"sionnach" wrote in message
...

What you're not getting, Alison, is that Cesar is not the first person
the
dog has behaved that way with, and that there ARE dogs out there who
CHOOSE to physically go after humans simply because it gets them their
own way. Just because the theory of "dominance" is widely over-applied
doesn't mean that there aren't obnoxiously - sometimes dangerously -
dominant dogs in existence.

Yes , I should bear this in mind.
In this instance though I feel if Cesar had taken a different action
perhaps the whole thing could possibly have been avoided.
Alison
Alison

In article ,
"Alison" wrote:

"Janet Boss" wrote in message
...
.

Do you know what shock is?


Do you?

Alison

Absolutely. It is an actual physical condition, that is not easily
diagnosed via a cyber-video.

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

In article ,
"Alison" wrote:


I agree Hamster Face had to take action but it could have ended when the
dog first sat down.

Really? How so? How would it have ended? In bloodshed? That wouldn't
have been my choice!

Yikes. Didn't notice the leash. ! If you were
handling this dog, I doubt if this situation would have happened in the
first place.

I doubt it would have played out specifically this way, as I would have
made better choices of tools. I don't doubt that this dog really wanted
his own way though and would use his teeth to achieve that. And I
*have* held dogs off (and never off the ground). It isn't fun.

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

"Janet Boss" wrote in message
...
Absolutely. It is an actual physical condition, that is not easily
diagnosed via a cyber-video.

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

That's very good
Alison

In article ,
"Alison" wrote:


That's very good

Cyber-vetting is never a good idea. Without looking at things like
capillary refill rate, taking the dog's temp/feeling the dog's body
temp, taking the dog's pulse, seeing the pupils clearly, etc, saying the
dog was "in shock" is just a hysterical reaction, not based on reality.

Was the dog worn out? You bet. Was he in shock? I sincerely doubt it.

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

On Fri, 08 May 2009 07:25:05 -0400, Janet Boss
wrote:

In article ,
"Alison" wrote:

"Janet Boss" wrote in message
...
.

Do you know what shock is?


Do you?

Alison

Absolutely. It is an actual physical condition, that is not easily
diagnosed via a cyber-video.

Exactly. And although this dog was undoubtedly completely shut down,
I don't think he was in shock.

"Janet Boss" wrote in message
...
Cyber-vetting is never a good idea. Without looking at things like
capillary refill rate, taking the dog's temp/feeling the dog's body
temp, taking the dog's pulse, seeing the pupils clearly, etc, saying the
dog was "in shock" is just a hysterical reaction, not based on reality.

Was the dog worn out? You bet. Was he in shock? I sincerely doubt
it.

Forgive my "hysterical reaction" but the dog had his airway cut off by a
leash; painful and frightening, I think he'd be feeling a bit more than
worn out.

By the way, I said
He is in shock and shuts down.

We know what you think about the "in shock" part so how about the "shuts
down" part. Can you cyber diagnose that, is that a hysterical reaction?

Alison

In article ,
"Alison" wrote:


Forgive my "hysterical reaction" but the dog had his airway cut off by a
leash; painful and frightening, I think he'd be feeling a bit more than
worn out.

No, his airway was not "cut off". He would have passed out if that was
the case. Was it restricted? Yup. That was the point. Preventing
mauling is funny that way. Painful? Who knows. Frightening? Yes. As
I said in another post, the fact that the leash made into a slip lead
didn't release at all probably added to panic. OTOH, a video doesn't
tell the whole story and preventing mauling was really the need there.

By the way, I said
He is in shock and shuts down.

We know what you think about the "in shock" part so how about the "shuts
down" part. Can you cyber diagnose that, is that a hysterical reaction?

Of course he shut down - if he had kept going, that would have been very
bad indeed. He MENTALLY shut down and his body was tired from fighting.
Did you really expect the result of his being prevented from mauling to
be that he would suddenly be sitting politely on a loose leash?

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

On Fri, 08 May 2009 09:56:40 -0400, Janet Boss
wrote:

In article ,
"Alison" wrote:


Forgive my "hysterical reaction" but the dog had his airway cut off by a
leash; painful and frightening, I think he'd be feeling a bit more than
worn out.

No, his airway was not "cut off". He would have passed out if that was
the case. Was it restricted? Yup. That was the point. Preventing
mauling is funny that way. Painful? Who knows. Frightening? Yes. As
I said in another post, the fact that the leash made into a slip lead
didn't release at all probably added to panic. OTOH, a video doesn't
tell the whole story and preventing mauling was really the need there.

You know what else is frightening, having a dog come after you with
flashing teeth is frightening. I've only had it happen once, in sort
of a similar situation as this, but I intend to make sure it doesn't
happen again. I'm not sure why Allison is being so confrontational
about this, and I am not a Cesar fan, but I fail to see what calling
him "Hamster Face" adds to the discussion. Allison, you don't like
Cesar, so don't watch him. You posted a video which you think shows
some horrible things that others don't see. So what? There aren't
many (if any) Cesar fans here, but most people think that avoiding
being chewed up by a dog is a good thing.

"Alison" wrote in message
...
"sionnach" wrote in message
...

What you're not getting, Alison, is that Cesar is not the first person
the
dog has behaved that way with, and that there ARE dogs out there who
CHOOSE to physically go after humans simply because it gets them their
own way. Just because the theory of "dominance" is widely over-applied
doesn't mean that there aren't obnoxiously - sometimes dangerously -
dominant dogs in existence.

Yes , I should bear this in mind.
In this instance though I feel if Cesar had taken a different action
perhaps the whole thing could possibly have been avoided.

It may have been avoided in this particular instance, but it would have
done nothing to identify and correct the underlying problem. The dog would
have continued to consider it OK to use force and teeth to get its own way,
and every time he was successful at that, it reinforced the idea. That is a
problem I have with pure positive methods. If a dog (or a person, or other
creature) has a certain "criminal" mentality, then the first choice of
action will be one that is "unacceptable" in normal society. If it is
rewarded, then it is reinforced, which *is* a positive method with an
unwanted result. Some such behaviors are actually so "self-rewarding" that
the use of treats and bribes is ineffective. It is necessary to prevent
these behaviors by force to avoid injury to others, but it is unclear
whether simple punishment provides enough of a deterent to prevent future
incidents. In such a case, with such a mentality, the only viable option
may be extreme management, such as long-term imprisonment. It may not fix
the mentality, but at least protects those who follow the rules. In the
case of people, it is too controversial to suggest they be executed (unless
they have taken a life), but in the case of a dog I feel that, if
reasonable efforts fail, euthanasia is actually less cruel than keeping it
caged, muzzled, chained, and otherwise managed. And there is always the
possibility of escape and additional, even more savage, mayhem.

Paul and Muttley