Let us examine the story of Putnam Humane Society. The organization closest to where I live, and as a professional trainer, I feel impossible to ignore. I was introduced to the shelter by a professional colleague of mine who was donating her services to the shelter.

The shelter was very overpopulated with dogs. In a nutshell she wanted to see which dogs, in my opinion, should be destroyed.  Most of which had an aggression issue of some sorts.  You see Putnam Humane Society was one of the first (maybe THE first) recognized no-kill shelters in New York State. And a true no-kill shelter it is. Most people do not realize that the majority of “no-kill” shelters do in fact kill many dogs.  There are no regulations as to exactly what that term is to mean. Therefore, it generally means that the organization will not kill dogs they find “adoptable”. What is considered “un-adoptable” is to be determined by that individual organization. Un-adoptable dogs can be killed and do not reflect on that organizations success rate with “adoptable” dogs.  Un-adoptable dogs may include very sick dogs, but usually consists of dogs with behavior problems.

At Putnam Humane Society though, no-kill really means no-kill. There are a small handful of cases where extremely aggressive dogs that have seriously hurt individuals have been euthanized. This was done with much scrutiny and by-no means at all routine.  The last to be euthanized for behavior was a few years ago.

I loved the type of devotion that the long term volunteers have for these dogs there. But, with this devotion also came problems…

Since this truly is a no-kill shelter, naturally the easier dogs get adopted but the amount of dogs with aggression issues have accumulated. When dogs with aggression issues accumulate they congest kennel space and less space becomes available for in-coming dogs from the community. The shelter at this point becomes a limited admission shelter – meaning although Putnam Humane Society doesn’t kill their dogs, if an owner wants to surrender a dog determined difficult to adopt, it is likely to be refused. The rational is that there must be space available for the easier to adopt dogs.  Since, Putnam Humane Society has contracts with certain towns within the county it MUST take in the unclaimed strays from those areas. A certain number of these unclaimed strays are discovered to be aggressive, and in that way more aggressive dogs slip through the blockade of owner surrender refusal and get in through the “back door” and add to the congestion of difficult to adopt dogs.  This is, by the way, one of the reasons many dog owners choose to tie their dogs to a guard rail rather than try to walk in through the front gate of this and other similar shelters.

In this situation, when owners try to surrender their “un-adoptable” dogs, they are turned away, and must find themselves to either a “kill shelter”, to a veterinarian (to be killed), or to the fate of being abandoned or less humanly killed by the owners themselves. This type of shelter, without any plan for this situation, does little to end the killing of dogs in the community, and are often scrutinized for “warehousing” dogs.

“Warehousing” dogs is when dogs are kept in unfulfilling conditioned for years on end. It can easily be argued as cruel. And, many believe it is more humane to kill a dog that is hard to adopt than let it live out a life of frustration behind the chain link of a relatively benign shelter pen.

That’s why I was asked to come.  To end the suffering… and the problem.  Which should die?  So, I gave my answer.  It was zero.   I instead typed out a thorough plan which I would volunteer to implement.  It included training, rehabilitation, and aggression management programs for these dogs and the support needed for those that took on these special needs dogs. I call it the TRAMP program for short and have been doing this successfully for privately owned dogs for many years.  I guess it wasn’t the answer anyone wanted to hear, because it was confirmed to me that the plan was received, but no one cared enough to contact me.

I heard not a peep, but instead learned a group of behavior and shelter specialists from Cornell University funded by Maddie’s Shelter Medicine Program was summoned to help.

This program was financed by a 2 million dollar grant from Maddie’s fund. Maddie’s fund offers grants to organizations that will work to make a no-kill nation for our beloved pets.  They encourage joint efforts from the community, shelters, and veterinarians to work toward this goal.

Cornell did report a huge need for standard operating  procedures at the Shelter including a lack of many fundamental policies regarding the intake, evaluation, and adoption guidelines of dogs:

Also reported about the population of dogs there during the visit:

37 of the 47 dogs had been there for longer than one year

Of these, 27 had been housed for more than 2 years

And 15 of these had been there for more than 5 years.

What is more disturbing than almost 80% of the population being housed in short term conditions for years, is the details of those conditions.  Cornell found that:

The behaviors observed during their visit indicate poor welfare of many of the dogs housed at PHS

Besides the basic emotional needs of the dogs not being met, some of the physical needs are not being met.  During the 17 hours inside the facility the dogs are housed in small (6 x 4) runs with virtually no human interaction the entire time.

