"diddy" none wrote in message
. ..
I truly believe CM is into saving dogs and rescue. He strongly
supports
spay/neuter and rescue.

Yes, That's one good thing about him.

On the other hand, none of those criticizing
him have elevated themselves to any major level of respect either.

There are many trainers/vets/behaviourists who have criticised him.
I really don't think Jean Donaldson or Nick Dodman are going to worry they
don't have *your* respect.
Alison

On May 10, 10:00�am, diddy none wrote:
I truly believe CM is into saving dogs and rescue. �He strongly supports
spay/neuter and rescue.

I entered Tuck in his valentine contest and got a kind reply, that Tuck was
very worthy, but his selections preferred were spayed/neutered dogs, and
dogs that represent rescues. Because Tuck was intact and not a rescue, he
was not sending the message that CM preferred to send.


Pretty clear "Animal Rights" message there. I'm sure some people think
that's a good thing. As someone who believes in purebred dogs, I find
it to be a very bad thing. He's in H$U$'s pocket, as are a lot of
celebrities, and a lot of lawmakers. I'm very supportive of voluntary
spay and neuter. I'm also very supportive of the people who work hard
to give us good purebred dogs.

"Sandy in OK" wrote in message
...
On May 10, 10:00�am, diddy none wrote:
I truly believe CM is into saving dogs and rescue. �He strongly
supports
spay/neuter and rescue.

I entered Tuck in his valentine contest and got a kind reply, that Tuck
was
very worthy, but his selections preferred were spayed/neutered dogs, and
dogs that represent rescues. Because Tuck was intact and not a rescue, he
was not sending the message that CM preferred to send.


Pretty clear "Animal Rights" message there. I'm sure some people think
that's a good thing. As someone who believes in purebred dogs, I find
it to be a very bad thing. He's in H$U$'s pocket, as are a lot of
celebrities, and a lot of lawmakers. I'm very supportive of voluntary
spay and neuter. I'm also very supportive of the people who work hard
to give us good purebred dogs.

================================================== =====================

Some people seem to have a kneejerk imperative to spay/neuter even when
it's not appropriate. My friend Helene, who originally rescued Muttley and
Lucky, was very quick to get them both neutered ASAP. With Lucky, it was a
good idea as she had already had one or two unwanted litters, and we had
made a commitment to getting her rehomed and did not want to deal with a
bitch in season especially in my house with Muttley. But with Muttley, she
had almost immediately taken him to the vet's to be castrated, and it was
immediately after that I took him to the SPCA, where there was no room and
he would have been destroyed. There was no reason to have him "fixed"
unless his future was assured. As long as he was under control, castration
was not required.

She has been working on a sort-of rescue for another dog, an older Belgian
Malinois named Rambo, and I wanted her to get him out of his precarious
position and out here so I could meet him and try to rehome him. Her first
thought was to get him neutered. And I recall someone here mentioning a
woman who criticized someone else who had an obviously intact dog by
nagging: "When are you going to have those *tumors* removed?" My friend has
also made a few remarks insinuating that male hormones cause much of the
aggressive behavior and crime she sees in the bad neighborhoods she
frequents as a visiting nurse, and I wonder if the drive to castrate may be
just a bit of misogeny?

One-ball Paul* and No-ball Muttley

*I got that nickname when I was bowling a series of strikes, and someone
said. "One ball, Paul!"

diddy wrote:

I pretty much agree with everything you
wrote. The only thing I differ on is this:

The dogs CM deals
with every tv show tend to be the worst of the worst.

I disagree. Every time I've watched his show,
its pretty much been a case of pushy bratty
dog who has had zero consistent limitation
placed on their behavior, and very little
effort put into exercising and training them.

Pretty much just like the vast majority of
dogs that the training group worked with that
wasn't coming in as a clean-slate puppy.

In fact, I found myself wondering what his
results would be if he ever actually *did*
come up against a behavior that couldn't be
solved by taming a bratty temperament. The
fear cases I've seen him work on, I wasn't at
all pleased with his "success", and its
pretty likely that the dog backslid after he
left (as often happens when quick flooding is
used for fear).

So, while I haven't been berating him in this
thread, I can't quite go that far in singing
his praises....because I never really saw him
as going after the particularly hard cases.
This is the first time I've seen him approach
a genuinely tough case.

On May 10, 12:19�pm, "Paul E. Schoen" wrote:
, Purely positive means that something is always added,
and nothing is ever taken away.

I've never met an experienced, effective trainer who does that. Kay
Laurence uses negative punishment. So does Sue Ailsby. (and they are
two of the more positive and effective trainers I've met) Sue even
makes a wonderful case for some uses of negative reinforcement in
clicker training. You always know people on these forums are choosing
to deceive or don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when they
start going on about "purely positive."

