Dominance, pack, alfa...

Sun, 2017-07-16 17:25 — daftcunt

Dominance/alpha dog/pack belief (it's not a theory)

Skip to 2:05 if you actually are aware of what "theory" stands for from a scientific point of view (@skeptoid don't skip to 2:05).

Some thoughts on aversive dog training by the same guy. Why does embedding not work as before?

I would be happy to continue my discussion wth @skeptoid from here of from a re-submission on his dogwalk video....

Average: 3.5 (6 votes)

Comments

skeptoid
(Old Spike)

LOL OMG DaftCunt who are you trying to convince? We've already established that dogs do not form packs with each other and operate with each other within a dominance hierarchy. And this guy's comparison of someone who gets confused on that issue being the same as someone who believes in the Flat Earth immediately discredits him. There is no equivalency whatsoever between those two positions even though both might be misguided. Both my sister and I are not interested in submitting scientific papers for peer-review you arrogant jewel of a man. My sister will continue to apply the methods for extreme problem cases that result in those cases not being destroyed. Period. Perhaps this gentleman could come and observe, learn something and even write a paper about it? If Cesar Millan does not use whatever you think are the proper scientific terms to describe what he's doing it really doesn't matter to anyone other than people like you who are obsessed with such things. All That Matters to my sister is what saves a dog's life. That's it, that's all. So knowing that what would be the beneficial outcome of engaging in a lengthy discussion with my sister on this issue? You're not going to convince her to stop saving dogs.

Mon, 2017-07-17 02:31 |

link to comment

skeptoid
(Old Spike)

I haven't figured out yet how to edit a comment - plastic IQ decreases as one gets older, LOL.

So while I was walking Ziggy a moment ago I thought of a different angle in my attempt to demonstrate to you that I'm arguing about apples and you are arguing about oranges. I'm actually watching over the dogs at the ranch for two days starting Wednesday because my sis and her hubby have to leave town with the kids. I'm going to be going over there tonight for some additional guidance from my sister. I will type out a new reply where I try to show you that there really isn't a disagreement here over anything relevant in terms of dog rehabilitation, and how the adversarial approach towards Cesar and other "idiot savants" by more "educated" science-minded types is helping neither dogs nor a scientific understanding of what's going on with them. So that will be tonight, and should be up by the time you log on again.

Mon, 2017-07-17 03:51 |

link to comment

daftcunt
(Old Spike)

Good, you can comment.

Nobody asked you or anybody to produce a peer reviewed paper, UNLESS your hypothesis CONTRADICTS curren scientific research. DOES IT?

I put this up to pick up where we left it, i.e. where I defined your "coto" for you and you still did not agree or disagree on reward, punishment, positive and negative. Why are you avoiding this?

Take your biased hat off when you watch these things, no one is attacking you or your sister. The guy is simply explaining things in laymens terms. If you disagree with something just tell us.

So you agree that the dominance theory is not valid?

And you agree that dogs are NOT pack animals, despite CM claiming they are?

I have little tim as I am refurbishng the house we bought, so be a little paient please.

Mon, 2017-07-17 05:12 |

link to comment

skeptoid
(Old Spike)

I will respond tonight when I have a lot of time, because it's a big response. I thought it out in muh brain while I was walking Ziggy for an hour, trying to figure out how to contextualize my issues and your issues in a way that fosters the common ground you acknowledge is important to communicate effectively on this.

Mon, 2017-07-17 05:27 |

link to comment

daftcunt
(Old Spike)

Son't bother with a wall of words if you can't even egree on the simplest definitions. It is just definitions, NOT condemning anything or anyone or applied methods.

I think you are pretty insecure about the topic, hence the avoidence and diversions and of course the rather foolish condemning of the guy in the video. It is of no importance what your sister trusts you to do or how many dogs she helped or even "saved". We are talking basics, establishing a common language, nothing more or less.

