Brett Endes, The Canine Counselor Dog Trainer and Dog

Dominant Dogs

October 21st, 2007

Although the following article I found is kind of an advertisement for a DVD about dog training, it pretty much sums it up as far the dynamics of the types of problems people come to dog behaviorists and trainers for and how very few actually even understand what these types of dogs are all about. 

As always, I have to give credit to the bearer of this great information…Ed Frawley.  His website: leerburg.com is filled with balanced information about dogs from someone who is knowledgeable, experienced, and truly understands dogs for who they are. (Yes, there are actually a few of us out there!)   

In my DVD I provide 3 1/2 hours of information to help people solve their problems with dominant dogs and aggressive dogs. This information is based on 45 years of experience training dogs. For the last 30 years I have studied the art of protection training dogs. I was a police K9 handler for 10 years, and was chairman of the training committee for the WI police dog association for a number of those years. I have bred German Shepherds for police service work for 28 years. During this time I have bred over 350 litters of working dogs. I have dogs from my kennel working in law enforcement, Search and Rescue and competing in Schutzhund all over this country. No one I know in the United States can make these claims.

Everyone has an Opinion:

I tell you these things for one reason. You found this web page because you have a problem with your dog. You have also found out that “Everyone has an opinion on how to solve your problem.” You only need to use Google for a few minutes to see this, or ask your neighbor or best friend. Everyone thinks they know what you should be doing. The problem is that very few people have the experience to back up their opinions.

Every year hundreds of thousands of dogs go through obedience training. The vast majority of dominant dogs that enter training classes come out of class just as dominant as before they started. The reason for this is that instructors and owners alike do not address issues of pack drive and rank within the pack.

These instructors and pet owners underestimate the genetic power of the “PACK DRIVE GENES” that flows through the veins of a family dog. Dogs, like wolves, seek to live in a family packs. A family pack can be one dog living with his human family, or multiple dogs and their human family.

When the average pet owner gets a new dog the owner’s first goal is to show the dog how much he likes the dog. This is the absolute opposite of how dogs think. When a dog meets another dog they will always establish their rank with each other before they become friends and play (or fight) with the new dog.

Rank within the Pack:

Dogs instinctively try to establish a rank within their family pack. The vast majority of dogs would rather not be a pack leader. In fact, many become stressed when they are forced into that position by a human pet owner that does not practice proper pack procedures.

Dominant dogs are dogs that have problems with pack and rank issues.

This DVD was produced to help people analyze their dog’s dominance and aggression problems. I provide the information for them to come up with a solution to those problems. These solutions include educating the owners on pack drive and rank drive.

Learning to be a Pack Leader:

Owners of dominant dogs don’t have an option, they must learn to become pack leaders. Unfortunately, many people are not themselves leaders in their normal lives. Becoming a pack leader for some people is a foreign concept. In my DVD I explain a logical protocol for these pet owners to follow that will result in their dogs’ changing the way they view their position in the family pack.

This DVD is a project I have been working on for over 5 years. In my opinion it may be the most important training DVD I have ever produced. More dogs are given up for adoption or euthanized every year because of dominance and aggression problems than any other reason. Not all of these dogs are salvageable but I believe the vast majority of dominance problems can controlled so that those dogs can live a better life with their family pack.

We help you learn to design a training plan:

The information in my DVD is going to help you develop a road map to getting a grip on your dogs behavioral problems. If you are not physically strong enough or don’t have the temperament to do the work necessary to solve the problem I believe that I have provided you the information needed to find a local person that is qualified to come in and help you.

Most behaviorists lack experience in dog aggression:

It is important to point out that the vast majority of dog behaviorists are unqualified to offer advice on dog aggression and/or dominance. This DVD (and the e-book I am writing) provide enough information to help dog owners determine if an individual is qualified to assist in these areas.ed on 45 years of experience training dogs.

Basic Dog Training Commands

October 20th, 2007

Here is a list of the most common basic/practical training commands and how to use them to train your dog:

Basic Commands

HEEL: This command is used to teach our dogs how to walk on a loose

leash. It is performed by having the dog walk on our left hand side.

This simulates the way in which a dog who is a natural pack

Leader would lead the other dogs in their pack by going in their

direction on their command.  Whenever we stop our movement with this command,

our dog should automatically sit without telling them to do so.

SIT: The sit command is used to get our dogs to stay in one place. It is

especially useful in situations when a dog needs to remain calm

and focused.

STAY: Stay is used to keep a dog in whatever position they happen to be

in. (ex: sit/stay, down/stay, etc.)

COME: This command is used to get our dog’s attention and have them

come to us when called.

DOWN: Used to get our dog to lay down and go into a relaxed and

submissive position. Best used when you want your dog to stay

for long periods of time and at times you need your dog to relax or

respect you.

Practical Commands

NO: The meaning of the word No is used to teach dogs certain behaviors

are not acceptable. No is also used a follow through for a dog not

listening to our commands.

OFF: Off is used to get our dogs to get off furniture, beds,or surfaces.  It is also used to

discourage jumping on people.

DROP IT:  Drop it is used to get our dogs to relinquish whatever is in their mouths or

                      possession and leave it alone until otherwise instructed.

KENNEL:  Use this word to have your dog go into their kennel.

Automatic Sit:  Used when going in and out of doorways, stairs, and whenever there

                                 is an environment change.

Cesar Milan, The Dog Whisperer and Dog Psychology

October 10th, 2007

A client gave me an article featuring Cesar Milan (a.k.a. The Dog Whisperer) to read.  It discusses the criticism Cesar has faced over the past few years and the reason why his approach to dog psychology has been met with such controversy and critics.  Because I am Often compared to Cesar Milan and frequently recommend his books and television show to my clients, I feel it would be appropriate to comment on the article and my feelings on Cesar Milan in general.  When people compare me to him, my response is a heartfelt “Thank You!”  Nothing could be a greater compliment than being compared to someone who has helped so many dogs and their owners worldwide, and has taken the language of dogs and how we can better communicate with them mainstream.  I’ll never forget the time I was working with a client and their dog and we came upon an elderly woman who had to be at least in her 80’s out walking her dog.  When the two dogs met, one tried to establish their role as a leader over the other dog by mounting them.  Instead of the usual human reaction to curb this type of behavior because it “wouldn’t be appropriate in the human world”, the elderly woman explained, “don’t worry, he is just asserting his dominance over the other dog, it is normal for dogs to do that.”  I enthusiastically replied, “you must have been watching the dog whisperer”.  Of course she replied with a great big “Yes!”  Now, if it wasn’t for Cesar Milan bringing these concepts that only a small minority of professional dog trainers, handlers, and owners understoodpreviously, to the masses.  How else would someone like that understand their dog’s behavior this well or even know where to find out this information?  With all the dogs that end up in shelters and get euthanized because of the lack of understanding on the part of humans, (almost all of them!) wouldn’t it seem his message will only benefit dogs as a whole?  That is why I never understood those who strongly oppose Cesar Milan and his ways.  Well, actually I do understand because I experience this resistance sometimes as well.  People like Cesar, me, and others who are able to see and promote the truth and reality of dogs force people to have to examine who they are as humans to directly understand how it is affecting their dog’s behavior.  The reason this is difficult for some is because dogs are part of our lives in modern society because they give us what we can’t get out of humans.  Basically they fill a void within our psychology.  Plain and simple.  That is the reason why dogs are so great and we can bond and connect with them so well and naturally.  We have coexisted for so long they have become part of our existence.  Dogs are the only animal whos natural habitat is exactly the same as humans…Think about that.  The hard part in all this is being able to recognize what we are trying to compensate for, and differenciating what is actually the dog’s problems and what is actually our psychology getting in the way of our dog’s understanding of the role we need to play as understanding and balanced leaders in their lives.  Unless you have gone through many years of psychotherapy or are naturally born to see yourself at face value (not an easy task) this can be an uncomfortable process.  I should know because as a human I had to go through the process myself with my own dogs and continue to grow with each new dog I meet. 

We as humans are programmed to have a strong sense of self.  We are consatantly protecting this sense of self.  It doesn’t matter how many issues we may have, to our “self”, we are who we are and there is nothing wrong with us in our eyes despite what everyone around us may observe and see.  If we were to think we needed improvement, then our whole concept of who we are will fall apart.  The problem with this idea is that everyone, no matter who they are, can improve on themselves in some aspect of their psychology by recognizing who they really are and pinpointing their deficiencies.  So why isn’t everyone in therapy and running around happy and free like the Zen masters?  Because by recognizing our flaws, we have to undo the false sense of who we are to do this.  Who likes criticism?  Not many people do.  So we remain “who we are” and find people to surround us who fit into our “way of being” that is most comfortable despite how it may or may not work for us.  This is how we make friends, find lovers, and choose how we live.  In the human world this suits us well and works perfectly fine for many.  In the dog world however, there is no lying or what we call in the psychology field masking.  Everything is at face value within the pack, dogs cannot lie to themselves, trick one another, or pretend to be something they are not.  They are who they are.  Because we cannot project human psychological values on our dogs (even though we try our hardest), when communicating with dogs we have to operate on the level of honesty very few humans feel comfortable conducting themselves on.  Not only do I use my degree in human psychology daily, but I have actually helped clients discover things within themselves unrelated to their dogs which have helped them in their personal, non-dog lives!  Not to get terribly Freudian here but it has been my experience that those who understand themselves and human nature the most, tend to have an easier time in understanding how they are contibuting to their pet’s issues and how to change this to help their dog problems.  I find it of great importance to add;  No one is ever a bad person or dog owner for not understanding their dogs.  I will be the first to tell you that most people who have dogs think more on an anthropomorphic level (placing human characteristics on animals) than on a level of reality based on a dogs natural instincts and psychology.   Anthropomorphic thinking stems from a wanting to love, relate, and bond with our animals not because we don’t care.  What happens with some dogs is this energy is misinterpreted as a weak energy or lack of understanding because certain dogs don’t sense we know who they are as they know a real dog would.  By seeing ourselves and our dogs for things truly are, we are creating the energy of understanding I frequently speak of.  We now come across as a self-aware and confident leader with an energy to be respected, not taken advantage of.  This is what The Dog Whisperer, myself, actual dogs, and others utilize and promote.  Those who disagree the most with these ideas seem to be unsuccesful trainers who are jealous our threatened by our abilities and people who can’t stop treating their dogs like children no matter what you tell them.  Who’s issues are those???    