During the 7 hours the dogs spend in their outside pen they may receive a walk or training session but this does not occur on a regular basis and not every dog receives these interactions.

Caretakers move the dogs from the inside to outside pens as quickly as possible, on a tight leash, with little to no interaction.

Many of the dogs at PHS have de-socialized due to their long term stays at the shelter and display aggressive behavior as a result.

That is horrible, but don’t worry! At last Cornell came to the rescue!  With a 2 million dollar grant to support a no-kill vision and a team of experts, you would expect that Cornell would come in and save the outlook for the dogs at the shelter and the community.  Unfortunately, that was not the case…

What was there 2 million dollar solution…?  Euthanasia, mainly, and other policies which helped lay the plan for doing so.  The report including not only instructions on how to build a squeeze gate to restrain and euthanize dogs, but a list of criteria that should warrant a dog “unadoptable” and therefore to be euthanized or not accepted. This included:

Dogs with a history of aggression in the previous home, including to children, resource guarding, generalized aggression to dogs, a history of high prey drive, or that have killed cats or other dogs.

-        Any dog with a bite history to humans

-        Extremely under-socialized dogs or fearful dogs over 4 months of age

-        Dogs adopted and returned for aggression

Now, considering that AGGRESSION, as scary as it sounds, is a natural behavior to all dogs

And that AGGRESSION is more likely to be seen in the untrained, under socialized, poorly cared for and managed dogs that become strays or make their way to a shelter.

Also consider that AGGRESSION and/or HIGH PREY DRIVE is even selectively bred into most working dogs, terriers, hunting, and just about every other type of dog that is used for a functional purpose… It becomes apparent that there will be a lot of leeway to now start killing as many dogs that are needed to control the population and become a more efficient “no-kill” shelter since “Hey! Those are unadoptable dogs anyway. They don’t count!” If we get overcrowded we can always starve a few dogs and see if they will growl when we shove a rubber hand in their food while they eat.

Let’s also not leave out the fearful dogs over 4 months old. Kill them too, even though they are still puppies and may have not even displayed aggression. Let’s not even give them a chance.

Back to Cornell’s “no-kill” solutions funded by Maddie’s fund:

For Strays: Unadoptable dogs should be euthanized following any legally required holding period

For owner-surrenders: Unadoptable dogs should not be accepted by the shelter.  But, in Cornell’s exact wording:

“The shelter must provide alternatives to assist members of the public with those pets that the shelter is unable to accept.”

The magic “save the day” suggested alternative:

“Establish a relationship with a veterinarian who is willing to euthanize these animals at a reduced cost.”

What!? Does everything in this plan include killing!?  What about training and rehabilitation?  Don’t the dogs at least deserve a chance?  Especially the dogs that have been trapped behind the chain link for years and years?

Cornell’s “no-kill” training and rehab suggestion:

“Behavior modification is unrealistic and inappropriate for the severity and duration of aggression exhibited by many of the dogs housed at PHS.”

Also in the report:

“ The recent incident with Hunkie serves as a reminder of this fact.  Hunkie, a dog that has been housed at PHS for more than one year and has a multiple bite history, proceeded to attack and bite his trainer despite weeks of regular training sessions.  This incident was not a “fluke”. Rather, it is consistent with the current scientific understanding of the nature of aggression.  Bite incidents are more likely to escalate in frequency and severity rather than remain stable or improve over time.  This is the real risk that exists with every dog that has a bite history and the reason for the recommendations that have been made.”

This makes no-sense to me.  Not only do many dog trainers and “behaviorists” have jobs because it is possible to improve the prognosis of a dog that has exhibited aggression – especially one that has not had a fair chance with a qualified trainer.  The dog, Hunkie, mentioned in the report was rescued, trained, and proven to be manageable in a home going on 3 years since the report was made.

As a matter of fact, the funding agency that provided Cornell with the money requires a plan for determining which dogs may be treatable (both health and behavior) before a determination is made that a dog is “unadoptable” (euthanized).

Treatable dogs are further divided into rehabilitatable and manageable categories.  Neither of these categories require euthanization as the plan and the criteria is flexible for the shelter to determine which dogs fall into those categories.  It is mainly determined by, according to Maddie’s fund, “…care equivalent to the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet owners/guardians in the community.”

I know in the community of Putnam County reasonable and caring pet owners typically would seek behavior help if they knew it was available before deciding to kill their dog.  So why does Cornell fail to even mention a plan of how to determine which dogs are treatable?

