When is euth. warranted?

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:02:53 -0600, diddy
wrote:

Aren't English Springer Spaniel's subject to sudden rage syndrome? i always
had a sneaking suspiscion that this was the case with Teena. I never felt
it was mismanagement, mishandling, or anything else. Simply a genetic
malfunction.

Since I could not diagnose the dog from afar, there was no use for comment.
But considering the breed (big tipoff here) and the sudden idiopathic
aggression, I would suspect strongly that SRS was at work here. IF SRS was
the case, I feel euth was justified.

Perhaps. I can't say. I'm sorry for Kate's loss, and I would not
have stepped into this thread, except I read a post about how Kate
responded when the dog first growled at her, while she was grooming
it. She glared at it and said, "Don't you ever do that again!" And
then she continued grooming it.

That is mishandling, plain and simple. It validates the dog's
impression that it has been threatened and needs to take a stand. It
makes the problem worse.

Same thing when a dog growls if you take away its toy. Some people
(many people) set the situation up repeatedly to "teach" the dog that
they are the master and have the "right" to take the toy anytime they
want. And it always makes things worse!

If, on the other hand, the handler defers, backs off, and avoids
repeating the trigger situation, the behavior will often de-escalate
and become less frequent/severe. This is why experts advise owners in
that situation to put all toys out of the dog's reach, and only bring
them out for structured play. That is how you teach the dog whose toy
it really is -- by becoming the source of toys rather than the thief
of toys.

Another related problem is that of the dog who growls when its feeding
is disturbed. The right answer (assuming the dog is not flat-out
vicious) is to sit by the empty bowl and drop kibbles into it one by
one or a few at a time, so the dog comes to associate the hand with
feeding instead of competition for the food. DO NOT repeatedly put
the dog in a situation where it is encouraged to defend its food by
growling, just to show that you can take the food away if you want.
And that's what some of these "alpha" trainers do!

As for Teena, I am aware that spontaneous aggression can be an
inherited trait. My aunt has a poodle like that, and Teena may have
had this condition as well. But, she didn't get the best possible
chance at life, because she was in fact mishandled.

hCharlie

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:02:53 -0600, diddy
wrote:

Aren't English Springer Spaniel's subject to sudden rage syndrome? i always
had a sneaking suspiscion that this was the case with Teena. I never felt
it was mismanagement, mishandling, or anything else. Simply a genetic
malfunction.

Since I could not diagnose the dog from afar, there was no use for comment.
But considering the breed (big tipoff here) and the sudden idiopathic
aggression, I would suspect strongly that SRS was at work here. IF SRS was
the case, I feel euth was justified.

Perhaps. I can't say. I'm sorry for Kate's loss, and I would not
have stepped into this thread, except I read a post about how Kate
responded when the dog first growled at her, while she was grooming
it. She glared at it and said, "Don't you ever do that again!" And
then she continued grooming it.

That is mishandling, plain and simple. It validates the dog's
impression that it has been threatened and needs to take a stand. It
makes the problem worse.

Same thing when a dog growls if you take away its toy. Some people
(many people) set the situation up repeatedly to "teach" the dog that
they are the master and have the "right" to take the toy anytime they
want. And it always makes things worse!

If, on the other hand, the handler defers, backs off, and avoids
repeating the trigger situation, the behavior will often de-escalate
and become less frequent/severe. This is why experts advise owners in
that situation to put all toys out of the dog's reach, and only bring
them out for structured play. That is how you teach the dog whose toy
it really is -- by becoming the source of toys rather than the thief
of toys.

Another related problem is that of the dog who growls when its feeding
is disturbed. The right answer (assuming the dog is not flat-out
vicious) is to sit by the empty bowl and drop kibbles into it one by
one or a few at a time, so the dog comes to associate the hand with
feeding instead of competition for the food. DO NOT repeatedly put
the dog in a situation where it is encouraged to defend its food by
growling, just to show that you can take the food away if you want.
And that's what some of these "alpha" trainers do!

As for Teena, I am aware that spontaneous aggression can be an
inherited trait. My aunt has a poodle like that, and Teena may have
had this condition as well. But, she didn't get the best possible
chance at life, because she was in fact mishandled.

hCharlie

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:02:53 -0600, diddy
wrote:

Aren't English Springer Spaniel's subject to sudden rage syndrome? i always
had a sneaking suspiscion that this was the case with Teena. I never felt
it was mismanagement, mishandling, or anything else. Simply a genetic
malfunction.