The Flow of Life for Dogs

October 4th, 2007

As a follow up to my last article on energy, it would deem appropriate to write about the flow of life in which dogs follow.  Basically what this means is that dogs, being as in tune with life as they are, pick up on changes in the daily pattern or “flow of life” that occurs in the environment that surrounds them.  Whenever something new happens big or subtle, it has great meaning to a dog.  Examples are when someone new comes to the house, going from one room to another, going up stairs, or doorways, or even things like getting up off the couch and mealtimes will tap into a dog’s natural tendency to feel life’s energy shift, and be in tune with these changes in the flow of life according to their established roles in the pack.  We as dog owners and trainers can tap into these energy flow changes to be one step ahead of our pets to be, as you guessed it, the best leader possible to our dogs.  A good place to start can be with greetings.  Whether it be at the door or on walks in public, this will apply to any initial greeting scenario you may encounter with your dog.  If your dog tends to display innappropriate or hyperactive behaviors (jumping, barking, running around, hyperactivity, btitng, etc.) upon welcoming someone or something new into their lives,  then it means they are trying figure out a situation that is too much for them to handle.  The ”bad” behaviors we see are just symptoms of their mental discontentment from having more responsibility than they can deal with even though they do not know any better.  It is our jobs as their pack leaders to take the high road and take over these types of situations (especially greetings)  so they no longer feel the burden which in turn  fuels the fire of the problem behaviors we see in dogs. 

An example would be giving our dogs a “Place” or “Sit” “Stay” commands at those times when they are trying to figure out what to do.  This takes the multitude of thoughts going through their minds and puts them all into one simple task for them to accomplish, the command you give them, focusing everything into one single-pointed mindset.  This also “places us in charge” of the new event that just occured in our dog’s lives.  So by instinct, the dog will relax because of they sense we now are taking over a situation for them that they couldn’t handle on  their own.  Now, we must be consistent with this approach, because of the fact that if our dogs feel this way in the first place,  they have a strong disposition to be in charge of new situations which arise in their envirionment.  If we are not consistent, then the dog will gravitate towards what they feel is most comfortable for them.  Even though the result is stressful.  They don’t know any other way until we make it a standard for us to be one step ahead of our dogs when it comes to the flow of energy in life.  9 out of 10 doesn’t cut it with a strong willed dog.  10 out of 10 consistency is the only way to go for the re-establishment period it takes to make the more positive and healthy behaviors the norm, placing us in charge of new situations and alleviating the burden of our dogs running the show.  For them and us!   Although some dogs can be quite stubborn in giving up their top dog status, with some persistence, we can out-lead them and once they are used to it and forget the old ways, we don’t even have to think about it anymore, they just know we are in charge without us having to go through the motions associated with proving it to them.  They know we are in tune with the flow of energy as well as any leader they would respect could.

Colorado Dog Rescue

October 2nd, 2007

 Tuesday October 3, 2007

 Perfect Match Dog Rescue is an all-breed dog rescue organization I work with.  I have personally rehabilitated many dogs  that have been re-homed and have lived full happy lives with their new families because of the great work they do.  Their website is:

www.perfectmatchdogrescue.com On their website you will see all their dogs up for adoption here in Colorado.  The website gives full descriptions of each dog and works very hard to match dogs up with appropriate families to ensure a long lasting and healthy relationship.   Check them out…

Dog Bite Laws in Colorado

October 1st, 2007

There is a great deal of controversy here in Colorado over dog bite laws and legislature.  Being Colorado is so dog friendly and the off leash allowances, more people are encountering dogs they have never met on a regular basis.  Most strange dogs are friendly, but here are the laws for those situations that are not so friendly and unfortunately cause harm to another person or dog.  The majority of these dog bite cases could have been easily prevented with the right intervention.

Here is an overview of the entire dog bite laws for the state of Colorado:

Dog Bite Law

Colorado
Colorado’s dog bite statute imposes strict liability upon a dog owner only in cases of “serious bodily injury,” and limits the strict liability to economic damages only. To receive full compensation (and to receive any compensation at all in cases of non-qualifying injury), the victim must prove that the incident resulted from (a) negligent or intentional conduct, (b) violation of the dangerous dog law, a leash law or a law prohibiting dogs from “running at large,” or (c) ownership of a dog with the knowledge that the dog had a history of biting or threatening to bite people.

  • The five classes of dog bite victims in Colorado
  • Proving a dangerous propensity under Colorado law
  • The text of the dog bite statute
  • Critique of the dog bite statute
  • Negligence and negligence per se liability for dog bites
  • Landlord liability for dog bites
  • Settlement offers and awards of costs
  • If you are an attorney who is researching the law in this state.
  • If your case involves injury to a dog, see What To Do If Your Dog Is Injured or Killed.

The five classes of dog bite victims in Colorado 

Colorado’s dog bite statute, Col. Rev. Stats. sec. 13-21-124 (Civil actions against dog owners), governs dog bites that happened on or after April 21, 2004. It is among the most unnecessarily complicated and unfair dog bite statutes in the USA. This statute and the one that puts a “cap” or upper limit on non-economic damages operate together to create five classes of dog bite victims. Each class is treated differently, either as to what they have to prove, or how much money they can recover. The differences can be drastic. The complexity of this scheme necessitates retaining a lawyer in every case where the bite broke the victim’s skin.

The first class of victim is one who fits within an exception to section 13-21-124. The exceptions include anyone who was “unlawfully on public or private property,” or was on the dog owner’s property if it is “clearly and conspicuously marked with one or more posted signs stating ‘no trespassing’ or ‘beware of dog,’” or was “knowingly provoking the dog,” or was performing the duties of a veterinary healthcare worker, dog groomer, humane agency staff person, professional dog handler, trainer, or dog show judge. A victim in this class cannot recover under the statute or any other legal cause of action.

The second class of victim is the one who neither suffered serious bodily injury nor can prove the requirements of the one-bite rule. These victims cannot recover under the statute, but are free to do so under another cause of action, such as negligence.

The third class of victim is the one who suffers “serious bodily injury.” This was the victim whose plight the statute was intended to improve. The statute imposes strict liability only in cases where the victim suffers a “serious bodily injury.” In other cases, Colorado is a “one-bite” state. (To learn the requirements for liability in a “one-bite” state, see one-Bite Rule.)

Section 18-1-901(3)(p) defines “serious bodily injury” as follows:

18-1-901(3)(p): “Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury which, either at the time of the actual injury or at a later time, involves a substantial risk of death, a substantial risk of serious permanent disfigurement, a substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body, or breaks, fractures, or burns of the second or third degree.

However, the victim who suffers serious bodily injury is not entitled to full compensation under section 13-21-124. The dog bite statute limits the victim’s remedy to “economic damages.” This means that a dog owner is strictly liable only for “economic damages” unless the seriously injured person can prove the requirements for liability under the “one-bite rule.” In other words, strict liability is limited to economic damages.

The term “economic damages” is not defined in the dog bite statute or any other statute. However, its meaning can be deduced from the definition of “noneconomic loss” that is provided in section13-21-102.5:

13-21-102.5 (2)(b) “Noneconomic loss or injury” means nonpecuniary harm for which damages are recoverable by the person suffering the direct or primary loss or injury, including pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional stress, and impairment of the quality of life. “Noneconomic loss or injury” includes a damage recovery for nonpecuniary harm for actions brought under section 13-21-201 or 13-21-202.

Because “noneconomic loss” includes pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional stress, and impairment of the quality of life, it stands to reason that the term “economic loss” includes everything else, such as past medical bills, future medical bills, past psychological counseling, future psychological counseling, past loss of income, and loss of earning power as a result of disability or disfigurement.

Therefore, a victim who suffers “serious bodily injury” but cannot prove the requirements of liability under the “one-bite rule” can nevertheless recover “economic damages” consisting of all actual costs of treatment, loss of income, and loss of earning power as a result of disability or disfigurement.

The fourth class of victim includes any person, regardless of his degree of injury, who can prove the elements required by the “one-bite rule” or any other cause of action. If these elements can be proved, then the victim of serious bodily injury or lesser injury can receive not only economic damages but also non-economic damages.

However, while economic damages are not limited in amount, the non-economic damages are limited in most cases. Section 13-21-102.5 limits to “$250,000″ the amount of “noneconomic loss or injury” that an injured person can recover. As of Summer 2006, the $250,000 “cap on damages” had risen to $350,000.

The fifth class of victim is the seriously injured one who can satisfy the requirements of the “one-bite rule” or another cause of action, and who also suffered from physical impairment or disfigurement. The “cap” on economic damages does not apply to compensation for physical impairment or disfigurement. In other words, both the economic damages and the non-economic damages are unlimited if the victim suffers physical impairment or disfigurement.