The closest mention of “treatment” I found in the report is in their sample policy recommended to Putnam Humane Society for “Identifying and Handling Aggressive Dogs in the Shelter”

Here they recommend that all dogs that have displayed aggression in the previous home or at the shelter including dogs that have lunged or threatened with snarls/growls and dogs that are extremely fearful that don’t acclimate after 3-5 days (over 4-5 months of age) should be immediately killed.  They write exactly, “…it is not the policy of the shelter to “give the dog another chance” once the propensity for aggression has been revealed.”

Does that seem as straight forward to you as it does to me about the dogs at Putnam Humane Society?

No attempt at rehab or management should be made.  Do not even try.

I can guarantee you that the spirit of Maddie’s Fund is NOT to make no-kill shelter’s more efficient killing machines and it is not the heart of Maddie’s Fund to demoralize a shelter by killing all the dogs that the volunteers have been so devoted to.

The spirit is to move closer to a no-kill nation and provide solutions for no-kill shelters to DECREASE the amount of dogs and cats that they kill.

With that being said, it is my opinion that Cornell University did rape Maddie’s Fund.  Instead of help a humane society that was looking for no-kill help, they instead demoralized them and doomed their dogs.  Maddie’s fund was named after the founder’s late miniature schnauzer. If they didn’t train her to “roll over”, I bet she sure is now.

What did Cornell bring to the table? A way to turn a no-kill shelter into a kill shelter by twisiting the rules and deceiving the public into thinking that the efficient killing machine is in fact a no-kill shelter.

Almost a year goes by since I volunteered my assistance with no response….

I was reading in the newspaper about the dog named “Hunkie” mentioned in Cornell’s report.  A probable golden retriever/lab mix that the shelter decided to put on death row.  PHS followed the recommendation of Cornell University and had the backing of a local trainer, Lisa Edwards of Three Dog’s Training to euthanize without a full chance to be rehabilitated and managed properly.  There was one devoted volunteer of PHS (and later board member), Margie Goudie who wanted to adopt Hunkie and give him a fair chance through proper training and rehabilitation.  Hunkie at the time bit twice at the shelter.  Once, when a worker entered his pen and applied topical flea medication and once, from what I was told, for biting a “trainer” who who tried to teach  Hunkie to tolerate this type of prodding by entering his kennel and forcing himself on the dog the way he learned watching the Cesar Milan “Dog Whisperer” TV show.

This became a legal battle between Putnam Humane Society who was using its funding to pay a lawyer to protect their right to kill the dog and Margie Goudie who wanted to adopt him and give him a fair chance.

Considering that this is the County in which I lived and that I tried to jump in and help BEFORE the bite incidents to prevent these problems, I could not sit back and watch this dog die while there was a person who loved this old abandoned dog and was willing to guide and manage him in a way that I knew I can assist with.

I volunteered to take Hunkie into my program, at no cost, and standby him with a lifetime of support and continued rehab.  Eventually, the legal battle came to an end and Hunkie was adopted by Margie, much to the dismay of those who wanted to give up on him.

Hunkie entered my program.  Immediately, I had to learn how to deal with the public attacks on my company which I suspected originated from opposition within the humane society.  I could not believe I would be the brunt of so much hatred for trying to save a dog! I eventually matched the email IP address of a Craigs list poster to the IP address of an email with a connected actual name.  This poster was spreading information through Craig’s list which was then making its way to the local newspaper’s internet forum and to who knows where else?!  This poster claimed I was taking in Hunkie and possibly other PHS dogs to “torture, abuse, and break them.” Also, recommended the public stop all donations to the shelter if they send any more dogs to me to be broken.  Those who know me, know this is furthest from the truth as my business revolves around teaching gentler ways to train difficult dogs, but that didn’t stop the cancelations in the schedule and prejudice of those that haven’t seen my work.  This information was being spread from the same IP address as the current trainer (at that time) hired by PHS to evaluate dogs who subsequently wrote the evaluation on Hunkie which suggested against a rehabilitation attempt.  I collected all the data through a tracking service but decided against pressing charges since the slander did stop once I wrote to both email addresses that I knew who she was.

After Hunkie entered my program, to the contrary of what was predicted by Cornell University and Mrs. Edwards, Hunkie did great.  I kept him for a full year while Margie religiously visited and learned how to master living, handling, and maintaining the training and rehab of Hunkie.  Two and a half years later from the time he was told he should be euthanized he is still doing fine with his devoted owner Margie.

Around this time there were some changes to the personnel on the board of directors and I wanted a second chance to submit a plan to help ALL the dogs of Putnam County and offer a solution to their problems besides Cornell’s advice of Euthanasia.