Since I could not diagnose the dog from afar, there was no use for comment.
But considering the breed (big tipoff here) and the sudden idiopathic
aggression, I would suspect strongly that SRS was at work here. IF SRS was
the case, I feel euth was justified.

Perhaps. I can't say. I'm sorry for Kate's loss, and I would not
have stepped into this thread, except I read a post about how Kate
responded when the dog first growled at her, while she was grooming
it. She glared at it and said, "Don't you ever do that again!" And
then she continued grooming it.

That is mishandling, plain and simple. It validates the dog's
impression that it has been threatened and needs to take a stand. It
makes the problem worse.

Same thing when a dog growls if you take away its toy. Some people
(many people) set the situation up repeatedly to "teach" the dog that
they are the master and have the "right" to take the toy anytime they
want. And it always makes things worse!

If, on the other hand, the handler defers, backs off, and avoids
repeating the trigger situation, the behavior will often de-escalate
and become less frequent/severe. This is why experts advise owners in
that situation to put all toys out of the dog's reach, and only bring
them out for structured play. That is how you teach the dog whose toy
it really is -- by becoming the source of toys rather than the thief
of toys.

Another related problem is that of the dog who growls when its feeding
is disturbed. The right answer (assuming the dog is not flat-out
vicious) is to sit by the empty bowl and drop kibbles into it one by
one or a few at a time, so the dog comes to associate the hand with
feeding instead of competition for the food. DO NOT repeatedly put
the dog in a situation where it is encouraged to defend its food by
growling, just to show that you can take the food away if you want.
And that's what some of these "alpha" trainers do!

As for Teena, I am aware that spontaneous aggression can be an
inherited trait. My aunt has a poodle like that, and Teena may have
had this condition as well. But, she didn't get the best possible
chance at life, because she was in fact mishandled.

hCharlie

KWBrown wrote:

Teena's breeder has clearly seen this kind of behavioural slide befo
and we may be able to say more fairly that there are unstable dogs in
the breed (Teena being one) than to blame it all on dramatic "Springer
Rage."

No, of course not. Springer Rage is not sparked by
aggressive grooming. Teena's rage was just plain normal
dog reaction against abnormal pain and discomfort.


I think we're looking at two issues he

1) The question asked by the OP: When is it warranted to put a dog
down? Here, Michael claims "never,"

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAA!!!!

Uncle Matty tried that one on me too!

I claimed nothing of the sort. I'm simply
looking at your case individually.


and Charlie accepts that sometimes
a dog has to be euthanized, although he's mostly considering physically
ill animals. My choice in this behaviour-related episode was driven by
the fact that this dog was becoming more and more unreliable.

Sure. We'll buy that. And it had nothing to do with
YOUR behavior, right? It just "happened"

BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAA!!!!


There are some people who keep a dog who has bitten
numerous people, on numerous occasions. I lived with
such a dog for years, although he wasn't mine.

Here's what a truly "dangerous" dog looks like.


http://dogtv.com/meekpostfightsun.JPG

He is the rare type of dog who would actually
sometimes attack people who were doing nothing to
warrant that attack (such as walking out the front
door).

But even he wasn't really that dangerous if you didn't
do anything to cause yourself to get bit, because the
vast majority of dog bites are caused by too much
aggression. By the human. Even with a dog like the
above. He was easy for me to train and handle,
though.

But there's two sides to every dog, and you only gave
us one side of Teena. The side that heelped justify
what you did.

here's another side of MeeKim after a few years of my
training.

http://dogtv.com/Meeksmile.JPG


You killed your dog not for biting, but for
protesting and threatening to bite you because of
your aggressive and (to her) abusive handling and
grooming and discipline.

And your ego was bruised. After all, you are a "dog
lover" right. You are a dog "expert" right? You take
your dogs to shows and you have a reputation in the
community as a wonderful dog person. Right?

No dog should *ever* threaten to bite you, or try
to defend itself against you, right???

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

THAT's why Teena had to die. For bruising your ego.
She got tired of your Toxic Mommying, which had gone
on for YEARS, not just this one incident, the kind of
Toxic Mommying that your FlatHeaded Retriever might
be more amenable to, and for that, Teena had to die.

Just admit that, and my fans will all have a lot
more respect for you.

You, like Tara O. killed a dog who had apparently never
bitten anyone. And now, of course, you want to make
yourself out to be the hero.

This is classic. You are going to tell us that

A. you had no other options
B. you were doing it for "the children"
C. you were doing it for the dog so
she would not have to suffer anymore.
D. to save society

these reasons are classic and predictable, and they
work on most people. But I'm not most people. I'm the
antithesis of the anti-dog "humane" movement which
right now is personified by Sue Sternberg.