Therefore, Colorado dog bite law creates five classes of dog bite victims:

  • The victim who fits within an exception to the dog bite statute cannot recover anything under the dog bite statute or any other cause of action.
  • The victim who did not suffer serious bodily injury and cannot prove the requirements of the one-bite rule cannot recover anything under the dog bite statute, but may still recover if he can prove the elements of another cause of action.
  • The victim who suffers “serious bodily injury” can always recover unlimited economic damages, even if the dog never bit before and the dog owner did not do anything “wrong.” However, the dog owner’s liability is limited to the economic damages — not pain and suffering.
  • The victim who can prove the requirements of the “one-bite rule” or another cause of action can recover unlimited economic damages plus non-economic damages, but the non-economic damages cannot exceed the “cap” which was $350,000 as of Summer 2006.
  • The victim who can prove the requirements of the “one-bite rule” or another cause of action, and who suffered from physical impairment or disfigurement, can recover unlimited economic damages plus unlimited non-economic damages.

Here is another way of expressing the Colorado scheme for compensating dog bite victims:

  • If you fit into an exception described by the dog bite statute, you cannot recover anything at all.
  • If you did not suffer serious bodily injury and cannot prove the requirements of the one-bite rule or any other cause of action, you are entitled to recover nothing from the dog owner.
  • If you suffer serious bodily injury, you are entitled to recover economic damages, even if you cannot prove the requirements of the one-bite rule.
  • If you suffer any degree of bodily injury and can prove the requirements of either the one-bite rule or any other cause of action, you are entitled to recover unlimited economic damages but only limited non-economic damages.
  • If you suffer serious bodily injury and can prove the requirements of either the one-bite rule or another cause of action, you are entitled to recover unlimited economic damages and unlimited non-economic damages.

Proving a dangerous propensity under Colorado law

It is necessary to prove the existence of a dangerous propensity under Colorado law when the victim cannot use the dog bite statute, and cannot prove the elements of other causes of action, such as negligence or negligence per se. This is because of the severe limitations of the Colorado dog bite statute, which has kept the “one-bite rule” alive in this state.

The “one-bite rule” requires the dog bite victim to prove that the dog had the dangerous propensity to bite, and the owner knew it before the victim was bitten. (See generally, The One-Bite Rule.) Because “dangerous propensity” is not defined by a statute, one must look to the Colorado cases to determine exactly what needs to be proved.

The following cases were decided before the Colorado strict liability statute was passed in 2004. Therefore you must keep in mind that there is statutory strict liability in cases of serious bodily injury in addition to the grounds for liability established in the cases discussed below.

In Barger et al. v. Jimerson et al. (1954) 130 Colo. 459, 276 P.2d 744, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a dog owner who is free of negligence shall nevertheless be liable for injuries and losses resulting from a dog bite, if the owner knew or should have known that the dog was dangerous prior to attack. 

The original complaint in Barger stated that the dog owner (the defendant) “allowed said dog to run at large and loose.” At the beginning of the trial, the victim (the plaintiff) asked that this allegation be stricken from the complaint, but at the end of the trial, asked that the allegation be added again. The Colorado Supreme Court held that it was not necessary to allege or prove that the owner allowed the dog to run at large. The Court stated that there was: 

    “…little reason to discuss the propriety of this procedure since it is not ultimately important for a determination of the case. It is quite evident that defendant did not at any time carelessly or intentionally allow the dog to run at large. Their liability was in keeping such a dog and they did so at their peril.” (130 Colo. at p. 462.)

The Court also held that the victim proved that the owner knew the dog was dangerous because, among other things, the owner kept it confined: 

    “There is no evidence in this case that the dog in question had ever bitten anyone before, but its ferocious and violent nature as daily exhibited to many people, especially the neighbors, was such as to put prudent people on guard to prevent a possibility of attack on human beings…. Moreover, the fact that defendants kept the dog confined is persuasive in concluding that they considered it unsafe for the dog to be at large.” (130 Colo. at p. 463.)

In E.P. Swerdfeger v. John L. Krueger, Minor, etc. (1960) 145 Colo. 180, 358 P.2d 479, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a victim who knew that the dog might bite, and had to trespass to encounter the dog, cannot recover for his injuries and losses when he trespasses and is bitten. The Swerdfeger decision adopted the language of the Restatement of the Law — Torts: 

    “… the possessor [of a dog] is not subject to liability to a child who in fact discovers the condition and appreciates the full risk involved therein but nonetheless chooses to encounter it out of recklessness or bravado.” (145 Colo. at pp. 184-5.)

In Reynolds v. Reichwein (1973) 510 P.2d 895, 1973 Colo. App. Lexis 857, the Court of Appeals of Colorado held that the appellate courts will not overturn the trier of fact’s determination that that owner knew his dog was vicious, as long as the determination finds some support in the record. In Reynolds, the dog previously bit a child that provoked it. Despite the provocation, the trial court ruled that the dog was vicious and the owner knew or had notice of the dog’s vicious tendencies. DuBois v. Myers (1984) 684 P.2d 940, Colo. App. Lexis 1067, contains an erroneous statement of the law. It cites Swerdfeger for the proposition that: 

    “In order to establish that a person who owns or keeps a domestic animal is liable for injuries inflicted by that animal, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that the animal has vicious or dangerous tendencies; (2) that the owner or keeper had knowledge or notice thereof; and (3) that the owner or keeper did not exercise reasonable care to prevent injuries reasonably anticipated to result from such tendencies.” (684 P.2d at p. 942.)

With all due respect  to the DuBois court, the third “element” (i.e., pertaining to reasonable care) was specifically repudiated in Barger, and results from a misreading of Swerdfeger and the case it relied upon. Swerdfeger did not hold that a defendant who exercises reasonable care can avoid liability. To the contrary, Swerdfeger specifically relied on the following 3-prong test stated in Melsheimer v. Sullivan, 1 colo. App. 22, 27 P. 17:

    “1.  That the dog was vicious and in the habit of biting mankind.”2.  That the defendant knew it.

    “3.  That he bit and injured the plaintiff without any neglect or fault on his [plaintiff’s] part.”

The DuBois court misread the third element described in Melsheimer, which pertains to the plaintiff’s fault, not the defendant’s fault. There is no requirement that the defendant be at fault in any way, because the essence of the case against the defendant is that he knew the dog was dangerous and kept it anyway. In fact, that is the basis of the common law cause of action for scienter.  (See The One-Bite Rule.)It is necessary to prove a dangerous propensity only when attempting to base a claim on the “one-bite rule.” A dog owner in Colorado also will be held responsible for (a) his or her negligence (for example, a day care center that permits a pit bull to roam freely among toddlers), (b) for violating a public safety law such as a leash law, prohibition against trespassing by dogs, or prohibition against permitting a dog to run at large, (c) any intentional injury inflicted by using a dog, and (d) any injury inflicted as a result of outrageous conduct. These causes of action are very essential for the recovery of noneconomic damages, such as pain, suffering, and impairment of the quality of life.

The text of the dog bite statute 

Here is the text of Colorado’s dog bite statute, Col. Rev. Stats. sec. 13-21-124 (Civil actions against dog owners):

13-21-124. Civil actions against dog owners.
(1) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) “Bodily injury” means any physical injury that results in severe bruising, muscle tears, or skin lacerations requiring professional medical treatment or any physical injury that requires corrective or cosmetic surgery.
(b) “Dog” means any domesticated animal related to the fox, wolf, coyote, or jackal.
(c) “Dog owner” means a person, firm, corporation, or organization owning, possessing, harboring, keeping, having financial or property interest in, or having control or custody of, a dog.
(d) “Serious bodily injury” has the same meaning as set forth in section 18-1-901 (3) (p), C.R.S.
(2) A person or a personal representative of a person who suffers serious bodily injury or death from being bitten by a dog while lawfully on public or private property shall be entitled to bring a civil action to recover economic damages against the dog owner regardless of the viciousness or dangerous propensities of the dog or the dog owner’s knowledge or lack of knowledge of the dog’s viciousness or dangerous propensities.
(3) In any case described in subsection (2) of this section in which it is alleged and proved that the dog owner had knowledge or notice of the dog’s viciousness or dangerous propensities, the court, upon a motion made by the victim or the personal representative of the victim, may enter an order that the dog be euthanized by a licensed veterinarian or licensed shelter at the expense of the dog owner.
(4) For purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be lawfully on public or private property if he or she is in the performance of a duty imposed upon him or her by local, state, or federal laws or regulations or if he or she is on property upon express or implied invitation of the owner of the property or is on his or her own property.
(5) A dog owner shall not be liable to a person who suffers bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or death from being bitten by the dog:
(a) While the person is unlawfully on public or private property;
(b) While the person is on property of the dog owner and the property is clearly and conspicuously marked with one or more posted signs stating “no trespassing” or “beware of dog”;
(c) While the dog is being used by a peace officer or military personnel in the performance of peace officer or military personnel duties;
(d) As a result of the person knowingly provoking the dog;
(e) If the person is a veterinary health care worker, dog groomer, humane agency staff person, professional dog handler, trainer, or dog show judge acting in the performance of his or her respective duties; or
(f) While the dog is working as a hunting dog, herding dog, farm or ranch dog, or predator control dog on the property of or under the control of the dog’s owner.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to:
(a) Affect any other cause of action predicated on other negligence, intentional tort, outrageous conduct, or other theories;
(b) Affect the provisions of any other criminal or civil statute governing the regulation of dogs; or
(c) Abrogate any provision of the “Colorado Governmental Immunity Act”, article 10 of title 24, C.R.S.
History
Source: L. 2004: Entire section added, p. 507, § 1, effective April 21.