Mon, 2017-07-17 16:21 |

link to comment

skeptoid
(Old Spike)

Here's your wall of text. I'm not insecure about he subject at all - just sad that your focus seems to be in a place that's largely, although not entirely, irrelevant to what really matters here. And, here we go:

Alright - apologies for the delay. The dogs took so well to me that my sister decided to leave to go camping two days early. I started with 15 yesterday and I'm now down to 10 plus Ziggy as various clients have come to pick up their dogs. I'm impressed with how much work is involved here - lots of physical labor of the sort that has you winking out the moment your head hits the pillow at night.

So now where to begin - I'm going to try and structure this in a way that seeks to offer the greatest possible clarity with the hope of fostering a mutual understanding.

I see this as yet another example of the abstract clashing with the practical in a way that is completely uneccessary. You put a considerable amount of faith in the latest from "science" - I've had enough conversations with you that I feel pretty confident that you "believe in science" in the way a religious person might say they "believe in Jehovah". That's perfectly fine, and very common for the more intellectually-minded. You are looking at what science has to say about canine behavior and thought processes, including correcting or clarifying misnomers/imprecise terminology, and from that abstract altitude you move "inwards" towards ground level when considering the topic of dog training and behavioral modification. Again, this is fine - I do not dismiss the value of this approach, but I will make an argument that by itself this kind of thinking only offers part of the picture (and I think you know that).

There was a poor Mexican boy named Cesar who grew up with a lot of stray dogs and learned how to get them to follow him, obey him, and admire him without being fearful of him. As he developed his understanding - a profound understanding which you cannot deny - he developed his own terminology to describe what he was observing and practicing. He uses terms like pack and pack leader, correction, and descriptors like dominant, insecure, fearful, assertive, calm, aggressive, etc. when describing dog personalities and dog communication. It was never Cesar's intention, nor should it have been, to mate these descriptors with whatever latest development the abstract halls of science were producing. Cesar is the first to say dogs are not wolves. Cesar is the first to say attempting to modify a dog's behavior through aggression and pain is profoundly misguided. When Cesar talks about pack dynamics he is talking about the dynamics of a canine social group. Recent developments in wolf studies - that pack dynamics in the wild are actually familial dynamics - actually support Cesar's understanding in terms of dog behavior if you extrapolate how wolves have been modified by humans. In the wild the parent male takes the dominant role, and most of the rest of the "pack" are related family members, so it's a family dynamic. That said, there is clear documented evidence of wolf packs accepting an outside member who was not observed to be offspring of the parents, and there is documented evidence of wolf packs tearing an outsider to shreds. What is going on there? Well, it could be as simple as accepting an outsider into the social group because they smell like, and are, a cousin of the parents and therefore accepted as familial. Perhaps an outside wolf that is attacked, driven away or killed doesn't smell familiar enough to accept as a family member - it's all very fascinating and the continued study is well worth it.

But with a dog social group it's very apparent that the leadership role typically assigned to the male parent in a wolf pack has been transferred through selective breeding to the human being. We can see the results of this transformation at the physical level - rounded heads suggest the retention of puppy-like neurological features into adulthood, which fosters the dog's tendency to continue to seek attachment to a parental figure throughout its life. In the final stages of late adolesence a wolf undergoes a profound final transformation at the neurological level that renders a dog-like relationship with a human being extremely problematic - they will resist efforts to have them think of their human owner as a parent in the same way a dog does. Nevertheless, in many cases with dogs - not all cases - that parental leadership role must be seized by the human. Yes this often occurs naturally as a dog simply recognizes the parental role the human occupies. Ziggy is a good example of this - I did not have to do a lot of work at all with him in that regard. He just seemed to "get it". I'm sure some of this has to do with the natural inclination of a herding dog - seems like they come prepackaged with a strong desire to seek approval and direction from the parental human as well as a strong desire to complete complex tasks for approval. I still had to teach him a few things mainly (in my mind anyway) for his own safety. I am convinced, based on scientific studies and my own observations, that the herding dogs are the most high-evolved in terms of communicating at a complex level with human beings. So I'm the first to acknowledge that I have been spoiled by Ziggy - his exceptionalism is 90% him and only 10% me.

