it will be easier to see that you can reach some people with your teachings, but that number is really a very small percentage of the total. And then just be happy with your success stories and be "ok" with your failures. Nobody ever, EVER, bats 100%

spiritdogs

I, for one, am not in the habit of giving up on dogs, but I also know that it's my responsibility to make my clients aware of the dangers that they might be living with. So, often, it's the client who decides that they cannot accept that much liability.

I applaud you for that and I think it is best that the client who can not accept the liability or the willingness to change the dog, that the dog be rehomed.

 My life would be easier if all rescues would temperament test their dogs, at least to the extent of ruling out separation anxiety, food aggression, and whether the dog is ok with other dogs, cats, and people.   It's just not fair, for example, to adopt out a dog with food aggression to a family with kids, and expect them to live a dog-centric life with the possibility of a child being bitten.

Bring on any temperament test for a dog that has lived with me for a minimum of one month.  Temperament test applied to a dog living in a shelter housing system is just not reliable.  AND, Temperament tests on a dog living with a  untrained nondedicated owners are also unreliable.

You may WANT to save them all, but you can't,

You will never succeed in diminishing the hope.  It starts with just one person being the shiney example and from that other will join in and volunteer.  Dogs die in shelters not be cause of limited space or limited resource, they die because of lack of volunteers.  Volunteers are people and the US has a lot of people.  Every dog has the potential to be Lassie.

Every dog has the potential to be Lassie.

And I believe every dog has the potential to be himself (or herself). 

That may be where we differ on a basic level and must agree to disagree.   I believe in that there's a flip side, or a constructive context, for any unacceptable behavior, and work to find it.  But sometimes the unacceptable behavior is too patterned to change with the time and resources I have (time - I've spent up to two years working with a dog, and resources, considerable for a dog where there's daylight in that direction).

Only Lassie was Lassie and she was, in fact, a fictional character.
 

JackieG

Do you condsider "mental illness" an illness?

Yes I do and sometimes illness can be cure but the remnants are lasting.  Search "Marvin" here and you will find my stories and the helpful advise in turning around a true SA dog and getting him successful adopted.  I never gave up on that dog and I did so many many things.  That dog taught me so much.  

I must admit I don't really have  a good understanding of your methods.  I have read your posts and have seen you mention that you give the dog what it needs and that solves the problems.

I don't understand them either because the dog and the dog's personality and quirks define the relationship and the human-dog interactions.  I do always start off with always maintaining that I am a human and will always act like an adult human and the dog will always act like a dog.  I give myself and the dog the freedom and the distance to learn about each other.  For example, I don't believe in ignoring a dog when the dog offers unacceptable behavior.  People describe the dog as acting like a two year old and what does the human do, act like a two year old by giving the dog the silent treatment and presenting a pouting face.  The reaction to unacceptable dog behavior should be a normal human reaction-an acknowledgement, and any dog will learn what this reaction means just as any dog will learn what a human smile will mean.  Requesting or asking the dog to stop or do something else is what I consider to be a normal human reaction.  If the dog does not respond, then its not the dog's fault nor the human's fault.  The resolve is back to basic training and relationship building.  I try and recognize a conflict in the making and then chart out a course of action where the dog or me is not stressed.     

In a case recently you had a dog that wouldn't get out of the car and you finally figured out what the dog needed (the leash) but that is the only time I have seen such a specific answer to giving the dog what it needs.

In another case, I had a foster that was afraid of people and went nutso when attached to a leash.  In this excited state, she bit a handler.  I got many great suggestions here about the dog maybe having a neck injury or was abused while leashed.  The fact was, I put a leash on the dog and the dog fought like crazy to get away from me.....that is what I saw and determined it was not a leash issue but a proximity issue.  The dog was afraid humans and the dog needed to be at a safe distance.  Once I determined this, then I gave the dog what she wanted, a very long leash and we proceeded to do nonstressful walks with me little by little shortening the length of the leash

Another example was a recent foster who would drink excess water and then have to do big pee and often, not very adoptable.  The surface need was to give the dog an overabundance of water in case the dog was deprived of water in its past.  That was something easy to do and many people recommended me not doing that.  The hard part was recognizing that the water drinking was a coping mechanism for stress in the dog's life.  The dog's real need was socially related and confidence building.