Critique of the dog bite statute 

Prior to the 2004 amendment to CRS 13-21-124 (the dog bite statute), Colorado was a “one-bite state.” In other words, Colorado adhered to the ancient English doctrine of scienter, which developed in the 1600s when horses, mules, geese, ducks, hogs, chickens and, of course, dogs freely wandered the dirty streets of English towns, making it anomolous, in that barely civilized time, to hold liable the owners of such animals when they did harm. This was centuries before the development of the pit bull and the passage of the first animal cruelty laws; in other words, it was a time when it was not illegal for your dog to wander to another person’s property but also not illegal for that person to beat your dog or even kill it if need be. (For a more detailed discussion, see The One-Bite Rule.)

Colorado dipped a toe into the mainstream of Ameican dog bite law and modern beliefs about the responsibilities that accompany dog ownership when the legislature made dog owners strictly liable for just a small percentage of dog bite incidents (those involving serious bodily injury or death) and just a small portion of the damages (economic damages and nothing for the pain and suffering that a mauled child or adult endures from a vicious dog attack). Colorado therefore remains essentially a “one-bite state,” demanding from its dog owners the level of responsibility appropriate for the citizens of an English town 400 years ago, not modern Americans.

The dog bite statute should be further amended to provide strict liability for all losses and damages when a dog causes injury to a person or domestic animal the first time.

Negligence and negligence per se liability for dog bites

Colorado case law holds that a person who owns, keeps or harbors a dog which causes injury can be held liable under theories of negligence and negligence per se. For more about these legal theories generally, see the discussion in Legal Rights of a Dog Bite Victim.

In Snow v. Birt, 968 P.2d 177 (Colo.App. 10/29/1998), a young girl named Cynthia was visiting her father, who owned a dog. Her father and the dog lived with Cynthia’s grandparents. A week prior to this visit, the dog bit a different child and then, at this visit, the dog bit Cynthia. The grandparents clearly knew about the prior bite because they built a dog run to confine the dog, upon orders of the health department after the first bite.

On Cynthia’s behalf, a claim for compensatory and punitive damages was made against the grandparents. It was alleged that they were liable on the grounds of general negligence and negligence per se based on the violation of a municipal ordinance. The ordinance provided that “[i]t shall be the duty of every owner or keeper of any animal in their possession or control, to exercise reasonable care and to take all necessary steps and precautions to protect other people . . . from injuries or damage which might result from their animal’s behavior.” Another ordinance defined “owner or keeper” to include “any person . . . possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having control or custody, either permanently or temporarily, of an animal.”

The grandparents moved for summary judgment, asserting that they owed no legal duty to Cynthia and that any such duty was owed by Cynthia’s father, the dog’s owner and keeper. The trial court granted the motion, but the court of appeals reversed.

The court held first that the grandparents were harborers and/or keepers of the dog, and that the dog was in their control or custody. The court also held that the municipal ordinances imposed a duty of care upon defendants to exercise reasonable care and to take all necessary precautions to protect Cynthia from being injured by the dog. Additionally, the court held that the grandparents owed the little girl a common law duty of care, based on the fact that the they were harborers and/or keepers of the dog, and that the dog was in their control or custody.

This case therefore stands for the proposition that harborers and keepers (as opposed to owners) of a dog may be held liable for injuries it inflicts, founded upon general negligence and negligence per se based on the violation of a municipal ordinance.

It has been specifically held that negligence per se is a proper ground for liability, based on the violation of a statute or ordinance that is intended to prevent harm. Lui v. Barnhart, 987 P.2d 942 (Colo.App. 08/19/1999). As the plaintiff in Lui was driving home at night, his vehicle collided with defendant’s horse. The horse had escaped from its corral and had wandered into the street. A city ordinance required that owners of animals “shall not fail” to keep their animals physically confined or restrained. At trial, based on the ordinance and the horse’s presence in the road, plaintiff requested the trial court to instruct the jury concerning negligence per se, among other things. The trial judge gave the requested instruction, but the jury found no negligence. On appeal, the giving of the instruction was upheld. The court of appeal stated:

Some situations that may not be considered inherently dangerous to others but could pose a risk of danger under certain circumstances may be regulated by statute or ordinance, which, in turn, may be the basis of a negligence per se claim if the statute is violated. In such situations, the statute itself establishes the standard of care and its violation is equivalent to a breach of duty and conclusively establishes that aspect of a plaintiff’s negligence claim.

The wording of the statute or ordinance is critical to proving whether it was violated. In Lui, supra, the horse was wandering loose, the ordinance required that owners of animals “shall not fail” to keep their animals physically confined or restrained, and therefore a violation occured. The result will be the opposite, however, if the ordinance makes it “unlawful for any owner . . . of any dog to allow such dog to run at large.” This was how the ordinance was worded in Downing v. Lillibridge, 566 P.2d 714, 39 Colo. App. 231 (Colo.App. 04/21/1977). The Downing court held that there was no violation because the word “allow” required proof of either negligence or intentional conduct on the part of the defendant:

In construing statutory language similar to that contained in the ordinance above, the overwhelming majority of courts has held that civil liability for injuries caused by an animal running at large cannot be imposed against the owner of the animal absent a showing of negligence or intentional conduct on the part of the owner in permitting the animal to run at large. See, e.g., Santanello v. Cooper, 106 Ariz. 262, 475 P.2d 246 (1970); Cooper v. Eberly, 211 Kan. 657, 508 P.2d 943 (1973); and see generally, 4 Am. Jur. 2d, Animals § 116; Annot, 34 A.L.R.2d 1285. We therefore conclude that the use in the ordinance of the word “allow” evidences a legislative intent to require proof of an owner’s negligence as a predicate to recovery in a civil action.

The availability of negligence per se based on a statutory violation is of great importance in Colorado because this cause of action follows from the type of serious injury that violates section 18‑9‑204 (Unlawful Ownership of Dangerous Dog). Subsection (3)(a) makes it a criminal offense to have a dangerous dog. (”A person commits ownership of a dangerous dog if such person owns, possesses, harbors, keeps, has a financial or property interest in, or has custody or control over a dangerous dog.”) Subsection (2)(b)(I) defines “dangerous dog” as “any dog that … [h]as inflicted bodily or serious bodily injury upon or has caused the death of a person.” There is no requirement of prior knowledge of the dog’s dangerousness.

There are no appellate cases that have construed the meaning of section 18‑9‑204. Where no in-state precedents exist, Colorado courts examine out-of-state cases that construe similarly worded statutes. People v. Julien, 47 P.3d 1194 (Colo. 2002), Air Communications & Satellite Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., 38 P.3d 1246, 1251 (Colo. 2001).

Pennsylvania’s regulation of dangerous dogs rests upon criminal law that, throughout the USA, bears the closest resemblence to Colorado’s section 18‑9‑204. Section 502-A(a)(1) of the Pennsylvania “Dangerous Dog Statute” makes it a crime to keep a dangerous dog, which means a dog that “has done one or more of the following: (i) [i]nflicted severe injury on a human being….” A “severe injury” is “any physical injury that results in broken bones or disfiguring lacerations requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery.” (The Dog Law, sec. 102.) In Commonwealth v. Hake 738 A.2nd 46 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999) it was held that a single incident of infliction of severe injury imposes criminal liability under the above statute. For more about Pennsylvania’s dog bite law, see Pennsylvania.

On the basis of that violation, dog bite victims have prevailed in making negligence per se claims against dog owners in the State of Pennsylvania, which is a “one-bite state.” The Hake case was well reasoned and should be applied in Colorado to produce the same result.

Landlord liability for dog bites

The Colorado premises liability statute, § 13-21-115, C.R.S. 2004, is a dog bite victim’s only means of recovery in an action against a landlord. Wilson v. Marchiondo, 124 P.3d 837 (Colo. App. 2005); Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2004). In Wilson it was held that a landlord would be liable for the dog’s attack only if he actually knew, prior to entering into the lease, of the danger the dog presented.

Settlement offers and awards of costs 

Like a number of other states (including California), Colorado encourages parties to settle lawsuits. Such encouragement is by virtue of a statute that says, essentially, that a party will be regarded as a loser even if he is the winner, if he failed to accept a more advantageous offer of settlement. As the loser, that party will be required to pay everyone’s litigation costs (but not attorney fees).

13-17-202 - Award of actual costs when offer of settlement was made.
      (1) (a) Notwithstanding any other statute to the contrary, in any civil action of any nature commenced or appealed in any court of record in this state: 
      (I) If the plaintiff serves an offer of settlement at any time more than ten days before the commencement of the trial that is rejected by the defendant and the plaintiff recovers a final judgment in excess of the amount offered, then the plaintiff shall be awarded actual costs accruing after the offer of settlement to be paid by the defendant; 
      (II) If the defendant serves an offer of settlement at any time more than ten days before the commencement of the trial that is rejected by the plaintiff and the plaintiff does not recover a final judgment in excess of the amount offered, then the defendant shall be awarded actual costs accruing after the offer of settlement to be paid by the plaintiff; 
      (III) If an offer of settlement is not accepted within ten days after service of the offer, the offer shall be deemed rejected, and the party who made the offer is not precluded from making a subsequent offer. Evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. 
      (IV) If an offer of settlement is accepted within ten days after service of the offer, either party may file the offer, written notice of acceptance, and proof of service with the court, and the clerk shall enter judgment upon the accepted offer of settlement; 
      (V) An offer of settlement under this section shall remain open for at least ten days from the date of service unless withdrawn by service of withdrawal of the offer of settlement; 
      (VI) An offer of settlement served at any time ten days or less before the commencement of the trial shall not be subject to this section, and evidence thereof is not admissible for any purpose. 
      (b) For purposes of this section, “actual costs” shall not include attorney fees. 
      (2) When comparing the amount of any offer of settlement to the amount of a final judgment actually awarded, any amount of the final judgment representing interest subsequent to the date of the offer in settlement shall not be considered. 
      (3) When the liability of one party to another has been determined by verdict or order or judgment, but the amount or extent of the liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party adjudged liable may make an offer of settlement, which shall have the same effect as an offer made before trial (except with respect to costs already incurred) if it is served pursuant to subsection (1) of this section.