I am the force which is going to destroy her career
and the careers of all sorts of people who have made
a good living making dogs the enemy.

You are a small fish, and I'm only using you as fodder
to go after the big fish. Your case is really not
important to me.

If you want to kill your own dog, for whatever reason,
that's up to you. I don't think you're a criminal. All
I'm concerned with is the big picture. Public policy,
intolerance for dogs and their behavior and their
existence and their body parts.

The notion that a dog who ever bites someone or who
threatens to bite someone is "vicious" and should be
quarantied or put down. This is terrible for all dogs
and all dog owners and it needs to be reversed.

Not just for my sake, but for all of our sakes.
We, as dog owners need to start protecting ourselves
against the anti-dog machinery which has hijacked the
Dog Game over the past 20-30 years.

Each time a dog is killed for trivial reasons, it's not
the killing of the dog that is the tragedy, it's the
precendent it sets. It's the anti-dog public policy it
supports.

It's the anti-dog machinery it bolsters, the machinery
personified by humane societies and shelters and "dog
experts" who have hijacked the dog game by making dogs
out as demons that only they can protect us from.

It is this machinery that Michael is concerned with.

It's that machinery Michael is going to dismantle.

One last question, if I might. You used a shock
collar on your retreivers. Did you ever use a shock
collar on Teena to try to control her aggression?

thank you.


this is m-ichael
report-ing live...
http://dogtv.co-m



and that
there were children whose faces are at the level of her teeth in and out
of my home. I would not accept this animal as a trustworthy member of
our househould any more and, furthermore, would not accept the legal and
moral liability if she *ever* bit *anyone* *anytime* after these
documented incidents.

2) How did the dog become dangerously aggressive? The Peanut Gallery
votes for handler incompetence, which is their prerogative, given that
this is a dog they've never seen, in the hands of someone with years of
experience with multiple dogs, none of whom have ever so much as looked
at me crosswise. Teena came to me in pretty bad shape and made
remarkable improvement over several years of intensive work and
training, most of which involved lots and lots of cookies. The progress
we made together is why this terrible slide downhill was so
heartbreaking.

Of course, anyone who believes that routinely grooming a coated dog is,
in and of itself, an act of incompetent handling, needs some time in a
shelter cleaning up a dog whose owner didn't think mats were such a big
deal.

In the end, I have the work of two vets, a behaviourist, a trainer, and
the dog's own breeder supporting the diagnosis of escalating aggression,
and am comfortable with my decision, however sad.

Kate

KWBrown wrote:

Teena's breeder has clearly seen this kind of behavioural slide befo
and we may be able to say more fairly that there are unstable dogs in
the breed (Teena being one) than to blame it all on dramatic "Springer
Rage."

No, of course not. Springer Rage is not sparked by
aggressive grooming. Teena's rage was just plain normal
dog reaction against abnormal pain and discomfort.


I think we're looking at two issues he

1) The question asked by the OP: When is it warranted to put a dog
down? Here, Michael claims "never,"

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAA!!!!

Uncle Matty tried that one on me too!

I claimed nothing of the sort. I'm simply
looking at your case individually.


and Charlie accepts that sometimes
a dog has to be euthanized, although he's mostly considering physically
ill animals. My choice in this behaviour-related episode was driven by
the fact that this dog was becoming more and more unreliable.

Sure. We'll buy that. And it had nothing to do with
YOUR behavior, right? It just "happened"

BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAA!!!!


There are some people who keep a dog who has bitten
numerous people, on numerous occasions. I lived with
such a dog for years, although he wasn't mine.

Here's what a truly "dangerous" dog looks like.


http://dogtv.com/meekpostfightsun.JPG

He is the rare type of dog who would actually
sometimes attack people who were doing nothing to
warrant that attack (such as walking out the front
door).

But even he wasn't really that dangerous if you didn't
do anything to cause yourself to get bit, because the
vast majority of dog bites are caused by too much
aggression. By the human. Even with a dog like the
above. He was easy for me to train and handle,
though.

But there's two sides to every dog, and you only gave
us one side of Teena. The side that heelped justify
what you did.

here's another side of MeeKim after a few years of my
training.

http://dogtv.com/Meeksmile.JPG


You killed your dog not for biting, but for
protesting and threatening to bite you because of
your aggressive and (to her) abusive handling and
grooming and discipline.

And your ego was bruised. After all, you are a "dog
lover" right. You are a dog "expert" right? You take
your dogs to shows and you have a reputation in the
community as a wonderful dog person. Right?