It is very wrong, in my opinion, to dismiss the value of starting at the ground level with an approach that produces very good results using methods that do not instill obedience by fear, and then abstracting "outwards" from there at a scientific level. I fear that with you the truth of this is lost, or avoided, in favor of occupying a dismissive position of superiority because science has extrapolated some observations related to neurochemistry associated with dolphins trained in a walled-garden environment completely cut off from the human world. These observations, along with the evolving science of understanding wolves, has produced a richer and more precise body of knowledge regarding what occurs with intelligent mammals when humans seek to socialize them in the human world. People immersed in scientific observations, hypotheses and theories have a tendency to hear someone like my sister or Cesar using terminology that doesn't fit "the science" and summarily dismissing them without actually observing the practical ground level work to make a real-world determination of what the handler is doing with the dogs. Your chart - my sister, and as you have noted Cesar himself, incorporate all of those aspects into what they do to modify dog behavior: they just use their own terms developed at ground level. From the beginning of our conversation you have attempted to force your own terminology - like "punishment" - and I have rejected your terminology: and yet you come around and say something like "So do you agree that punishment approaches are not ideal?" I never used that term and did not claim that those approaches are effective. Trying to smear that label onto what Cesar or my sister do with certain cases is disingenuous - what you mean by "punishment" is not what's happening there, and the term itself is misleading to observing laypersons like sal9000 who are immediately triggered with memories of their mom beating the dogs with a rolled up newspaper (Cesar would recommend a dog subjected to that kind of abuse be removed from the home if the owners cannot be retrained to stop being idiots).

You say you began using Cesar's methods until you learned better - are you sure about that? Aren't you in your mid-50s?Cesar appeared on the scene approximately twelve years ago, and his methods were NOT in alignment with the fear-based dominance methods that came before. When my sister began this work 15 years ago the dog training academy she attended for certification employed brutal fear-based dominance methods. The asshole who ran the school was ex-military and would punish dogs through pain to gain compliance. Kate says all of the dogs were terrified of him, and it was the only reason they obeyed him - problematic for sure. She broke ties with that guy and began to institute her own methods before discovering Cesar and incorporating some of this techniques, including gaining compliance and permanent behavioral change by leveraging group social dynamics. You don't have to, and should not, hurt a dog to rebuke it - simply rebuking unwanted behavior in front of a social group can modify behavior. Dogs understand shame - no one likes being shamed in front of a crowd. But this form of persuation should be a last resort. More often new behaviors emerge as a consequence of a dog's natural desire to fit into the dynamic of a canine social group in a positive way, quite naturally. I'm here right now observing this in action. There is a dog here named Regis - he's a lab/husky mix, and an amazing dog. He has these piercing yellow eyes that scream intelligence, but he's very calm. Now Cesar would say he's dominant but not aggressive - the other dogs in the group tend to defer to him, follow him, etc. He doesn't take any guff, but he doesn't communicate what is or is not acceptable through raw aggression. If he sees something he doesn't like from another dog he tends to trot on over and give a bark along with a slight bodycheck - compliance is immediate. I can get 80% of the group to do what I need them to do simply by gaining compliance from Regis. So, what would you call that dynamic with Regis and the group? Would you say that Regis commands respect from the other dogs? I've fine with that description - what matters at the practical level is that, like with Cesar's dog Daddy (who passed away several years ago), leveraging Regis' good example seems to produce excellent results in the other dogs. You have 20% that are still outliers - this includes Alfie (a "shaggy" dog like from that Disney movie) who is so clueless that he actually tried to mount Regis the other day. Regis did not attack him, or bite him, but he did rebuke him strongly with a few barks and by backing Alfie into a corner. Alfie got the message, and life returned to normal.

Now for what pisses me off: The people who criticize Cesar hear things like "punishment-based" technique and histrionics from the mentally disturbed or triggered "animal abuse" junkies and they immediately think Cesar's approach is the same as those outdated fear-based approaches like the moron at the canine training academy that my sister initially went to for certification. It is NOT AT ALL THE SAME. For a perfect example see sal9000's comments and ridiculous assumptions: Let's count the WTF statements from sal:

1) "My mom beat our dogs with a rolled up newspaper." Um, okay, shame on your ignorant but no doubt well-meaning mom?