Resource Guide to Colorado Dog Services: (Dog Trainers, Veterinarians, Groomers, Kennels, Day Care, Breeders)

September 30th, 2007

My Pet Care - Your Comprehensive Guide to Pet Grooming, Pet Groomers, Pet Sitters, Dog Breeders, Veterinarians and Pet Trainers

Find a Dog Training Professional near you

Dog Training Overview

September 30th, 2007

Sunday September 29, 2007

This is a complete and objective overview of dog training.  I found this to be very informative.

Dog training is the process of teaching a dog (Canis lupus familiaris) to perform certain behaviors under various circumstances and in certain roles on command. It is a general term not describing by itself either what or how the dog is taught.

There are as many areas in which to train a dog as there are methods. Most often certain methods, or combinations of methods are applied to any area of training. Obedience, herding, agility, tracking, retrieving, hunting, guard, and schutzhund are common areas of dog training.

  • Teaching a dog basic obedience commands (part of obedience training)
  • Teaching a dog to perform tricks casually or for circus acts
  • Teaching a guide dog to lead the blind
  • Teaching a rescue dog to find victims of a disaster
  • Teaching a hunting dog to perform its instinctive behaviors at appropriate times

The specific behaviors taught in each case are different, but the underlying principles are similar.

As pack animals, wild dogs have natural instincts that favor cooperation with their fellow dogs. These instincts have been refined and exaggerated through years of selective breeding by humans, and are manifested in the domestic dog’s adeptness at correctly interpreting and responding to signals given by a human handler. The handler is simply whoever is working with a dog at the time.

Contents

  • 1 Basic training
    • 1.1 Puppies and learning
    • 1.2 Basic training classes
  • 2 Communicating with the dog
  • 3 Reward and punishment
    • 3.1 Rewards
    • 3.2 Avoiding punishment
  • 4 Training tricks
  • 5 Training Tools
  • 6 Electronic training
    • 6.1 Pros
    • 6.2 Cons
  • 7 Teething
  • 8 Recommended Training Methods
  • 9 Specialized training
    • 9.1 Guard animals
    • 9.2 Service animals
  • 10 See also
  • 11 References

Basic training

Most dogs, no matter their eventual advanced training or intended purpose, live with people and therefore must behave in a way that makes them pleasant to be around, keeps them safe, and provides for the safety of other people and pets. Dogs do not figure out basic obedience on their own; they must be trained.

The hardest part of training is communicating with the dog in a humane way that he understands. However, the underlying principle of all communication is simple: reward desired behavior while ignoring or correcting undesired behavior.

Basic pet obedience training usually consists of 5 behaviors:

  • Sit
  • Down
  • Stay
  • Recall (”come” or “here”)
  • Heel (or loose-leash walking)

The recall command is arguably the most important of all training commands. It is critical to never punish a dog if they respond to a recall. Punishing a dog upon recall quickly teaches the dog that if he returns he will be punished. If the dog requires a correction, the handler should go to the dog - the dog should not be asked to come and then punished. The dog will attribute the punishment to whatever behavior he was doing directly before receiving it, and if that behavior was responding (correctly) to a recall, then the handler has just inadvertently taught the dog to run away from the recall command.

“Corrections” should never include harmful physical force or violence. Using force while training is controversial and should not be taken lightly, because even if it ends the behavior, when applied inappropriately with some dogs it may lead to a loss of drive (enthusiasm for the given task), stress, and in extreme cases even aggression. It is up to the handler to decide what amount of force (if any) is appropriate. However, the standard used by most trainers is the minimum amount necessary to inhibit the unwanted behavior. A common technique is to quickly jerk an attached collar and “lead” (another term for a leash) as a consequence for ignoring a command. (i.e., Sparky is jumping up on a guest, say “off” if he’s already jumped up, or if you see he’s thinking about it say, “down” and if the command is ignored then “correct” Sparky by “snapping” the lead to make his collar rattle.) A common alternative to physical corrections is a time-out from a preferred location or activity. (i.e., Sparky jumps up on a guest and is immediately given a 5-minute time-out in a separate room - away from the guests he wants to interact with.)

Puppies and learning

The prenatal period is a recent addition to the developmental periods of puppies. It is thought that “long-term effects on behavioral development may also be produced in some mammals by events occurring in utero.” (Serpell, 1995, p. 80) Previous studies tended to overlook the existence of this period, since the puppy’s behavior could not be observed. With the development of the ultrasound machine, a puppy could be observed within the mother as early as the fourth week of gestation.

It was found that puppies would react to touch and/or pressure from the outside of the mother’s abdomen. In addition, it is theorized that since puppies have such a well-developed sense of touch at birth, the sense of touch would also be well-developed before birth. Puppies may be sensitive to touch received by the mother while still unborn. Studies have found that “when a pregnant animal is petted her litter is more docile (Denenberg and Whimbey 1963, in Fox 1978).” According to Fox (1975, in Fox 1978) this facilitates relaxation, emotional attachment, and socialization as well. Other studies have indicated that puppies that receive outside contact (petting of the mother) while in utero have a higher tolerance for touching than puppies who receive no contact at all. One could deduce that gentle petting of the mother’s abdomen could help to facilitate positive, beneficial puppy socialization with people.

During the first two weeks of a puppy’s life, also known as the neonate period, puppies can learn simple associations. (Serpell, 1995) However, early experience events are unlikely to carry over into later periods. Studies indicate that puppies in the neonate period do not seem to learn by experience. (Scott and Fuller, 1965) It is theorized that this is due to the fact that the puppy’s brain, sense, and motor organs are still undeveloped. Based on its limited capacity to sense and learn it would be difficult to affect the puppy psychologically, either in a positive or negative sense. (Scott and Fuller, 1965)

The next period of development is known as the socialization period. This is arguably the most important developmental period, beginning around 3 weeks (21 days) old, and ending around 12 weeks old. (Beaver, 1999) The biggest aspect of this period is social play. Social investigation (curiosity), playful fighting and playful sexual behavior (body contact) is very important to developing social relationships during its life. (Scott and Fuller, 1965) New behavior patterns are directly influenced by the puppy’s interaction with its mother and other puppies in the litter.

This is a time for developing social relationships, both among other puppies as well as with people. These behaviors are relatively easy for any individual who stays with the puppies during this period. However, there is a point where the puppies can develop a fear of strangers. At 3-5 weeks of age, puppies will actively approach strangers. Shortly thereafter stranger avoidance begins and slowly escalates until it peaks around 12-14 weeks of age. (Beaver, 1999) While this natural fear of strangers could serve as a way to keep a curious puppy away from predators, it can also hinder normal relationships with people.

During this period, startle reactions to sudden movement and sounds is now present. This serves to help the puppy learn to differentiate between which events are dangerous, and which events are safe or insignificant. (Scott and Fuller, 1965) During the socialization period, the development of attachment to certain locations occurs. This is displayed by an extreme disturbance in the puppy whenever a change in location occurs. This is known as “localization”. (Serpell, 1995) “Localization” often peaks in puppies between 6-7 weeks old (Scott and Fuller, 1965), and then tapers off after that time to the point where a change in location is no longer distressing to the puppy.

Dogs that are handled and petted by humans regularly during the first eight weeks of life are generally much more amenable to being trained and living in human households. Ideally, puppies should be placed in their permanent homes between about 8 and 10 weeks of age. In some places it is against the law to take puppies away from their mothers before the age of 8 weeks. Before this age, puppies are still learning tremendous amounts of socialization skills from their mother. Puppies are innately more fearful of new things during the period from 10 to 12 weeks, which makes it harder for them to adapt to a new home.

Puppies can begin learning tricks and commands as early as 8 weeks of age; the only limitations are the pup’s stamina, concentration, and physical coordination. It is much easier to live with young dogs that have already learned basic commands such as sit. Waiting until the puppy is older and has already learned undesirable habits makes the training much more challenging. (Beaver, 1999; Lindsay, 2000; Scott and Fuller 1965; Serpell 1995)

 Basic training classes

Professional “dog trainers” usually do not train the dogs, but actually train the owners on how to train their own dogs. Although it is also possible to send a dog away to a training school, the owner still must at some point learn what the dog has learned and how to use and reinforce the techniques. Some call this a shortcut, but plenty of work is still required and training must continue over the course of the dog’s life. Owners and dogs who attend training sessions together have an opportunity to learn more about each other and how to work together under a trainer’s guidance. Training is most effective if everyone who handles the dog takes part in the training to ensure consistent commands, methods, and enforcement. Group dog training classes help socialize your dog to other people and dogs. Training classes are offered by many kennels,  vey hospitals, pet stores, and independent trainers.