No dog should *ever* threaten to bite you, or try
to defend itself against you, right???

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

THAT's why Teena had to die. For bruising your ego.
She got tired of your Toxic Mommying, which had gone
on for YEARS, not just this one incident, the kind of
Toxic Mommying that your FlatHeaded Retriever might
be more amenable to, and for that, Teena had to die.

Just admit that, and my fans will all have a lot
more respect for you.

You, like Tara O. killed a dog who had apparently never
bitten anyone. And now, of course, you want to make
yourself out to be the hero.

This is classic. You are going to tell us that

A. you had no other options
B. you were doing it for "the children"
C. you were doing it for the dog so
she would not have to suffer anymore.
D. to save society

these reasons are classic and predictable, and they
work on most people. But I'm not most people. I'm the
antithesis of the anti-dog "humane" movement which
right now is personified by Sue Sternberg.

I am the force which is going to destroy her career
and the careers of all sorts of people who have made
a good living making dogs the enemy.

You are a small fish, and I'm only using you as fodder
to go after the big fish. Your case is really not
important to me.

If you want to kill your own dog, for whatever reason,
that's up to you. I don't think you're a criminal. All
I'm concerned with is the big picture. Public policy,
intolerance for dogs and their behavior and their
existence and their body parts.

The notion that a dog who ever bites someone or who
threatens to bite someone is "vicious" and should be
quarantied or put down. This is terrible for all dogs
and all dog owners and it needs to be reversed.

Not just for my sake, but for all of our sakes.
We, as dog owners need to start protecting ourselves
against the anti-dog machinery which has hijacked the
Dog Game over the past 20-30 years.

Each time a dog is killed for trivial reasons, it's not
the killing of the dog that is the tragedy, it's the
precendent it sets. It's the anti-dog public policy it
supports.

It's the anti-dog machinery it bolsters, the machinery
personified by humane societies and shelters and "dog
experts" who have hijacked the dog game by making dogs
out as demons that only they can protect us from.

It is this machinery that Michael is concerned with.

It's that machinery Michael is going to dismantle.

One last question, if I might. You used a shock
collar on your retreivers. Did you ever use a shock
collar on Teena to try to control her aggression?

thank you.


this is m-ichael
report-ing live...
http://dogtv.co-m



and that
there were children whose faces are at the level of her teeth in and out
of my home. I would not accept this animal as a trustworthy member of
our househould any more and, furthermore, would not accept the legal and
moral liability if she *ever* bit *anyone* *anytime* after these
documented incidents.

2) How did the dog become dangerously aggressive? The Peanut Gallery
votes for handler incompetence, which is their prerogative, given that
this is a dog they've never seen, in the hands of someone with years of
experience with multiple dogs, none of whom have ever so much as looked
at me crosswise. Teena came to me in pretty bad shape and made
remarkable improvement over several years of intensive work and
training, most of which involved lots and lots of cookies. The progress
we made together is why this terrible slide downhill was so
heartbreaking.

Of course, anyone who believes that routinely grooming a coated dog is,
in and of itself, an act of incompetent handling, needs some time in a
shelter cleaning up a dog whose owner didn't think mats were such a big
deal.

In the end, I have the work of two vets, a behaviourist, a trainer, and
the dog's own breeder supporting the diagnosis of escalating aggression,
and am comfortable with my decision, however sad.

Kate

KWBrown wrote:

Teena's breeder has clearly seen this kind of behavioural slide befo
and we may be able to say more fairly that there are unstable dogs in
the breed (Teena being one) than to blame it all on dramatic "Springer
Rage."

No, of course not. Springer Rage is not sparked by
aggressive grooming. Teena's rage was just plain normal
dog reaction against abnormal pain and discomfort.


I think we're looking at two issues he

1) The question asked by the OP: When is it warranted to put a dog
down? Here, Michael claims "never,"

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAA!!!!

Uncle Matty tried that one on me too!

I claimed nothing of the sort. I'm simply
looking at your case individually.


and Charlie accepts that sometimes
a dog has to be euthanized, although he's mostly considering physically
ill animals. My choice in this behaviour-related episode was driven by
the fact that this dog was becoming more and more unreliable.

Sure. We'll buy that. And it had nothing to do with
YOUR behavior, right? It just "happened"

BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAA!!!!


There are some people who keep a dog who has bitten
numerous people, on numerous occasions. I lived with
such a dog for years, although he wasn't mine.

Here's what a truly "dangerous" dog looks like.


http://dogtv.com/meekpostfightsun.JPG

He is the rare type of dog who would actually
sometimes attack people who were doing nothing to
warrant that attack (such as walking out the front
door).