"Sandy in OK" wrote in message
...
On May 10, 12:19�pm, "Paul E. Schoen" wrote:
, Purely positive means that something is always added,
and nothing is ever taken away.


I've never met an experienced, effective trainer who does that. Kay
Laurence uses negative punishment. So does Sue Ailsby. (and they are
two of the more positive and effective trainers I've met) Sue even
makes a wonderful case for some uses of negative reinforcement in
clicker training. You always know people on these forums are choosing
to deceive or don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when they
start going on about "purely positive."

================================================== ====================

And I'll take that as a derogatory reference to the "Pure Positive" people
on the Victoria Stilwell forum you've been so active on lately. And what is
your intent by bringing up on that forum what I post here? And then asking
people to PM you so you can pick and choose the parts of my posts that
promote your agenda, whatever that may be?

My point was that the term Pure Positive has nothing to do with the
positive (+) in Skinner's Operant Conditioning quadrants. We all know that
what they mean is that the training is all done with treats and praise and
other non-punitive measures that they consider "positive".

But the VS method certainly uses negative punishment (which sounds much
worse than it is), by removing something of value in order to punish, or
diminish, an unwanted behavior. It's just that the VS camp is so kneejerk
reactive about any sort of physical correction as being harmful and causing
fear, that they refuse to consider it where it is appropriate. And I think
a quick collar pop or an aversive sound or a simulated bite with ones hand,
mostly as an attention getter and an immediate interruption or distraction
to unwanted behavior, is in no way cruel or harmful. It seems that the
extended timeouts and imprisonment in cages or other rooms may be more
harmful in a psychological sense.

Paul and Muttley

On May 10, 1:49�pm, "Paul E. Schoen" wrote:
She has been working on a sort-of rescue for another dog, an older Belgian
Malinois named Rambo, and I wanted her to get him out of his precarious
position and out here so I could meet him and try to rehome him. Her first
thought was to get him neutered. And I recall someone here mentioning a
woman who criticized someone else who had an obviously intact dog by
nagging: "When are you going to have those *tumors* removed?" My friend has
also made a few remarks insinuating that male hormones cause much of the
aggressive behavior and crime she sees in the bad neighborhoods she
frequents as a visiting nurse, and I wonder if the drive to castrate may be
just a bit of misogeny?

Well, as a sexist, I'm sure that's your first thought. I do believe
that ALL rescue dogs need to be spayed and neutered (not just the
males) If I'm not going to breed a female, she's spayed. With pyometra
and all, I think the health risks of leaving intact slightly outweigh
the health risks of spaying for females. And dealing with seasons in a
bitch I'm not going to breed is a PITA. However, I haven't neutered a
non-rescue male dog since I had to deal with the nasty, aggressive
prostate cancer which is more common in neutered males.

On May 10, 3:18�pm, "Paul E. Schoen" wrote:
And I'll take that as a derogatory reference to the "Pure Positive" people
on the Victoria Stilwell forum you've been so active on lately. And what is
your intent by bringing up on that forum what I post here? And then asking
people to PM you so you can pick and choose the parts of my posts that
promote your agenda, whatever that may be?

Haven't seen anyone there identify themselves as "purely positive."
HTH. If I get any takers, I'll just send them a link to this thread
and they can take from it exactly what they wish to. Just thought they
should see what you're like, unmuzzled.

My point was that the term Pure Positive has nothing to do with the
positive (+) in Skinner's Operant Conditioning quadrants. We all know that
what they mean is that the training is all done with treats and praise and
other non-punitive measures that they consider "positive".

Who's "they" that you are talking about? All those "purely positive"
trainers you've identified?

On May 10, 9:15�am, montana wildhack
wrote:
Not Sarah, but I must wonder why you seem to believe that CM is there
to train a dog. CM is filming a TV show and he does what the producers
want him to do to "build the brand" and sell CM stuff.


No disagreement here, but ostensibly the reason people want his brand
is for his skill as a dog trainer.

On 2009-05-11 12:09:36 -0400, Sandy in OK said:

On May 10, 9:15�am, montana wildhack
wrote:
Not Sarah, but I must wonder why you seem to believe that CM is there
to train a dog. CM is filming a TV show and he does what the producers
want him to do to "build the brand" and sell CM stuff.


No disagreement here, but ostensibly the reason people want his brand
is for his skill as a dog trainer.

It's "infotainment". It's about as useful as the fellows who get
dropped off in the middle of nowhere and have to get themselves
rescued. It's all about CM's magic touch. Instantly, all problems are
fixed.

Few are really interested in working with dogs and those who are
interested usually don't hang in as fans. But CM is highly entertaining
and so are the multitudes of clueless owners who Might Even Be
Celebrities Pushing Their Own Reality Shows.

CM is extremely charismatic and evidently has awesome timing. I do not
believe he has much input into his show or his website or his products.