Formal training in classes is not always available until the puppy has completed all its vaccinations at around 4 months; however, some trainers offer puppy socialization classes in which puppies can enroll immediately after being placed in their permanent homes as long as disease risk is minimal and puppies have received initial vaccinations. In most cases, basic training classes accept only puppies who are at least 3 to 6 months old.

The addition of a family member is a significant change in any home, but what if that addition has needle-sharp teeth and a rebellious curiosity that ruined valuables and can result in household chaos? A puppy requires discipline, consistency, and patience of its owner. To avoid a domestic fiasco, owners should take time to train their puppies and take steps to make their home safe for each family member, from animals to children. The puppy training phase is integral in raising a healthy and happy dog and keeping a safe and fun home environment.

Puppies need consistency from their owners more than anything else. A stable diet and clear guidance of expectations will help the puppy learn what it is supposed to do and where to do it. Knowing exactly what your puppy wants is a difficult, if not impossible, aspect of training. Dogs are expressive but they will not get any discernible messages across to an inexperienced owner. Puppies communicate needs by biting, whining, and getting fidgety. The way the owner responds can make the difference between a healthy, obedient puppy and an unstable mess.

If a puppy is caught chewing on something he or she should not be, the best reaction is to shout at the object in front of the dog, rather than yelling at or punishing the dog. If hit or directly scolded, the dog will not understand and the owner will only harm their relationship. The chewing problem can be solved by supplying and encouraging use of appropriate chew toys and monitoring the puppy. The owner should take care to buy few and similar toys as too many toys can confuse the dog, especially if the toys are diverse. An important principle many people don’t know, or act on, is that the best way to change a puppy’s behavior is to modify one’s own conduct.

Another tip that will facilitate easier puppy training is to give the dog toys that are similar to household items he or she likes to chew. If the puppy is keen on shoes, purchasing a rubber toy similar to a shoe sole might be helpful. Never designate old shoes as fair game for a shoe-chomping puppy, as the puppy will not know the difference between appropriate and inappropriate shoes on which to snack, and may break off and choke on a piece of the shoe.

An integral puppy training issue is house training. As there is no one right or wrong way, various methods of housetraining will work. The key is to be consistent. With regularly enforced rules, litter box, crate, or paper training can be successful. Also make sure all members of the household enforce the rules whenever possible. Accidents happen, so have a procedure for clean-up.

Puppies require time, energy, and money. Their food alone averages about ten dollars a month and trips to the vet for check-ups and shots can get costly. But effective puppy training can reward a person with a loyal companion. Exceptional puppy training is imperative for giving puppies their best opportunity to live a fun, healthy, and loving life.

 Communicating with the dog

Fundamentally, dog training is about communication. From the human perspective the handler is communicating to the dog what behaviors are correct, desired, or preferred in what circumstances and what behaviours are undesirable. From the canine perspective the handler must learn what motivates the dog if the optimum result is desired.

A successful handler must also understand the communication that the dog sends to the handler. The dog can signal that he is unsure, confused, nervous, happy, excited, and so on. The emotional state of the dog is an important consideration in directing the training, as a dog that is stressed or distracted will not learn efficiently.

According to Learning Theory there are four important messages that the handler can send the dog:

Reward or release marker
Correct behavior. You have earned a reward. For example, “Free” or “Okay” followed by a reward.
Keep going signal
Correct behavior. Continue and you will earn a reward. For example, “Good” or “Come on”.
No reward marker
Incorrect behavior. Try something else. For example, “Uh-oh” or “Try again”.
Punishment marker
Incorrect behavior. You have earned punishment. For example, “No” or more specific commands like “off,” “out,” or “leave it.”

Using consistent signals or words for these messages enables the dog to understand them more quickly. If the handler sometimes says “good” as a reward marker and sometimes as a keep going signal, it is difficult for the dog to know when he has earned a reward.

It is important to note that the dog’s reward is not the same as the reward marker. The reward marker is a signal that tell the dog that he has earned the reward. Many novice dog owners make the mistake of using effusive verbal praise as both a reward marker and a reward, which can confuse dog and owner.

Rewards can be praise, treats, play, or anything that the dog finds rewarding. Failure to reward after the reward marker diminishes the value of the reward marker and makes training more difficult.

These four messages do not have to be communicated only with words, but also with nonverbal signals. In particular, mechanical clickers are frequently used for the reward marker. Hand signals and body language also play an important part in learning for dogs. The meanings of the four signals are taught to the dog through repetition, so that he may form an association by classical conditioning. For example, if the handler consistently gives the dog a reward marker immediately before he gives the dog a food treat, the dog soon will learn to associate the reward marker with receiving something pleasant (clicker trainers call forming this association “charging up” the clicker). Likewise, if the dog is always given a punishment marker before he is scolded or put outside for bad behaviour, he will soon learn to associate the punishment marker with the punishment itself.

Dogs usually do not generalize commands easily; that is, a dog who has learned a command in a particular location and situation may not immediately recognize the command to other situations. A dog who knows how to “down” in the living room may suffer genuine confusion if asked to “down” at the park or in the car. The command will need to be retaught in each new situation, though it may be substantially easier after being taught at home where there are fewer distractions. This is sometimes called “cross-contextualization,” meaning the dog has to apply what’s been learned to many different contexts.

 Reward and punishment

Most training revolves around giving the dog consequences for his behaviour, in the hope of influencing the behaviour the dog will exhibit in the future. Operant conditioning defines four types of consequences:

Positive reinforcement adds something to the situation to increase the chance of the behaviour being exhibited again (for example, giving a dog a treat when he sits.)

Negative reinforcement removes something from the situation to increase the chance of the behaviour being exhibited again (for example, releasing the tension on a training collar when the dog stops pulling on the leash).

Positive punishment adds something to the situation to decrease the chance of the behaviour being exhibited again (for example, verbally growling at a dog to make it stop jumping up).

Negative punishment removes something from the situation to decrease the chance of the behaviour being exhibited again (for example, walking away from a dog who jumps up).

Most modern trainers say that they use “positive training methods”, which is a different meaning of the word “positive” from that in operant conditioning. “Positive training methods” generally means preferring the use of reward-based training to increase good behavior over that of physical punishment to decrease bad behavior. However, a good trainer understands all four methods, whether or not they can put operant-conditioning terminology to them, and applies them as appropriate for the dog, the breed, the handler, and the situation.

 Rewards

Positive reinforcers can be anything that the dog finds rewarding - special food treats, the chance to play with a tug toy, social interaction with other dogs, or the owner’s attention. The more rewarding a dog finds a particular reinforcer, the more work he will be prepared to do in order to obtain the reinforcer.

It is important that the dog is not “bribed” to perform. In dog training, the term “bribery” means that the dog is aware of the presence of the reward before he is asked to complete the command. The risk with bribery is that the dog will refuse to comply with commands when he cannot see the reward, since he knows from experience that he will only be rewarded when he can see the reward. Experienced trainers will hide the reward from the dog, and only produce the reward once the dog has already complied with the command. The goal is to produce a dog who will perform even on occasions that the handler has no reward to offer, since the dog’s training has taught him that the handler may have a reward even if the dog cannot see it.

Some trainers go through a process of teaching a puppy to strongly desire a particular toy, in order to make the toy a more powerful positive reinforcer for good behaviour. This process is called “building prey drive”, and is commonly used in the training of Narcotics Detection and Police Service dogs. The goal is to produce a dog who will work independently for long periods of time, in the hopes of earning access to its special toy reward.

Positive Punsihment.  A dog is generally only given this type of punishment if it is willfully disobeying the owner. Punishing a dog who does not understand what is being asked of him is not only unfair to the dog, but can make the dog a fearful or unwilling worker.

Punishments are administered only as appropriate for the dog’s personality, age, and experience. A sharp “No” works for many dogs, but some dogs even show signs of fear or anxiety with harsh verbal corrections. On the other hand, certain dogs with ‘harder’ temperaments may ignore a verbal reprimand, and may need a physical punishment such as a quick tug on a training collar. Trainers generally advise keeping hand contact with the dog to positive interactions; if hands are used to threaten or hurt, some dogs may begin to behave defensively when stroked or handled.

Punishment should only be used if the dog performs something unwanted and you catch the dog in the act or within a very short time of it. A dog who ate the remote in the morning, will not understand why it is being punished at night. Punishment avoidance techniques can be used to control the dog’s behavior while unsupervised.

 Avoiding punishment

Keeping a puppy on a leash in challenging situations or in his crate or pen when not closely supervised prevents the puppy from getting into situations that might otherwise invite an owner’s harsh reaction (such as chewing up a favorite pair of shoes).

It is easy for them to disregard commands amongst the babble.

To reinforce the command, the dog always gets some kind of reward or reinforcement (praise and usually a treat or toy) when it performs the action correctly. This helps the dog to understand that he has done a good thing. It is important not to give treats every time, because the dog will only learn to complete a command when you have a treat in hand and will not be reliable when no treat is present.

Note that not all dogs are trained to voice command. Many working breeds of dog are not trained to a voice command at all; they are taught to obey a combination of whistles and hand signals. Deaf dogs are perfectly capable of learning to obey visual signals alone. Many obedience classes teach hand signals for common commands in addition to voice signals; these signals can be useful in quiet situations, at a distance, and in advanced obedience competitions.

The specific command words are not important, although common words in English include sit, down, come, and stay. Short, clear words that are easily understood by other humans are generally recommended; that way, people will understand what a handler is telling his dog to do and other handlers have a good chance of controlling someone else’s dog if necessary. In fact, dogs can learn commands in any language or other communications medium, including whistles, mouth sounds, hand gestures, and so forth.