But even he wasn't really that dangerous if you didn't
do anything to cause yourself to get bit, because the
vast majority of dog bites are caused by too much
aggression. By the human. Even with a dog like the
above. He was easy for me to train and handle,
though.

But there's two sides to every dog, and you only gave
us one side of Teena. The side that heelped justify
what you did.

here's another side of MeeKim after a few years of my
training.

http://dogtv.com/Meeksmile.JPG


You killed your dog not for biting, but for
protesting and threatening to bite you because of
your aggressive and (to her) abusive handling and
grooming and discipline.

And your ego was bruised. After all, you are a "dog
lover" right. You are a dog "expert" right? You take
your dogs to shows and you have a reputation in the
community as a wonderful dog person. Right?

No dog should *ever* threaten to bite you, or try
to defend itself against you, right???

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

THAT's why Teena had to die. For bruising your ego.
She got tired of your Toxic Mommying, which had gone
on for YEARS, not just this one incident, the kind of
Toxic Mommying that your FlatHeaded Retriever might
be more amenable to, and for that, Teena had to die.

Just admit that, and my fans will all have a lot
more respect for you.

You, like Tara O. killed a dog who had apparently never
bitten anyone. And now, of course, you want to make
yourself out to be the hero.

This is classic. You are going to tell us that

A. you had no other options
B. you were doing it for "the children"
C. you were doing it for the dog so
she would not have to suffer anymore.
D. to save society

these reasons are classic and predictable, and they
work on most people. But I'm not most people. I'm the
antithesis of the anti-dog "humane" movement which
right now is personified by Sue Sternberg.

I am the force which is going to destroy her career
and the careers of all sorts of people who have made
a good living making dogs the enemy.

You are a small fish, and I'm only using you as fodder
to go after the big fish. Your case is really not
important to me.

If you want to kill your own dog, for whatever reason,
that's up to you. I don't think you're a criminal. All
I'm concerned with is the big picture. Public policy,
intolerance for dogs and their behavior and their
existence and their body parts.

The notion that a dog who ever bites someone or who
threatens to bite someone is "vicious" and should be
quarantied or put down. This is terrible for all dogs
and all dog owners and it needs to be reversed.

Not just for my sake, but for all of our sakes.
We, as dog owners need to start protecting ourselves
against the anti-dog machinery which has hijacked the
Dog Game over the past 20-30 years.

Each time a dog is killed for trivial reasons, it's not
the killing of the dog that is the tragedy, it's the
precendent it sets. It's the anti-dog public policy it
supports.

It's the anti-dog machinery it bolsters, the machinery
personified by humane societies and shelters and "dog
experts" who have hijacked the dog game by making dogs
out as demons that only they can protect us from.

It is this machinery that Michael is concerned with.

It's that machinery Michael is going to dismantle.

One last question, if I might. You used a shock
collar on your retreivers. Did you ever use a shock
collar on Teena to try to control her aggression?

thank you.


this is m-ichael
report-ing live...
http://dogtv.co-m



and that
there were children whose faces are at the level of her teeth in and out
of my home. I would not accept this animal as a trustworthy member of
our househould any more and, furthermore, would not accept the legal and
moral liability if she *ever* bit *anyone* *anytime* after these
documented incidents.

2) How did the dog become dangerously aggressive? The Peanut Gallery
votes for handler incompetence, which is their prerogative, given that
this is a dog they've never seen, in the hands of someone with years of
experience with multiple dogs, none of whom have ever so much as looked
at me crosswise. Teena came to me in pretty bad shape and made
remarkable improvement over several years of intensive work and
training, most of which involved lots and lots of cookies. The progress
we made together is why this terrible slide downhill was so
heartbreaking.

Of course, anyone who believes that routinely grooming a coated dog is,
in and of itself, an act of incompetent handling, needs some time in a
shelter cleaning up a dog whose owner didn't think mats were such a big
deal.

In the end, I have the work of two vets, a behaviourist, a trainer, and
the dog's own breeder supporting the diagnosis of escalating aggression,
and am comfortable with my decision, however sad.

Kate

KWBrown wrote:

Teena's breeder has clearly seen this kind of behavioural slide befo
and we may be able to say more fairly that there are unstable dogs in
the breed (Teena being one) than to blame it all on dramatic "Springer
Rage."

No, of course not. Springer Rage is not sparked by
aggressive grooming. Teena's rage was just plain normal
dog reaction against abnormal pain and discomfort.