2) "A dog was chewing on my fingers until they looked like split hotdogs." How on Earth did that situation come about? Seems like some profound errors were made there.

3) "I bit the dog on the back of the neck with my teeth and it had no effect." Oh my God - what could have possibly compelled you to do something so incredibly stupid?

4) "Oh, let me come home and kick the shit out of my dog every day." Yes, people who do that are idiots - what does that have to do with Cesar's approach?

And so on and so forth. The demonization of Cesar has produced these attitudes from people who care about dogs, have been exposed to dog abuse in the past, and seek like anyone would to stop those situations from happening in the future. Unfortunately for everyone, linking this genuine and valid concern about dog abuse to Cesar is completely misguided. My sister takes fearful dogs who have been beaten all their lives (newspapers, sticks, hands, feet, whatever) and teaches them how to be healthy, happy, confident dogs who obey humans out of a positive desire for approval and acceptance, completely displacing the previous neurology of compliance through fear. And that's what pisses me off - because that kind of slander rolls downhill onto people like my sister who are actually engaged in taking abused dogs and healing them so they can live healthy and complete lives. So when you say you used to use Cesar's techniques, are you sure you aren't conflating Cesar with idiot approaches that are ACTUALLY abusive and counter-productive such as those employed by the fear-based moron my sister rejected as well? Isn't this mainly about the fact that Cesar describes what he's doing in a way you find scientifically imprecise?

If you were to come and observe my sister over a week handling and socializing these dogs, I have 100% confidence that you would approve of what you see. You might have some advice to improve some areas - you might see some things that give you an idea of how to improve your own approach. You might be able to explain to my sister that this or that effective approach has a more precise label and description in the scientific world than the one she is using. You might see something emerge out of her handling of dogs that would seem to you like a worthy path to further explore through scientific study.

I am here for a few more days and can take some video of the dogs if you want. This work is very tiring - I visited here before but haven't ever actually done the work. She trained me for two days and so far everything she showed me and taught me is working out great. Can you acknowledge that, while there could be some things you might impart from the abstract, my sister could show you some things at the practical level that might work and could be fully explained by your scientific mind? I think my sister is correct in saying that when she hears folks obsessed with scientific terminology (and there's nothing wrong with that) pontificate about Cesar and then conflate his approach with abusive approaches, and then admonish her because she admires and uses many of Cesar's techniques (which are as you've acknolwedged fully engaged with all of the positive aspects you detailed), that these are people who tend to float above in the abstract (or like sal9000 are triggered by past experience) without ever touching ground level. As a dog trainer yourself you must have seen how much you can learn, besides what abstract science has to say, from work in the trenches. It's inevitable that additional understandings will be gained. I've seen enough of her work and heard enough from you to know with strong confidence that you are both in agreement regarding the entire spectrum of valid techniques for canine behavior modification. You simply have a science-oriented mind and, typically German, value precision in description very highly. Precision is always so important to the Germans, which is great. My sister has a practical mind and heart of gold devoted to the love and protection of dogs (as I'm sure you do too), but she's just not interested in devoting time and effort to learning your science speak out of fear of lacking the latest fashion in terms of how things are described especially when she's being demonized (not be you, but by many who either don't know better, like sal, or who want to feel superior to and dismissive of a non-intellectual).

It sounds to me like in Germany and Spain there is a more formal process of dog training certification that there is here. There is a very basic requirement at the Provincial level and nothing at the Federal level. I think my sister's approach could be a great starting point for the development of a more formal system of dog training certification especially when mated with the mapping of established scientific terms that you detail. Imagine if the two could be joined and then formalized to institute a more formal system of dog training certification in Canada? I think that would be great. As usual, I'm the guy looking at both sides of this apparent divide (as I do with so many other subject areas) and seeing the opportunity to converge towards a mutally beneficial understanding for everyone rather than what seems to be an artifical conflict rooted mainly in misunderstanding and miscommunication. I hope this response is appreciated - I spent 75 minutes on it.