I came up with a plan to build a modular training and rehabilitation room on Putnam Humane Society’s empty space.  Having a work area on premises I would be able to mimic what I do for privately owned dogs for the forgotten about and disadvantaged dogs of Putnam County.  I could train volunteers or a paid trainer to eventually help  Putnam Humane Society be not only a shelter but a self sustained rehab center for their dogs.  I can put other programs in place for the public as well.  We can have a TRUE no-kill solution.

A long time client of mine, Nick Presta, who believed in my work, offered me a check for $35,000 that I could bring to Putnam Humane Society to donate into a “training fund” if it will be used to support this vision.

I made it clear from my very first visit to a board meeting that adding a space for training programs will ultimately be needed to do what had to be done.  We went to the shelter immediately after the meeting and pointed out multiple areas that would work for the placement of the structure.  Everyone seemed excited about the idea except, to my knowledge (and my surprise), the president Michele Dugan, who through the next couple of years delayed and gave me every excuse as to why the structure cannot be placed on their property ranging from she didn’t want the staff to have to clean an extra area to she didn’t want inspectors to find out they were hosing dog urine and feces into the New York water shed from the outside kennels.  None of this ever made sense to me.  If there is a problem why don’t you fix it?  Isn’t that your responsibility?  Even if you aren’t concerned about your lawful responsibilities and the nine million people who will drink from that source, aren’t you at least concerned about the dogs of the shelter and the county that do not even have a single adequate room to train in and never have?  Especially, since it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to rectify the problem.

Regardless of the perpetual delay and string of excuses I was prepared to use some of the funds to hold PHS off while I compromised using their small laundry room for what I could with the dogs on sight, and my own private facility for the programs involving group classes or lessons.

These are the programs I put in place to counter the bleak suggestions of Cornell:

1. Besides Hunkie I took in one of the more difficult aggression cases into my kennel (Darren) to show that he can be rehabilitated enough with the right plan to become adoptable. When at PHS this dog was already there about 8 years and rarely had any human interaction except for maybe one or two walks per week by one worker that worked on the weekend.  Other than that he was corralled from one pen to the next using large boards and was forced to defecate in the kennel where he stood.  Darren went from a dog that was only handled by one person on the weekend for a short time, to a dog that now gets daily training (mon-Friday and sometimes Sat), gets to play with other dogs, gets walked three times daily, gets daily affection and tummy rubs, and is considered ADOPTABLE to the right person who would want an 11 year old Rottie.  At least now he has a CHANCE and isn’t miserable waiting for it.

2. I have done free TRAMP lessons at my facility for county dogs who were too aggressive to be placed into the shelter as a low cost/free alternative to euthanasia (the only option offered by Cornell). This would be possible for PHS if they had their own training room.

3. I have offered free early intervention puppy classes for all dogs of the county. Countless puppies have now attended this class and I also offered super low cost obedience group classes for these dogs after puppy class($19). This also helps with owner education and ultimately retention of the puppies in their original homes. This would be possible for PHS to sustain (and increase donations) if they had their own training room.  This has been a great alternative to the suggestion of euthanasia for very fearful dogs over 4 months of age.  And we have seen dogs blossom that would have been prone to euthanasia if the Cornell suggestion was followed.

4. For dogs at the shelter I have set up a structured program, with training logs for each dog, that will teach them obedience humanely and other exercises such as accepting a muzzle which will greatly increase their chance for success and adoptability.  A training room at PHS will be necessary to fully let this program reach its potential.

5. I have offered free private lessons at my facility for the dogs that have been adopted from the shelter that would benefit from extra training. Many of these dogs would have been returned without the extra support.  This is possible for PHS to sustain with their own training room.

6. I have held free aggression support group classes for dogs and owners that have finished sponsored programs to be able to find extra support and forever improve as a successful canine and human members of society.  This would be possible for PHS to sustain if they had their own training room.

7. I have trained multiple trainers that have been ready to help on a volunteer basis to assist with a single head trainer placed at Putnam Humane Society. They can help run programs in a training room at no cost to PHS.  Their volunteer service was supposed to be payback for learning a new skill.  There still has been no training room for them to work in at PHS.

The whole time I have been running these programs, not even once in over two years has the president came to see what I was doing at my facility for free for these county dogs to see the difference it would make at PHS.

Around this same time I started with another long time volunteer, Courtney Aponte, a policy committee.   This was to address the fact that there just weren’t any written procedures for many important things.  This was also very noted in the Cornell report along with a list of policies that we were lacking.  This too, for some strange reason the president told me she never read!  Even if she disagreed with the suggestions for euthanasia, shouldn’t the head of the shelter be informed of what was reported and suggested and be concerned there were no formal policies?