 Training tricks

Many dog owners teach their dogs tricks. This serves several purposes: it develops a stronger relationship between the dog and human, it provides entertainment, and it engages the dog’s mind, which can help to alleviate problems caused by boredom. For example, the shake hands trick involves the dog raising its paw and placing it into an outstretched hand. An example of a useful trick is teaching a dog to ring a bell to go outside. This helps prevent the stress placed on an owner when trying to recognize whether the dog needs to relieve itself. For more information, see clicker training or bridge and target training.

Many habits can come up with different dogs. Begging at dinner should not be seen. Don’t pay attention to your dog at dinner time, and your dog will notice that you won’t give them food.

Training Tools

Choke Collar: The choke collar is a length of material (most often chain links) with a large circular ring on either end. The chain is slid through one of these rings and it is slid over the dog’s head. When the dog displays an undesirable behavior the collar is “jerked” or “checked.” This is primarily used in traditional dog training.

Prong (or Pinch) Collar: The prong collar is made of metal links that fit together by connecting through long teeth that point inward toward the dog’s neck. A section of this collar is made of a loop of chain links that tighten the collar when pulled, thus creating a poking sensation on the dog’s neck.

Electronic Collars: These collars include the electronic shock, Citronella, and audio collars. These are electronic collars that are generally controlled via remote. The shock collar sends an electronic stimulus to the dog’s neck at the will of the trainer. The intensity of the stimulus can usually be changed from very slight to a more extreme sensation. The Citronella and audio collars are similar except the Citronella collar sprays an odor that most dogs find offensive and the audio collar emits a sound so high pitched that humans cannot hear it and most dogs do not like the sound. These collars are most often employed in traditional dog training. (See bellow for more details.)

Martingale Collar: The martingale collar is a collar that has only a section on it that will tighten when pulled. This is different from the choke collar that will tighten indefinitely.

Treat: The treat is anything food given to your dog, that your dog likes, while training is being done. This is often the primary tool for those doing positive reinforcement training.

Clicker: The clicker is a plastic box with a metal tongue inside of it. When the tongue is depressed and then released, a “clicking” noise is made. This tool is a way of marking a behavior as a desirable one and is generally used in positive reinforcement dog training.

Head Collar: The head collar is very similar in idea and structure to a halter on a horse. The theory behind it is that if you have control of the head, you have control of the body. The head collar generally consists of two loops. One loop goes behind the ears and the other goes over the dog’s nose and hey meet somewhere below the dog’s jaw. This tool will not teach the dog to not pull on the leash, but rather make it more difficult for the dog to do so while it is wearing the head collar. This tool is usually employed during positive reinforcement training.

No Pull Harness: The no-pull harness, like any harness is worn on the body of the animal. The no-pull harness can be made several different ways. The focus here will not be put on the construction of the harness but on the purpose behind it. The no-pull harness differs significantly from the standard harness in one very fundamental way; it stops the pulling (or makes it harder for the dog to pull) where as the standard harness facilitates pulling and actually allows the dog to pull harder because it more evenly distributes the weight the dog is pulling over it’s back and shoulders, in comparison to the standard neck collar that concentrates all of the weight on the dog’s neck. The no-pull harness will restrict the movement of the dog’s body when the dog pulls on the leash. Like the head collar, the no pull harness does not teach the dog from pulling on the leash; it only makes it harder for the dog to pull while the dog is wearing the harness. This harness is generally used during positive reinforcement training.

 Electronic training

One of the most controversial training methods involves using a remote collar, otherwise known as a “e-collar“. Despite the name, no manufacturer refers to their product as a “shock collar”. This term is used almost primarily by the detractors of the tool. It is commonly referred to as a “remote training collar”, or “remote dog training”, as in the ability to communicate remotely with a dog. This tool was once used primarily as a corrective device only, but is no longer the case.

As with other training methods, whether this tool is cruel or humane generally depends on the user. Modern remote collars have many different settings, ranging from so low that it is difficult to perceive the sensation at all, to uncomfortably or even painfully high. Which settings are used depends on the goal of the trainer for the particular dog. Human perception varies greatly in individuals, so is very difficult if not impossible to monitor proper level usage, as would be the same for standardizing a proper ‘leash tug’. These remote electronic collars are very similar to a chiropractors ‘tens unit’, which are used to aid pain, and not cause it.

There are several different ways to use a remote collar in training, depending on the goal of the exercise. The most common method is to use the collar as an operant conditioning tool to encourage rapid and reliable response to commands the dog has already learned, especially when the trainer is a substantial distance away from the dog. The collar is set at a fairly low level. When the command is given, the collar button is pressed either immediately or after a very short delay. As soon as the dog completes the command, the collar button is released. From the dog’s perspective, the dog’s own actions (performing the command or ignoring the command) turn the collar on and off. Some believe that once a dog forms negative associations with the training process itself, any further progress becomes quite difficult, however problem solving and a trainers skill level and knowledge, are very appropriate in any form of dog training.

The collar can also be used as a classical conditioningtool. By pairing the aversive stimulus with another stimulus, a conditioned aversive stimulus is formed. The collar can also be used by pairing positive stimulus such as food, or reward as well.

Remote collars can also be used for other purposes besides normal behavior modification. Some trainers use very low settings as a way of getting the attention of deaf dogs, when the dog is at a distance or not facing the handler. In this case, the stimulation is not used as a punishment to modify behavior, but as a substitute for verbally calling the dog’s name. Many newer collars include a vibrate feature (like a cell phone vibrator) or an audio pager which can be used for this purpose. These features can be classically associated with the “come” command so the dog can be called back to the handler from a great distance without verbal communication.

Remote collar training is especially popular for working dogs involved in retrieving, search and rescue, and other activities where the dog is off-leash and far from the handler. The collar is very useful in these circumstances because it can completely replace the use of a leash in the training process, allowing the handler to work from a long distance while still delivering instant feedback to the dog. This type of long-distance obedience training is normally quite difficult to achieve, but becomes much easier with the collar. The collar can also function as an “emergency stop button” for an off-leash working dog who may be tempted to wander into traffic, cacti, skunks, or other danger — though this is purely a backup and should not be relied upon as a substitute for solid obedience training.

 Pros

Supporters of electronic training devices believe that the highly effective training device can help save the eighty percent of dogs relinquished to shelters because of behavioral problems. Supporters of this tool also understand that like any tool, the results will vary upon the operator of the device and it is best to seek out professional advice from those that have been successful with it.

Pro-electronic training activists believe that the public is misinformed about the actual strength of the static pulses. Most collars deliver between 0.000005 to 0.0003 joules compared to a human muscle stimulation machine delivering 6.0 joules.

 Cons

Anti-electronic training activists protest against the use of electronic training devices believing that static correction is inhumane.

Anti-electronic training campaigns highlight the danger of static stimulation in the hands of irresponsible pet owners resulting in an aggressive or severely stressed animal.

 Teething

At anywhere from three to six months of age, a puppy begins to get its adult set of teeth. This period can be quite painful and many owners do not recognize the natural need to chew. By providing specific chew toys designed to ease the pain of teething (such as a frozen nylon bone), attention can be diverted from table legs and other furniture. Many people also use a bad-tasting, bad-smelling spray on favorite items, such as shoes, furniture, or even wallpaper, to discourage chewing. Bitter apple is a commonly used spray, but there are several commercial sprays available. Different sprays work better for different applications, owners, or puppies.

 Recommended Training Methods

The following are recommended principles to achieve successful dog training.

• All dog training must be founded upon educating the dog, that is, developing instincts and drawing out accidental and acquired habits.

• Situations and contacts must be interpreted entirely from the dog’s reactions and abilities, and not the human’s.

• The dog is not to be fooled. It has a sense of humiliation as well as a sense of pride. If the dog has been taught to do certain acts, do not give it the command and then trifle with it. At all times you must let the dog see what you are doing. Always is the dog to understand that when you say certain things, it is to do certain things.

• Success must be at the completion of an act of training. The dog is to understand that at the end, a certain thing will take place. For instance, if it is tracking, it must find the person tracked.

• Commands always should be given in the same words and with the same tone of voice and speed of speaking.

• Anticipate the dog’s actions. Think ahead of time and give your command before the dog acts or moves.

• If the dog goes one step wrongly, do not repeat this step but return at the beginning, for the dog must be taught to consider only successful acts in their entirety.

• Reward or punishment should follow quickly after every act. To punish a dog at any other time than instantly after the wrong act is cruelty rather than a part of training, for the dog does not connect the punishment to the act.

• The dog has a single-track mind. Teach one specific thing at a time. This does not mean that a training period cannot include a half-dozen different tasks.

• Give the dog a moment’s time for carrying out your command. To demand instant obedience is to confuse the dog.

• Have patience. The dog is not a human being.

• Develop a bond. All future training depends upon this.

• Remember that a dog cannot ask questions, neither can it understand all you say. It knows only the words, the commands and the names you teach it.

• The success of a handler depends on being able to make a dog understand what it has to do and then to instill that into its brain until it becomes instinctive.

• Always use kindness.

• Be decisive, firm, and most of all, be sure that you know exactly what you want and how it should be done.

• Never try to teach a dog anything until you yourself have a thorough knowledge of how to teach it, and a clear mental picture of each stage.

• As far as possible, always have your dog with you. You cannot train it all the time, but it will become accustomed to your actions, words, and surroundings which will help to make the training easier.