Wed, 2017-07-19 01:03 |

link to comment

skeptoid
(Old Spike)

Sorry I just noticed the paragraph breaks were not retained from Wordpad when I pasted this into the comment thread. I wish I could figure out how to edit comments. It was not intended to be an actual WALL of text.

Wed, 2017-07-19 02:43 |

link to comment

Fullauto223cal
(Old Spike)

For the life of me I do not understand why they would block people from editing comments like they did on the old site. What is wrong with being able to make edits up until someone responds? I mean, really, what the fuck is wrong with do it that way? Why force everyone to grind out a ridiculous amount of points for the privileged of fixing their fuck ups.

Wed, 2017-07-19 10:59 |

link to comment

daftcunt
(Old Spike)

If you expect people to read this dulling babble of self praise, you are mistaken. Come back when you have a real ON THE POINT contribution or at least learn to put paragraphs in a piece of text.

Wed, 2017-07-19 07:01 |

link to comment

skeptoid
(Old Spike)

Sorry dude - I accept your retreat. I put genuine effort into that - had I been able to re-insert the paragraph breaks after hitting the save button I would have. For the record there is no self-praise in the post, but you wouldn't know that because you didn't read it right? You are the one who insisted on pushing the conversation. I'm quite happy to end it here if you lack the strength and integrity to see it through. Cheers!

Wed, 2017-07-19 08:53 |

link to comment

daftcunt
(Old Spike)

OK, I guess what you wrote is a summary and / or combination of your sisters pamphlets and experiences, a mere diversion and distraction from the issues I asked you to address, agree or disagree on, HOWEVER, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and try to read your reply IF it addressed the following:

You agree or disagree that the dominance theory is not valid when we are talking about dogs?
You agree that dogs are NOT pack animals, despite CM claiming they are?
You agree or disagree on the use of the scientific terminology used for operant conditioning in our conversation. I agreed to use your "coto" after all.

There is no conversation to be had if we don't use the same terms.

So let me know if any (and if yes, which) of the 3 points above actually have been addressed in your "thesis" and I'll read it.

Wed, 2017-07-19 17:15 |

link to comment

daftcunt
(Old Spike)

You are one piece of work andmust be the biggest coward I have seen on an anonymous forum. You, boy, are worse than thewiz, babydick, kdogg and the others. Too fucking scared to even agree to use a common language so that you can keep on weaseling your words around the bullshit that is distributed by those eternally living in the past.

Up to your last message I tried to at least address the relevant parts of the pompous bullshit you wrote, whilst you kept on diverting and avoiding.

You, sir, are an illiterate coward.

Please let me quote Alvin Toffler, who perfectly described the likes of you:

“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. ”
―

Sat, 2017-07-22 17:52 |

link to comment

sal9000
(Old Spike)

"Both my sister and I are not interested in submitting scientific papers for peer-review you arrogant jewel of a man"

Dude WTF!

can i come home everyday and kick the shit out of my dog? i'm not interested in submitting scientific papers so it shouldnt matter right? as long as the dog doesnt bite anyone, knobody can tell me i'm wrong since there is no real comparison....

i wouldn't have compared you to flat earth believers but i would have said it was the same as believing in religion. you really have no reason for it, you could say it works

saved your comment that i didnt reply to from last week

"Well, your first paragraph is just an angry accusation without proof based on emotions only you understand, so I won't respond to it until the end. Your following two paragraphs simply reveal your complete lack of understanding of the dynamics at play. Dogs are not wolves because we made them dogs - we converted them into canines that transplant the "pack leader" expectation to the human. It is a fusion of wolve behavioral dynamics with human needs and communication. Dogs don't look to other dogs to be the pack leader, except in the most loose sense (that pack of dogs that mauled and killed an old couple were said to have been "egged on" by their nominal gang leader, a tiny aggressive). So it's not about reducing yourself to a dog's level, and it's not about raising a dog to a human level.