Me and Courtney created the policy committee to address the real problem of no policies in areas that are essential for a humane society.

This was going well and we presented the new policies at the board meetings and they were voted on the following month.

But the problems come about once the changes start to become more work for the shelter or tread on the feet of the leadership who are used to running the place like their own private dog club.  There are serious problems with the way things are managed.

Leadership has “favorite” dogs at the shelter that end up biting people and causing law suits because the dogs are not secured properly in pens and left in open work areas even with a bite history.  When I make suggestions as a professional I get “hissy fits” instead of compliance.

Dogs are brought in from other states, because leadership are doing favors for friends in other rescue organizations.  They take up kennel space on Putnam county’s dime while the county’s own dogs get turned away.

Eventually, just like putting in a training area, there becomes an excuse at every board meeting why new policies wont be presented.

I watched two board members walk away and leave the organization because they are tired of everything proactive being snowballed and the dancing around of putting more programs in place for the community.

Finally one day I write an email to the board reminding them of what I came to the shelter to do.  It has now been a couple years of patience.  I asked them to answer these exact questions to me formally as a board:

“Please send any official statement the Humane Society will like to make to this email address, or if any board member feels  differently from the official statement please forward your own personal statements to this email as well.

What I am looking for is simple.  Do you want to implement these programs at the humane society? Yes or No. And, if NO please answer why? If yes, why is it taking so long to make an adequate training area part of the Putnam Humane Society?”

I asked this question TWO months ago and not a single statement from anyone on the board.  They decided not to talk to me.

I continue to help as I can on a volunteer basis.  I am asked by a long term volunteer, Dianna – adopter, and ex-board member if I can help her adopt “Krista” a dog that has been at the shelter almost 10 years!!  This is a dog that is a classic result of PHS’s lack of being proactive for the sake of the dogs.  There is no reason this dog should have spent its whole life behind the chain link.

Two days before I am supposed to help out with introducing Dianna’s dogs to Krista I get this exact email from an attorney telling me I am not welcome at the facility:

“Dear Mr. D’Abruzzo:

We represent the Putnam Humane Society and have been informed that you plan to visit their facility in order to conduct a “dog test” on Thursday, November 17, 2011.   As you are aware, you have made certain accusations and allegations about the PHS suggesting that the Humane Society has misappropriated funds.  Given this situation, we are writing to expressly advise you that you are not welcome at the facility nor will you be allowed to participate in,  or conduct,  any type of testing involving animals on the PHS premises.

We are also in the process of evaluating whether or not your accusations may be legally actionable.  In this regard, we have advised the PHS that you are not to be allowed on their premises until such time as we have completed our analysis.

Your anticipated understanding and compliance is appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Montgomery J. Delaney”

First, what the heck is the accusations this guy talking about?!  I wrote privately to get some well deserved answered!

Therefore, if I am going to be bullied by threatening me with a lawyer on the ridiculous grounds of writing supposedly false information privately to the same people I am supposedly slandering, you might as well get your money’s worth from the funds that were donated and meant to HELP the dogs but instead going to an attorney to keep me from helping a dog that you kept there for 10 years.

So if they want to search for legal actions to bully me away, I might as well give them this blog and try to find a way to squeeze it from the truth.  Maybe Cornell’s consultants (Kelly Bollen, Brenda Griffin, Stephanie Janeczko, Brian DiGangi) who worked on the euthanasia solution, Lisa Edwards of Three Dogs Training who share an IP address with cowardly anonymous lies , and  Putnam Humane Society’s president Michele Dugan (who ultimately has been my biggest road block to helping the county’s animals) can also join in on a big ol’ class action suit for me losing patience with the corrupt, lazy, and egotistic behaviors that are causing dogs to die.

I don’t understand the minds of the people that have been allowed to stay in charge of these animals.  What are they going to do sue me?  I gave everything I’ve got to them already, and if they could squeeze money from me I would gladly add it to my monthly donation I give them every month, and I could always tape up and cash the checks they tried to pay me after i realized they were going to waste it all. I always said “save the money for a training room”.  Maybe you can sentence me to community service at the shelter.  Oh! Wait that’s what I was trying to do and you prevented me from doing it!!