I think we're looking at two issues he

1) The question asked by the OP: When is it warranted to put a dog
down? Here, Michael claims "never,"

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAA!!!!

Uncle Matty tried that one on me too!

I claimed nothing of the sort. I'm simply
looking at your case individually.


and Charlie accepts that sometimes
a dog has to be euthanized, although he's mostly considering physically
ill animals. My choice in this behaviour-related episode was driven by
the fact that this dog was becoming more and more unreliable.

Sure. We'll buy that. And it had nothing to do with
YOUR behavior, right? It just "happened"

BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAA!!!!


There are some people who keep a dog who has bitten
numerous people, on numerous occasions. I lived with
such a dog for years, although he wasn't mine.

Here's what a truly "dangerous" dog looks like.


http://dogtv.com/meekpostfightsun.JPG

He is the rare type of dog who would actually
sometimes attack people who were doing nothing to
warrant that attack (such as walking out the front
door).

But even he wasn't really that dangerous if you didn't
do anything to cause yourself to get bit, because the
vast majority of dog bites are caused by too much
aggression. By the human. Even with a dog like the
above. He was easy for me to train and handle,
though.

But there's two sides to every dog, and you only gave
us one side of Teena. The side that heelped justify
what you did.

here's another side of MeeKim after a few years of my
training.

http://dogtv.com/Meeksmile.JPG


You killed your dog not for biting, but for
protesting and threatening to bite you because of
your aggressive and (to her) abusive handling and
grooming and discipline.

And your ego was bruised. After all, you are a "dog
lover" right. You are a dog "expert" right? You take
your dogs to shows and you have a reputation in the
community as a wonderful dog person. Right?

No dog should *ever* threaten to bite you, or try
to defend itself against you, right???

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

THAT's why Teena had to die. For bruising your ego.
She got tired of your Toxic Mommying, which had gone
on for YEARS, not just this one incident, the kind of
Toxic Mommying that your FlatHeaded Retriever might
be more amenable to, and for that, Teena had to die.

Just admit that, and my fans will all have a lot
more respect for you.

You, like Tara O. killed a dog who had apparently never
bitten anyone. And now, of course, you want to make
yourself out to be the hero.

This is classic. You are going to tell us that

A. you had no other options
B. you were doing it for "the children"
C. you were doing it for the dog so
she would not have to suffer anymore.
D. to save society

these reasons are classic and predictable, and they
work on most people. But I'm not most people. I'm the
antithesis of the anti-dog "humane" movement which
right now is personified by Sue Sternberg.

I am the force which is going to destroy her career
and the careers of all sorts of people who have made
a good living making dogs the enemy.

You are a small fish, and I'm only using you as fodder
to go after the big fish. Your case is really not
important to me.

If you want to kill your own dog, for whatever reason,
that's up to you. I don't think you're a criminal. All
I'm concerned with is the big picture. Public policy,
intolerance for dogs and their behavior and their
existence and their body parts.

The notion that a dog who ever bites someone or who
threatens to bite someone is "vicious" and should be
quarantied or put down. This is terrible for all dogs
and all dog owners and it needs to be reversed.

Not just for my sake, but for all of our sakes.
We, as dog owners need to start protecting ourselves
against the anti-dog machinery which has hijacked the
Dog Game over the past 20-30 years.

Each time a dog is killed for trivial reasons, it's not
the killing of the dog that is the tragedy, it's the
precendent it sets. It's the anti-dog public policy it
supports.

It's the anti-dog machinery it bolsters, the machinery
personified by humane societies and shelters and "dog
experts" who have hijacked the dog game by making dogs
out as demons that only they can protect us from.

It is this machinery that Michael is concerned with.

It's that machinery Michael is going to dismantle.

One last question, if I might. You used a shock
collar on your retreivers. Did you ever use a shock
collar on Teena to try to control her aggression?

thank you.


this is m-ichael
report-ing live...
http://dogtv.co-m



and that
there were children whose faces are at the level of her teeth in and out
of my home. I would not accept this animal as a trustworthy member of
our househould any more and, furthermore, would not accept the legal and
moral liability if she *ever* bit *anyone* *anytime* after these
documented incidents.

2) How did the dog become dangerously aggressive? The Peanut Gallery
votes for handler incompetence, which is their prerogative, given that
this is a dog they've never seen, in the hands of someone with years of
experience with multiple dogs, none of whom have ever so much as looked
at me crosswise. Teena came to me in pretty bad shape and made
remarkable improvement over several years of intensive work and
training, most of which involved lots and lots of cookies. The progress
we made together is why this terrible slide downhill was so
heartbreaking.