The umwelt with dogs represents the refinement of instinctual canine psychology to a point where they became useful to us when we communicate with them. This transformation occured in a FLASH in historic terms. The touch does nothing more than signal the dog to stop and pay attention - that's it. People completely misunderstand the "simulate bite" thing. Wolves pin and make tooth contact with the throat to communicate the need to obey and submit. A communication "bite" is completely different from an actual bite. Cesar is not an academic - when he says it simulates a bite what he means is it is the human refinement of that ancient wolve practice of communication. When wolves actually bite each other - as in puncturing flesh and drawing significant amount of blood - it is not communication so much as an escalation into violent contest, the desire to hurt, kill, etc. Even a wolve pack leader that touches a subordinate is not trying to injure that subordinate - it is communicating.

Canines don't have hands and fingers, eh? Their teeth are their fingers - they have no other means than that with which to communicate critical social communication - the stuff that really matters if everyone in the pack is going to function as a unit. It is the very fact that wolf "communicative touch" does not have in any way the same results as a bite that makes it a communication rather than an escalation to violent contest. We have hands, and we are much more intelligent, and when we turned wolves into dogs we took that baseline social communicative structure and refined it so that the focus is on the human, but that communication is still necessary. To simulate a bite take a metal clamp with four sharp "incisors" and rend a dog's flesh with it - there's your BITE. When you touch a dog - anti-CM folks love to mislead by using misleading terms like "kick" and "strike" - it simply tells the dog to stifle that undesirable impulse and look to you for guidance. Over time the goal is to increase the robustness of the dog's impulse control. This works especially well with aggressive and fearful dogs who start out with limited impulse control for whatever reason. They are on the path to oblivion - my sister seeks to rescue them.

I'm sorry your mom was mean to your dogs. When you touch a dog to command attention the dog does not think "Ow, man you bit me - geeze". No. The dog thinks "Stop, look to master - he or she will deal with this crisis. I'm going to be okay." They do not think "Well, that was once again undesirable - I don't want that to happen again so I better calm down." NO. Do you understand the difference here?

Did you know that Daftcunt's method was derived from work with dolphins? It works well with dolphins. Have you ever walked a dolphin down mainstreet? Have you ever left a dolphin at home while you went out to get groceries? Have you ever had your dolphin rush to the door to aggressively confront a stranger? LOL

When my sister worked for a few years at the vet as a teenager, she was horrified to discover that people can just bring their dog into the vet, tell the vet they "don't want it anymore - it bit me yesterday" and pay the vet, and the vet will kill the dog. Did you know that? They tried to socialize my sister to this - tried to convince her that killing these perfectly healthy dogs with stupid owners was part of the business. She said NO, and it is from that point where she launched into her entire life of striving to stop the killing of good dogs with stupid owners. She has as much certification as a person can have to do the job she does. Preventing the unneccessary killing of perfectly sane and healthy dogs underlies her entire life - HER ENTIRE LIFE. You act like you care so much about the poor dogs getting touched on the neck, and you imply that my sister is some cynical opportunist trying to make a buck as some kind of uneducated conperson. You are anthropormorphizing the dog, and she is understanding, saving, and protecting them. You are all talk, and an ignorant, emotional, armchair critic of something you DO NOT understand.

Cesar once did a two part episode where he brought an actual University-educated wolve specialist in to help him explain to people the profound differences between dogs and wolves in their orientation towards people to discourage folks from taking wolves or even wolve hybrids as pets. The wolf specialist said Cesar is "the expert" on dog behavior, despite his complete lack of formal training of any kind. Cesar acknowledged that wolves are a completely different thing, and somewhat baffling to him. He does not understand them, and cannot communicate with them. They won't take a leesh, usually, and even if you do manage to get them to see you as the pack leader, as some have, that's only going to happen if you dive into their world and not vice versa.