I end this blog with a video I made a while back at Putnam Humane Society showing some programs trying to be implemented.  Alivia and Sampson have since died while waiting for programs.  You will see Krista who has been there almost 10 years in the video too. She is still sitting there because they chose to threaten me for no reason.  Ask yourself, what has to be done.  It certainly isn’t to stop donations or turn your back on these dogs.

Please anyone who has been involved with the movement to make changes to Putnam Humane Society over the last couple years – speak up in the comments below.  Time to change is now.

A test on this Dobie using an undercover bite suit.

Before you buy a personal protection dog or consider training a dog for personal protection, you may want to do some research.  There really isn’t much advice out there for the person looking to obtain a personal protection dog besides from those who are selling personal protection dogs to you.  I get emailed a lot of questions so I decided to make a post with some random thoughts, advice, ideas, and me just being the devil’s advocate.  The dog world is a very unregulated industry and attracts a lot of unethical individuals.  You don’t always know who you can trust.  So here is a list of some info and I’ll mix in some videos to demo my points.  Excuse the sloppiness of this post, I will most likely come back and add to it or brush it up.

Why listen to me?

I have been around the block in this field.  I was formally trained in the sport of schutzhund and in personal protection training,  I have trained for private security, government agencies, and for people desiring protection.  Personal protection training has been a steady part of my business since 1998.

Also, I have been at the other end of the phone and training field with dozens of people (who spent a LOT of money) who did not get what they expected when they bought a personal protection dog.  I get a lot of emails asking for advice and have heard all their stories.  So below is some info that will relate to the most common questions I receive and/or wish the average person knew before they purchased a personal protection dog or pursued personal protection training for their dog:

A sport dog is NOT a personal protection dog

Be familiar with the dog sports of Shutzhund and French Ring in particular.  Many places are just reselling dogs that are titled in these sports and dog sports similar to these with little to no cross training in real personal protection training.  Sometimes they will demo the sport exercises off the training field and in realistic environments to make it look like real protection.  Don’t be fooled.  Unless the dog is cross trained it may look real to the untrained eye, but what you are seeing is a game to the dog.  Without the pads and sleeve they wouldn’t know that they are supposed to bite and why? Often these dogs are biting the pads off of the same people who take care of them.  In most of these sports the dog is working to bite the equipment and is desensitized to think stick hits don’t hurt (the original purpose was to prove the dog can take a beating and not be intimidated easily).  But, just because a dog can take a beating with a padded stick doesn’t mean you should set the dog up for failure when they are encountered by someone who is going to hit them over the head with a lead pipe or ax.  Sport training is fun for the dog and more like a glorified game of tug-o-war than personal protection training.  Dog sports are good and serve a purpose for selecting good breeding and training candidates, but without cross training it is NOT personal protection training and there is no guarantee that they will react correctly.  If a sport dog, without cross training, performs successful personal protection in the real world, they probably would have done it anyway with or without the sport title.  Some dogs with sport titles will NOT protect when faced with the unexpected experience of a real threat.  I know this for a fact, I have seen it firsthand.  The fact that a dog has a sport title will usually drive the price of a dog WAY up, but for the sake of personal protection it is not needed and can be misleading to what the dog will do in real life.  Sometimes it is an easy way for brokers to sell “personal protection dogs”, because they can get away with just giving a demo of the dog’s predictable sport routine to the uneducated buyer without doing any cross training.

You do not always get what you pay for, sometimes you do:

Prices for trained personal protection dogs can range from $4500 (or less) to over $50,000.

What are you paying for? Hopefully, a return in investment.  Even the most ethical trainers can’t get by the cost of a fully trained adult dog.  There are usually many hours of labor from multiple trainers over many months of time.  Even the dog, with no training, is usually worth a pretty penny.  Someone is compensated for breeding, raising, and feeding that dog for at least 18 months to over 3 years.  There are often more than one middlemen in the exchange of a good candidate.  Sometimes the dog goes from the breeder, to an importer/broker, to a trainer/business, and then to you.

But, I have dealt first hand with trainers that will simply charge what they think they can get from you.  I have known of one trainer who demoed several dogs to a potential buyer and showed the same dog twice (only changing the collar), called it a different name, and gave it a twice as high price tag second time out.  In this way he covered his bases of not losing a sale with a “bargain dog”, but also not losing out if the client wanted “the best money could buy”.  Seems outrageous, but 100% true.

Many dog businesses import a sport titled dog, quadruple the price, and let it live in a kennel without any further training until someone buys it (as I mentioned above).