Of course, anyone who believes that routinely grooming a coated dog is,
in and of itself, an act of incompetent handling, needs some time in a
shelter cleaning up a dog whose owner didn't think mats were such a big
deal.

In the end, I have the work of two vets, a behaviourist, a trainer, and
the dog's own breeder supporting the diagnosis of escalating aggression,
and am comfortable with my decision, however sad.

Kate

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:02:53 -0600, diddy
wrote:

Perhaps. I can't say. I'm sorry for Kate's loss, and I would not
have stepped into this thread, except I read a post about how Kate
responded when the dog first growled at her, while she was grooming
it. She glared at it and said, "Don't you ever do that again!" And
then she continued grooming it.

"You're not going to behave that way to ME when
I'm trying to GROOM you!!!"


That is mishandling, plain and simple. It validates the dog's
impression that it has been threatened and needs to take a stand. It
makes the problem worse.

Same thing when a dog growls if you take away its toy. Some people
(many people) set the situation up repeatedly to "teach" the dog that
they are the master and have the "right" to take the toy anytime they
want. And it always makes things worse!

That can work, if the dog is amenable to being overpowered,
and will submit. But ideally, instead of overpowering (which
can cause a backlash in many dogs) we want to teach the dog,
systematically, that we are not a threat or a competitor.

That they don't have to defend themselves or their possessions
from us. This doesn't mean we are "soft" it just means we are smart.


This video, fans, is the best one I know of
to start getting that point across in puppyhood.

http://dogtv.com/kwame.rm

But it's also teaching the dog morality, and the idea
that you don't bite people, no matter what you are doing.

And it's a lesson you never stop teaching. For instance,
I was just interrupted by now 2 year old Kwame Brown,
because he wanted to play tug of war with a towel. So
what I do is, play an aggressive, growling game of tug
of war, and I get my face really close to his (this
causes him to growl more as he is pulling), and we are
really going at it back and forth, and I'm pulling
with one hand and growling and grabbing at his ear
with the other hand, and really getting into it
(and he's loving it, of course...)


and then, suddently,
I put my hand right in his mouth as he's growling and
tugging and I say "nice" which is simply a reminder to
be careful of what you are doing, and he automatically
senses my hand and lets go and waits for the game
to commence again.




this is michael
reporting live...
http://dogtv.com


If, on the other hand, the handler defers, backs off, and avoids
repeating the trigger situation, the behavior will often de-escalate
and become less frequent/severe. This is why experts advise owners in
that situation to put all toys out of the dog's reach, and only bring
them out for structured play. That is how you teach the dog whose toy
it really is -- by becoming the source of toys rather than the thief
of toys.

Another related problem is that of the dog who growls when its feeding
is disturbed. The right answer (assuming the dog is not flat-out
vicious) is to sit by the empty bowl and drop kibbles into it one by
one or a few at a time, so the dog comes to associate the hand with
feeding instead of competition for the food. DO NOT repeatedly put
the dog in a situation where it is encouraged to defend its food by
growling, just to show that you can take the food away if you want.
And that's what some of these "alpha" trainers do!

As for Teena, I am aware that spontaneous aggression can be an
inherited trait. My aunt has a poodle like that, and Teena may have
had this condition as well. But, she didn't get the best possible
chance at life, because she was in fact mishandled.

hCharlie

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:02:53 -0600, diddy
wrote:

Perhaps. I can't say. I'm sorry for Kate's loss, and I would not
have stepped into this thread, except I read a post about how Kate
responded when the dog first growled at her, while she was grooming
it. She glared at it and said, "Don't you ever do that again!" And
then she continued grooming it.

"You're not going to behave that way to ME when
I'm trying to GROOM you!!!"


That is mishandling, plain and simple. It validates the dog's
impression that it has been threatened and needs to take a stand. It
makes the problem worse.

Same thing when a dog growls if you take away its toy. Some people
(many people) set the situation up repeatedly to "teach" the dog that
they are the master and have the "right" to take the toy anytime they
want. And it always makes things worse!

That can work, if the dog is amenable to being overpowered,
and will submit. But ideally, instead of overpowering (which
can cause a backlash in many dogs) we want to teach the dog,
systematically, that we are not a threat or a competitor.

That they don't have to defend themselves or their possessions
from us. This doesn't mean we are "soft" it just means we are smart.


This video, fans, is the best one I know of
to start getting that point across in puppyhood.

http://dogtv.com/kwame.rm

But it's also teaching the dog morality, and the idea
that you don't bite people, no matter what you are doing.