In Jean Donaldson book The Culture Clash, I believe she states that dog owners should not try and analyze why dog do certain unacceptable behavior.  This is exactly what I do (try and determine the why) because sometimes the offered behavior is just a symptom of an unsatified need.  Here's a question, why does a dog jump on people.  There may be many reasons, from that is the way the dog has learned to greet, the dog wants regurgitated food from your mouth-remembering it puppyhood, the dog wants attention or be part of the social gathering....many many reasons for the behaviror.  So what do I do when a foster dog jumps up on me.  I stoop and begin to show the dog a proper and better way of greeting.  I stoop, no need for the dog to jump, I reward with affection, dog learns the way to greet.  If the dog is jumping for another reason, I address with much the same approach, give the dog what it wants in overabundance and the dog has no reason to offer unacceptable behavior.  Better than a knee-jerk to the dog's chest....don't you think?

DPU

spiritdogs

I, for one, am not in the habit of giving up on dogs, but I also know that it's my responsibility to make my clients aware of the dangers that they might be living with. So, often, it's the client who decides that they cannot accept that much liability.

I applaud you for that and I think it is best that the client who can not accept the liability or the willingness to change the dog, that the dog be rehomed.

 My life would be easier if all rescues would temperament test their dogs, at least to the extent of ruling out separation anxiety, food aggression, and whether the dog is ok with other dogs, cats, and people.   It's just not fair, for example, to adopt out a dog with food aggression to a family with kids, and expect them to live a dog-centric life with the possibility of a child being bitten.

Bring on any temperament test for a dog that has lived with me for a minimum of one month.  Temperament test applied to a dog living in a shelter housing system is just not reliable.  AND, Temperament tests on a dog living with a  untrained nondedicated owners are also unreliable.

You may WANT to save them all, but you can't,

You will never succeed in diminishing the hope.  It starts with just one person being the shiney example and from that other will join in and volunteer.  Dogs die in shelters not be cause of limited space or limited resource, they die because of lack of volunteers.  Volunteers are people and the US has a lot of people.  Every dog has the potential to be Lassie.

 

I agree that a dog should be temperament tested outside the shelter environment if possible, but to be honest, it isn't always possible.  There aren't enough foster homes like yours to meet the need.  And, most dogs live with untrained, non-educated owners, which is the precise reason it's so critical to save the good dogs first!  Shelters have a hard enough time positioning themselves as the FIRST place to look for a dog.  If they don't pay attention to temperament in a big way, they run the risk of adopting out dogs that pose a problem to their owners, who might then want to start tabula rasa, and go and get their next dog from the pet store or an internet puppy mill.  I don't want to diminish the hope at all, in fact one reason I do what I do is to insure that as many dogs as possible end up in their JQP homes for fifteen years or more.  Nearly every dog does have the potential to be Lassie, or at least a reasonably good companion that doesn't bite or cause a nuisance to anyone.  You are right about the fact that a lot of dogs do die because of lack of volunteers, but not all volunteers are equipped to rehabilitate problem dogs either.  I think that we should save the good dogs first, and when we have done that, we go back and address the least problematic.  It is unwise to spend resources on long term rehab for a real problem case when you are simultaneously allowing a great dog, who might be in a shelter only because his owner died, or lost a job, to die there.

spiritdogs

I think that we should save the good dogs first, and when we have done that, we go back and address the least problematic.  It is unwise to spend resources on long term rehab for a real problem case when you are simultaneously allowing a great dog, who might be in a shelter only because his owner died, or lost a job, to die there.