Trivia question: Why do dogs have round heads while wolves have squared-off heads? For the rest see my response to Daftcunt later today."

i didnt need time. just didnt feel like reading the comments. i still didnt. i dont know what daftcunt said. didnt read it. not interested in your personal stories or personal beliefs. if its not scientific its bullshit pseudoscience.

still stand by my comment about your sister. it wasn't mean spirited, it was honest. maybe a bit too honest. a dog can be a weapon if its not properly trained. your sister doesn't have the credentials. you wouldn't send a problematic kid to a child psychologist that doesnt have the education. if one of those dogs she looks after happens to grievously wound someone. all she can offer up is an apology. all she's covered for, is if the dog gets hurt/dies/stolen on the property. she can close up shop, and start new in a different city.

you can't simulating bitting with your fingers. shit you can't even really simulate bitting like a dog with your teeth, they aren't even sharp enough to get thru dogs hide. i'll tell you a story. i've bit a dog. stuck my hand inside its mouth to try and pry it open to get my dog out. it chewed on my fingers for 20 seconds. they looked like hotdogs when they split. in the blinding pain, i bit that dog on the back of its neck for 3 or 4 seconds out of desperation. the dog didnt even flintch and i bit hard,

it jacked up two of us and i didnt do any damage using my incisors.

Mon, 2017-07-17 04:02 |

link to comment

skeptoid
(Old Spike)

Only two things to say to you: My sister does have the credentials otherwise she wouldn't be able to do this - she has all of the official schooling required for certification. You are ignorant - you don't understand. Second, you saying "come home every day and kick the shit out of my dog" ends this conversation. I don't know anyone who does that - your mommy did it and it scarred you. Not my issue - your issue. I've having a conversation with Daftcunt about this, not you. You are too ignorant and traumatized by far to have a useful discussion about this. I frequently detect in your emotional outburts the need for some kind of catharsis related to past trauma - I have my own issues like that. But it's not very healthy fuel for a conversation.

Mon, 2017-07-17 05:25 |

link to comment

daftcunt
(Old Spike)

As far as I know there are no legal requirements or minimum education for a person to become a dog trainer in the US or Canada. Can you shed a light on what they are (not the ones that are required to run the business like permits facility requirements etc.)?

Mon, 2017-07-17 16:30 |

link to comment

sal9000
(Old Spike)

when i asked you if she had any credentials you gave a story about her working at a vet as a teen instead of a resounding yes when i looked it up, the only requirements was a building large enough to store the amount of dogs, liability insurance and proper labelling procedures. according to the animal humane society's website, 0 requirements to train dogs. to be a pet psychologist, she would have spent 3-8 years in school. you would have known that.

you think i would kick my own dog? i told you i stuck my hand in a dogs mouth to help mine. i've also gone thu ice twice to help dogs. i'm arguing with you over how you and your sis' treat them and you think i would put the boot to mine?

my mom never went to town on a dog. she gets them at 6months to a year. she never put them in a cage or crate while shes away, dog destroys a coffee table. it got a wack on the bum with a rolled up newspaper. maybe happened 3 times its entire life. dogs were angels. never had to be tied up outside. you could just leave the door open and they would come back in when they were done. why i brought it up was that my moms method has as much science behind it as does cm technique. and if the results are all that matter, were in a wold of fucked.

seriously, what kind of person do you think i am? like brutally honest

Thu, 2017-07-20 08:08 |

link to comment

skeptoid
(Old Spike)

My sister would have to answer that when she gets back. I know there are some facility requirements and the need to comply with bylaws at the municipal level, which varies depending on the county or city. In terms of the educational requirements I have heard my sister complain strongly about them not being robust enough. She can answer in more detail when she gets back - perhaps you and her could create the first extensive guidelines to lobby the government for something more established and useful.

Wed, 2017-07-19 01:25 |

link to comment

daftcunt
(Old Spike)

"I know there are some facility requirements and the need to comply with bylaws at the municipal level, which varies depending on the county or city."

not relevant.

People creating rules and guidelines on this would need quite some scientific backgroud and training. This may be a stumbling block for one party....

Wed, 2017-07-19 07:18 |

link to comment

skeptoid
(Old Spike)

I'm sure input from your side of the perception would be beneficial, but not necessary. Question: How many dogs on average do you train and/or board per month? What is your daily average?

Wed, 2017-07-19 08:54 |