And it's a lesson you never stop teaching. For instance,
I was just interrupted by now 2 year old Kwame Brown,
because he wanted to play tug of war with a towel. So
what I do is, play an aggressive, growling game of tug
of war, and I get my face really close to his (this
causes him to growl more as he is pulling), and we are
really going at it back and forth, and I'm pulling
with one hand and growling and grabbing at his ear
with the other hand, and really getting into it
(and he's loving it, of course...)


and then, suddently,
I put my hand right in his mouth as he's growling and
tugging and I say "nice" which is simply a reminder to
be careful of what you are doing, and he automatically
senses my hand and lets go and waits for the game
to commence again.




this is michael
reporting live...
http://dogtv.com


If, on the other hand, the handler defers, backs off, and avoids
repeating the trigger situation, the behavior will often de-escalate
and become less frequent/severe. This is why experts advise owners in
that situation to put all toys out of the dog's reach, and only bring
them out for structured play. That is how you teach the dog whose toy
it really is -- by becoming the source of toys rather than the thief
of toys.

Another related problem is that of the dog who growls when its feeding
is disturbed. The right answer (assuming the dog is not flat-out
vicious) is to sit by the empty bowl and drop kibbles into it one by
one or a few at a time, so the dog comes to associate the hand with
feeding instead of competition for the food. DO NOT repeatedly put
the dog in a situation where it is encouraged to defend its food by
growling, just to show that you can take the food away if you want.
And that's what some of these "alpha" trainers do!

As for Teena, I am aware that spontaneous aggression can be an
inherited trait. My aunt has a poodle like that, and Teena may have
had this condition as well. But, she didn't get the best possible
chance at life, because she was in fact mishandled.

hCharlie

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:02:53 -0600, diddy
wrote:

Perhaps. I can't say. I'm sorry for Kate's loss, and I would not
have stepped into this thread, except I read a post about how Kate
responded when the dog first growled at her, while she was grooming
it. She glared at it and said, "Don't you ever do that again!" And
then she continued grooming it.

"You're not going to behave that way to ME when
I'm trying to GROOM you!!!"


That is mishandling, plain and simple. It validates the dog's
impression that it has been threatened and needs to take a stand. It
makes the problem worse.

Same thing when a dog growls if you take away its toy. Some people
(many people) set the situation up repeatedly to "teach" the dog that
they are the master and have the "right" to take the toy anytime they
want. And it always makes things worse!

That can work, if the dog is amenable to being overpowered,
and will submit. But ideally, instead of overpowering (which
can cause a backlash in many dogs) we want to teach the dog,
systematically, that we are not a threat or a competitor.

That they don't have to defend themselves or their possessions
from us. This doesn't mean we are "soft" it just means we are smart.


This video, fans, is the best one I know of
to start getting that point across in puppyhood.

http://dogtv.com/kwame.rm

But it's also teaching the dog morality, and the idea
that you don't bite people, no matter what you are doing.

And it's a lesson you never stop teaching. For instance,
I was just interrupted by now 2 year old Kwame Brown,
because he wanted to play tug of war with a towel. So
what I do is, play an aggressive, growling game of tug
of war, and I get my face really close to his (this
causes him to growl more as he is pulling), and we are
really going at it back and forth, and I'm pulling
with one hand and growling and grabbing at his ear
with the other hand, and really getting into it
(and he's loving it, of course...)


and then, suddently,
I put my hand right in his mouth as he's growling and
tugging and I say "nice" which is simply a reminder to
be careful of what you are doing, and he automatically
senses my hand and lets go and waits for the game
to commence again.




this is michael
reporting live...
http://dogtv.com


If, on the other hand, the handler defers, backs off, and avoids
repeating the trigger situation, the behavior will often de-escalate
and become less frequent/severe. This is why experts advise owners in
that situation to put all toys out of the dog's reach, and only bring
them out for structured play. That is how you teach the dog whose toy
it really is -- by becoming the source of toys rather than the thief
of toys.

Another related problem is that of the dog who growls when its feeding
is disturbed. The right answer (assuming the dog is not flat-out
vicious) is to sit by the empty bowl and drop kibbles into it one by
one or a few at a time, so the dog comes to associate the hand with
feeding instead of competition for the food. DO NOT repeatedly put
the dog in a situation where it is encouraged to defend its food by
growling, just to show that you can take the food away if you want.
And that's what some of these "alpha" trainers do!

As for Teena, I am aware that spontaneous aggression can be an
inherited trait. My aunt has a poodle like that, and Teena may have
had this condition as well. But, she didn't get the best possible
chance at life, because she was in fact mishandled.

hCharlie