I sure wish I knew which are the "good dogs", does anyone know?  I don't think any rescue groups like mine deliberately take in the bad dogs.  Our foster families are a typical US family willing to open their homes and within the home are children and other pets.  We tell shelters at a  minimum that the dog has to get along with other dogs and not aggressive in any way.  The dog may be a "good dog" at the shelter but when placed in a new environment, family home, the dog will be different.  So maybe the "bad dogs" in the shelter will turn out to be the real "good dogs".  I got the biggest kick out of my latest foster because by its reaction, the dog had never seen or heard the sounds that come out of a tv.  So funny but so sad.

My rescued organization has recently segmented its experienced foster families and place in their homes dogs that have been at a shelter for more than year.  We do have good success in placing dogs, especially those that are hard to place.  I have one of these dogs as a foster that came from another foster family (overwhelmed)  in the program.  These long term shelter dogs present a whole new rehab process to get them prepared for their forever home.

spiritdogs

Chuffy

 Funny, she never rants about the dogs she works with.  Why is that, do you think?
 

 

 

Maybe because I grew up under the tutelage of riding instructors who told me that it was "never the horse, always the rider". 

What if the horse is a dog.... or a child.... or a client.....  And the rider is a dog-owner, parent, teacher or.....

Never mind.  I see that thread of the conversation died a couple of pages back and I missed it. 
 

spiritdogs

Dog_ma

Sometimes, the dog owners are the horses.  

Corvus - loved your post. Very touching, and very true.  

 

True, Dog_ma, but you seem to think that I regularly treat my clients to a rant, or somehow treat them poorly - nothing could be further from the truth.  I take extraordinary care with all my clients, regardless how they got to me, how they  got their dogs (even the designer ones), or how they never do their homework.  I think you are confusing my obviously mistaken notion that I could express my frustration to a group of committed dog people with my life outside this forum. 

I don't think that of you at all and I hope that is not your impression.  But we don't see dog-rants.  Only people rants. 

With dogs - it's not their fault.  They can't help it.  They don't understand.  They are confused.  They are scared.  They need time.  They need a different approach.  It's up to the owner/handler/trainer to motivate them more. 

With people - they are lazy.  They don't care.  They are stubborn.  Maybe they are even stupid.

I am sure you treat your clients with the utmost politeness.  My point is that you seem to have a different mindset with the fourlegged ones.  You eschew words like "alpha" and what not, don't you?  Is that not because it puts you in a different mindset and has a knock-on, adverse effect to how you deal with the situation at hand? 

rare_bear

If you can keep this in mind, then maybe it will be easier to see that you can reach some people with your teachings, but that number is really a very small percentage of the total. And then just be happy with your success stories and be "ok" with your failures. Nobody ever, EVER, bats 100%

Ah, so true!

You need to focus more on the people you do reach than the ones you don't... more pats on the back, more click-chocolate.  More SUCCESS stories of clients and less rants.  More (dare I say it) "positive" posting.  It works on yourself too.  For bed time reading I suggest Karen Pryor's "Don't Shoot the Dog".  There is a wonderful anecdote in there about a man who wanted to improve his tennis game.

Ooo I am so cheeky  

Dog_ma

But where you rant - makes a lot of difference. On a board that is known for having a history of "sides" and bad feelings

I'm was wondering if someone had the guts to post this. Before I get red-inked, let me say this explains a lot. SD is not allowed to rant here because of who she is and who is either on her side or not on her side.

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

Patrick Henry.

ron2

Dog_ma

But where you rant - makes a lot of difference. On a board that is known for having a history of "sides" and bad feelings

I'm was wondering if someone had the guts to post this. Before I get red-inked, let me say this explains a lot. SD is not allowed to rant here because of who she is and who is either on her side or not on her side.

No, Ron, you completely missed the point. Sad.  

DPU

spiritdogs

I think that we should save the good dogs first, and when we have done that, we go back and address the least problematic.  It is unwise to spend resources on long term rehab for a real problem case when you are simultaneously allowing a great dog, who might be in a shelter only because his owner died, or lost a job, to die there.