• Never allow other people to pet and fuss over your dog unnecessarily. You are the dog’s handler and it must look to you for everything.

• Your first thought is your dog.

• You must always finish a training period on a good note. Never leave off if the dog has done something wrong. Correction is essential.

• Never put your dog away for the night with a cross word. End the training period on a happy note and see that the dog has mastered the obstacle - and knows that it has done so - before you “good night”.

• Do not punish the dog while you are angry or lack control of yourself.

• Do not lose your temper while training the dog. If you do, the dog will lose some of its respect for you.

• Do not chase the dog to catch it; it must come to you or follow after you.

• Do not coax the dog to you and then turn upon it with punishment. You will regret the deception.

• Do not nag the dog; do not give orders to it constantly; do not pester it with your shoutings.

• Do not punish the dog for failure to obey unless you are certain that it understood fully what you commanded.

• Do not praise the dog for doing a certain act, then at a later time, scold it for doing the same act.

• Do not permit anyone to give commands to the dog while you are training it

What is energy???

September 27th, 2007

Wednesday September 26, 2007

Although a far fetched concept for most of us as humans to grasp, energy is the universal languge that all living things communicate by.  Whether you are a dog, human, bird, or plant, everything operates on the concept of energy.  To simplify this idea I will first give an overview of what energy is, and then I will continue with an explanation of its relationship and use in how we communicate with our dogs.  As stated above, energy is the universal language of all living beings.  So how does it work? 

At the molecular level everything is made up of free floating energy particles.  How this energy comes together is what makes one bundle of energy become a fish, and the other become a human for example.  Regardless of its configuration, energy is still the same at its basic level and free floating by nature.  What this means is that it can be transferred, shared, and passed on.  Of course not on a level we can see with our eyes, but we can definately feel it.  For example, have you ever had that feeling that the phone was going to ring or have you ever met a person that gave you a positive/negative vibe?  That is energy at work!  This isn’t some mystical force, it actually is that “free floating” energy passing through the environment on a subatomic level that we, as its natural “receptor”, pick up as feelings or “sixth senses”.   Now we as humans who once operated on these principles, have evolved quite a bit and have developed language as our primary method of communicating.  Dogs, who use minimal vocalizations to communicate, utilize their sixth sense abilites first and foremost.  This is the means by which our dogs can do amazing things such as telling when their owner is coming home regardless of schedule or time of day (I’ve seen the special on TV too!) or sensing subtle changes in one’s body chemistry to detect disease or seizures before doctors can.  Although magical in its concept, it is this “feeling energy” that makes dogs instantly be able to size up another dog without even seeing them.  Sure, dogs use body language, scent, and other means to communicate.  These things are only secondary and tertiary while energy is number one.  All dogs carry an “energy fingerprint” that is constantly being projected into their environment.  The body language we see is just the reaction many steps after the actual signal was received by either dog.   

What is The Energy of Understanding?

The Energy of Understanding as I call it, is the energy given out by dogs who are the most experienced and best leaders.  What this energy says, using literally no words, is “I am soo good at my job as leader, you don’t have to worry about anything.  I’ve got everything covered for my pack”  This means you are their protector, provider of food & shelter, travel agent, and so on which gives the dog(s) who are under them a strong sense of security by not having to be concerned with all these things.  As is the theme of all that I do, this is the energy we are trying to project to our dogs.  Especially when dealing with problem behavior or dominant dogs who have all these burdens of life on them which causes an unbalanced energy to occur.  This is the root of most problem behaviors we experience with our dogs.  The problem behaviors we see are the symptoms of the unbalanced energy associated with too much responsibility for the dogs that try to assume a different role in the pack than they best are suited to.  Once we take over that role, we put an Energy of Understanding into our environment we share with our dogs.  When I work with my clients I spend a great deal of time doing owner education instead of just dog education.  Reason being is that if the owner knows exactly what their dog is thinking and sees their misguided agenda, it is then that they can be one step ahead of their dog, by seeing their every move as having meaning…and actually understanding it!  This earns respect rather quickly in the dog world, which is an easy way to create the correct energy in our dog’s environment.  The energy of understanding.  So without the owner knowing how to work a leash and collar or how to give a dog endless treats, they can learn how to get their dog to listen to them just by understanding the concept of energy.   

by: Brett Endes  

When is it time to find a new dog trainer?

September 25th, 2007

How to know when to move on

By: Nish Nalbandian owner; Comet Canine

This is a great article by a respected colleague of mine.  It really tells it like it is…Enjoy!

I have a current client who owns a German Shepherd. She called me because her dog was acting aggressive toward men. During our initial interview my client told me that she had been working with another trainer for about a year, to teach her dog obedience and protection skills. After about a year of training, that trainer told her that she should euthanize her dog because it was too aggressive.

I should know better by now, but I am still shocked when I hear stories like this and I am faced with the realization that people in the dog training world can be so unprofessional, incompetent, and ineffective in their chosen profession. I guess I should learn.

Seeing this situation made me decide to write an article about how to know when you need a new dog trainer, using this as an example. Let me start by highlighting what was really going on. This client had worked with the other trainer weekly for about a year. When I arrived, she was having difficulty keeping the dog from biting people. After assessing the dog and the situation, it was a fairly easy fix. The dog needed some basic control work, and needed to have limits set very clearly. ONce the dog knew what he was supposed to be doing, he responded very well.

The other trainer had used some questionable techniques during the dog’s protection training, not even following basic, well-known strategies to ensure the dog’s stability and ability to turn off the aggression once turned on. By making the dog ‘defensive’ and threatening the dog to bring out aggression, she seriously damaged teh dog’s trust in humans. Any good protection trainer knows that for a typical family protection dog, or for any dog starting a career in the sport or police k9 fields, you must start with prey drive, and work into defense drive. This trainers incompetence damaged the dog. Since she could not deal with the results of what she had created, she counselled her client to kill her dog. That’s really unprofessional. She caused the problem, then couldn’t fix it, so she blamed the dog. After having the client pay her for a year!

I hear stories like this all the time. They really make me angry. That is partially why i started Comet Canine. To provide real, professional, comprehensive dog training and behavior modificaiton services to the general public. I saw too many instances where people learn one technique, or make one up, and then claim to be professionals, without realizing the responsibility they hold. In the case of this client, her incompetence and inability to see her own limitations made her unable to see what was really going on, and could have led another person to euthanize a perfectly healthy and psychologicially normal dog.

You may be thinking that this does not apply to you, if you are not doing protection training. But I see it day in and day out with family pet dogs. People take their beloved dogs to see people who claim to be dog trainers, pay them lots of money, and are often given incomplete or even dangerous advice about how to deal with the problem they face. So how do you as a consumer know how to pick a trainer, or how to move on and find a new one? Here are a few guidelines:

Results. Are you getting results? Not in a year, but now? Has the trainer given you not only a plan for how to get to some future point where your dog might respond, but ALSO given you the tools you need to deal with the problem AS IT HAPPENS? Any good professional dog trainer can get a dog responding within a few sessions, and most problems require less then 10 sessions. Sometimes it takes longer, but in most cases if you have not seen a big change very quickly, it’s time to find someone who is better equipped to help you.

Responsibility. Does the trainer blame the dog? A good trainer can deal with most dogs, and can switch gears if their initial plan isn’t working. A real professional takes responsibility for their actions. They can recognize if they make a mistake. This doesn’t mean that you are free of responsibilty, though. As the dog’s owner, you need to consistently practice the skills and management techniques your trainer gives you.

Realistic Expectations. A true professional will set realistic goals to work towards. They will help you understand what you need to do, what the dog will be able to do, and help you work together as a team.

Ethics. A professional trainer will not mess your dog up, then tell you to euthanize it. A real professional can sometimes make mistakes, but they will help you get through it. A real professional will not charge you money and then not provide the expected results. A real professional will do their best to make sure you get what you pay for.

Skills. A real professional knows what he or she is doing. Everyone has their limits, no one knows everything, and there is not a right answer to every question. But being professional means keeping an open mind, observing what is really going on, and responding to the realities confronting you. Being professional means being open to using all the tools of the trade. Being professional means having read the scientific literature about your profession. Being professional means being able to apply that knowledge in a practical way.

Sometimes when I write these things I realize that I am not getting across what I truly want to say. The bottom line is this, my client spent a lot of money with a person who claimed to be an expert, but who provided sub-standard services, put the blame elsewhere, and almost cost her her dog’s life. Dealing with beahvior problems such as aggression is serious business. Being deluded about your skills, or not knowing enough about how to deal with aggression can be dangerous. I find it offensive that people charge money for something they are not qualified to handle. And there’s the final mark of a real professional. They know when they are in over their heads, and are not afraid to admit it. I work with other trainers on a regular basis, and I make referrals if I do not feel like I can deal with the issue at hand.

There’s one more aspect to consider. And that is, does your trainer think that there is only one way to deal with things, their way? There are many different training tools, techniques, and methods out there. If a trainer is stuck using only one, they are limited. From people who only use click and treat, to people who only use electric collars, to people who only do clinical consultations, there are tons of trainers who apply only one method. If your dog does not respond, they blame the dog, they blame you, isntead of expanding their repertoire and openign their minds.

A note to the ‘positive only’ folks, read Lindsey’s ‘Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, Vols I-III’. If you think that the science backs your position, you’re in for a surprise. Much of what is being taught as dog training ‘fact’ today is little more than dogma. Repeating something does not make it true. Believing something does not make it true. To consumers: Choose a trainer who is not dogmatic, but who is flexible, experienced, and has a big toolbox, not just one tool.