I have known of another trainer that asked a buyer how much he was looking to spend.  The answer was $18,000 and the trainer said, “Well, I just happen to have a personal protection dog that I think you will like and it just so happens he is $18,000”.  He would have sold the mediocre dog for half that amount.  Smart business or unethical business?  It is not really farfetched to what happens when you haggle at the car dealership or at a farm market – but it is the truth in this industry.

Personal protection dogs are needed for defense NOT offense.

Unless you are law enforcement or some type of vigilante, there is no reason to be sending a dog to attack a fleeing person that is not a direct threat to you or family members.  If you can escape to safety or a phone there is no need to send a dog to “attack” a person who is not challenging your personal space.  Some dogs will never make good police dogs or sport dogs because they have no desire to chase someone to the ends of the earth to bite them, but will readily defend their owner if the need arises.  This is why you very rarely see any of the flock guardian breeds in law enforcement or sport, but individuals from these breeds are often excellent personal protection dogs.  A dog doesn’t have to be very prey driven to do this work.

What this means to you?  You do not usually need the “top bloodlines in the world” for personal protection training.  Guaranteed I can go to your local shelter and find a dog there that will defend you to a degree with minimal training.  What is most important about choosing a dog for defense is the ability and instinct to defend and good solid nerves – not high prey drive.  I have worked with dogs that worked great if they were on the offense, but would run away if placed on the defense and felt threatened.  In a video below I will show you a dog that you would never guess ran away from creepy people.

The anti-social guard dog option

Back to the shelter…  Maybe you are the anti-social type and don’t have many guests coming around.  Maybe you live in a very secluded area.  Most shelters have dogs that are EXCELLENT with the people they are bonded with, but are very suspicious of outsiders.  Create a bond with these dogs, put a little bit of obedience into them, and you usually have a great budget personal protection dog (and guard for the property) that is not going to stand there and watch as someone threatens you.  You will sleep well at night knowing that this option isn’t going to lick the face of someone climbing in your window.  The con of this option is that this dog may require closer supervision and management if needed to be brought into social situations.  But, for the right responsible person can be a rewarding choice – especially paired with the right obedience program.

Control, Control, Control

I want to emphasize how important control is in the personal protection dog.  The dogs with the sharpest instincts to protect are potentially a liability and danger to friends and visitors without good control, boundaries, and structure.

You want the real deal?

In the rare case you believe someone might challenge a personal protection dog, the last thing you want is a dog that was trained to take a beating with a stick that causes no harm.  If someone is going to challenge a dog it will not be a competition clatter stick – it will be an ax, a crowbar, lead pipe, bat, etc…

If you want to rely on the dog for real direct physical challenges, you must make sure the dog is trained for real direct physical challenges.

Personal Protection Dog vs. Gun?

Gun will generally win – this is common sense.  You and your dog’s best chance is if he is trained to bite the aggressive arm.  This might buy you time to escape, but common sense tells us that the dog may die.  If you are a gun owner, the dog may buy you some time to get your own gun and even out the odds. Know your limitations with a personal protection dog.

Some dogs can do it, most just can’t.

It doesn’t matter what breed or sex the dog is.  Some dogs can be personal protection dogs and others just can’t no matter how much training you put into them.  If starting with a pup you can increase the odds by picking from a litter of proven lines and running some temperament tests. Ultimately you won’t know for sure if the dog will do personal protection until he/she matures.

With older dogs, an experienced trainer can usually run a few tests to see if he/she is a candidate without having to wait for the dog to mature.  Attempting to train a dog to do personal protection that doesn’t have the instincts or correct temperament can be cruel to the dog.  Most dogs do not excel at personal protection training no matter how much training you do with them.  You usually need to seek out a candidate.

Here are some potential red flags when considering a personal protection dog for sale:

Is the dog biting a big sleeve and getting hit with a stick? Give the dogs some credit, they are actually smarter than that.  This is a game, they want to pull the sleeve off the guy and run away with it.  They are not defending themselves or the handler and probably have not been trained to.

A seller that promises the dog will protect you, double as a nanny, and fold your laundry.  If you don’t see it, don’t believe it.  Dogs capable of personal protection should never be left in the care of a child period and should not be left to make their own decisions if left out in the yard with a child playing.  Dogs can be fooled and dogs can make bad decisions.

Super duper elite level 1000 executive protection dog packages – Same thing here.  If the dog will do all those things, be sure you see it, and wonder why you will only need a two day handling course or VCR tape to be trained to handle a dog like this.  Training is only as good as the person in control of the dog, therefore the more advanced the training, the more advanced the handler training should be or else it is useless.