I sure wish I knew which are the "good dogs", does anyone know?  I don't think any rescue groups like mine deliberately take in the bad dogs.  Our foster families are a typical US family willing to open their homes and within the home are children and other pets.  We tell shelters at a  minimum that the dog has to get along with other dogs and not aggressive in any way.  The dog may be a "good dog" at the shelter but when placed in a new environment, family home, the dog will be different.  So maybe the "bad dogs" in the shelter will turn out to be the real "good dogs".  I got the biggest kick out of my latest foster because by its reaction, the dog had never seen or heard the sounds that come out of a tv.  So funny but so sad.

My rescued organization has recently segmented its experienced foster families and place in their homes dogs that have been at a shelter for more than year.  We do have good success in placing dogs, especially those that are hard to place.  I have one of these dogs as a foster that came from another foster family (overwhelmed)  in the program.  These long term shelter dogs present a whole new rehab process to get them prepared for their forever home.

 

Good dogs are those that have an inherently stable temperament, such that they do not pose a risk to the public.  That doesn't mean that they are trained, or housebroken, or that they don't have any behavior issues whatsoever.  It does mean that you don't save a dog with separation anxiety (that will destroy someone's home, or be rehomed five more times without the owners telling why, so that the dog won't be PTS, only to have it be TS when the fifth owner can no longer take it) when you have a dog in the next kennel slated for the dead bin because of space concerns.  How many dogs could you have placed in the same time period that you devoted to the dogs who did have severe problems, had you had an evaluation process in place?  Just because you saved ten, doesn't mean that you couldn't have saved twenty!  Anyone with the guts, just take a look at dogsindanger.com.  Many of those poor dogs have no issues at all, except that they had no home.  Sheba was a temperamentally sound dog that you did help save, and those are the dogs that die every day in the south - in some counties they die three days per week by being gassed to death.  I have a shelter not too far from me that goes to Puerto Rico to import dogs.  Why?  Because they can get small dogs that the public currently wants.  But, sad to say, many of them have severe behavior problems and are nasty (lots of Chi mixes).  Recently, they have started working with some shelters in the south.  IMO, the quality of the dogs as family pets has increased dramatically.  And, there aren't that many homes that are all that savvy.  The dogs need to be able to fit into the average household with kids, because that's who your average adopter is.  This argument makes no sense.  Think about it.  Should we euthanize ten Lassies so that we can save one Cujo?

Your point about dogs being different in the shelter situation is well taken, but it still doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt, to the best of our ability, to determine in advance the safety level of the dogs we foist upon the public.  Certainly, there will be times when we are not so accurate in our assumptions, but we'll be a whole lot more successful if we do attempt to discern the safe from the not so safe.  After all, the object is to save as many as we can, and also to have the public have confidence in the shelter/rescue system as a good place to get a dog. You won't do that by having too many tales of SA and DA/HA get around about your shelter or rescue, and that's when people end up going to the pet store...

Dog_ma

ron2

Dog_ma

But where you rant - makes a lot of difference. On a board that is known for having a history of "sides" and bad feelings

I'm was wondering if someone had the guts to post this. Before I get red-inked, let me say this explains a lot. SD is not allowed to rant here because of who she is and who is either on her side or not on her side.

 

No, Ron, you completely missed the point. Sad.  

Not sad - accurate, and in Ron's usual tradition of calling a spade a spade, nicely.

Maybe he "missed the point" because a thread that should easily have disappeared within one page, now has 178+ posts basically bashing me for having one tiny rant.  Sheesh

It is simply not the case that any one person or group is "allowed" or "not allowed" to post things that other people or groups are not.  It is the case that posting anything on an internet forum opens up discussion.  That's sort of the point.  In any case, discussion about the "allowed/not allowed" idea is a) off topic on this thread and b) pointless, since as with so many other subjects, no wide-spread agreement is going to take place.  

Everyone is responsible for what they post.  Everyone has to accept that posting may result in responses they don't like or agree with.   People may not like that, but I guarantee I'd have an awful lot more complaints if I red inked any post that disagreed with the original. 

Back to the original topic, or leave the thread alone.  End of story.