Must Do Tests for the Personal Protection Dog

If you decide that want to invest money in a fully trained personal protection dog, these are tests that you MUST do if you are going to rely on this dog to actually engage with an attacker:

The muzzle test:  Will this dog defend and do everything that is promised if the dog is wearing a muzzle and the attacker is wearing only jeans and a t-shirt (and no bite pads)?  If the dog is trained to bite the legs will it defend if the person is wearing shorts?

The passive test: Does the agitator have to act “like an agitator” to alert the dog?  Some dogs will only give the display that you are hoping will deter a creepy individual if they start shaking a stick or making herky-jerky movements or exaggerated “bad guy” postures or dressed in a big puffy suit or wearing a big ol’ padded sleeve.

The hidden sleeve or hidden suit test:  Will the dog bite ,without hesitation, agitators wearing hidden protection under various types of clothing?

Is this dog controllable?  Seriously, will this dog be controllable by YOU?  If the trainer has to yell at the dog or choke him off a bad guy, or throw his arm out jerking the dog expect you will have to do the same to control him.  A poorly trained dog can cause more of a danger to family and friends than that of being an asset to your feeling of safety and well-being.  And, just because a dog has earned an obedience title or sport title don’t assume he is going to be a dream to handle in the real world, off the training field, where there are cats, skateboarders, neighbors’ dogs, and kids running around.  See it first and then believe it.

The best advice for personal protection dog

If someone asks, and time is on their side, I say get a dog with solid genetics, from a proven line that has done the work, raise it correctly, socialize it, and train it in off-leash obedience.  A dog that has the instinct to protect will protect.  It doesn’t need much training to do that.  What separates the personal protection dog from a dog that will bite is the control that the owner has on that dog and the ability to bring the dog with you places so that the dog will be there to act as a deterrent and if needed act upon his instinct to protect you.

A dog, can of course be trained how to fight an attacker more effectively, but the dog picks up more bad habits than good from most dog sports (such as allowing themselves to get beat with an object, or think there is going to always be some kind of padded arm to bite).  I prefer to not have to undo some of that training and start with a dog that hasn’t been exposed to the preferences of sport work.  A dog that will naturally bite the most aggressive body part will be able to stay in the fight longer and keep a true attacker occupied long enough to give you the greatest chance for escape.

The only way to be smooth in intense situations is to practice the drills, hence all the fire drills as a kid.  If you have a real need for this type of dog REGULARLY scheduled scenarios with a professional or club is recommended – not a video tape.

These are examples of some Exercises to practice with an experienced trainer for the personal protection dog –

Attack on the handler – The most basic and most important for the personal protection dog.  If a dog does not practice these drills with the owner, the owner can accidently be bit by the frantic dog not exposed to the situation.

Keeping someone at bay – a dog lunging at the end of the leash is hopefully all you will ever need to stop someone from approaching closer.

Attack on the dog – Think like an attacker.  Won’t it make sense for an attacker to try to scare away or disable the dog first?  This is why it is very important for a dog to NOT ignore an object in the hand.

Attack on the dog while someone attacks the owner – This is a likely multiple attacker scenario.  Someone may attempt to occupy the dog while a second assaults the handler.  The priority is to teach the dog to flee from any kind of encounter with a person to get to the handler/family member in need.

Multiple attackers in general – If there is ever going to be a situation  where the training and experience of the dog is going to be a huge factor in making or breaking the likelihood of a person escaping an assault, compared to the situation with an untrained dog, this is it.

Any other scenario that may be likely for your personal situation.

PERSONAL PROTECTION TRAINING IS SOMETHING WE ONLY RECOMMEND UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF AN EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONAL

We have a “bite club” for our clients that are interested in practicing personal protection scenarios and training – suits are used to teach the dog to bite (sleeves are RARELY used) all the handlers of the dogs are OWNERS of the dogs – they are there to practice drills.  None of the dogs have any sport titles and most don’t have any exceptional pedigree.  The only thing that they have in common is the natural instinct to protect which you cannot train into a dog.

An important thing to note is the control of the dogs in the videos:  All the dogs were trained in off-leash obedience first.  Then, the dogs and handlers had to master controlling their dogs in different difficult situations, and THEN the dogs were allowed to go through personal protection training.  If an owner can not call their dog away from the front door when someone is knocking, they should not be training the dog to master his fighting skills.

Here are some personal protection videos that illustrate some points:

This is a newer video that shows a couple of dogs being trained to focus on the weapon:

Here is the rottie in the previous level at an earlier date (before he mastered going to the weapon) performing a multiple attacker scenario.  Note that the dog is being used for defense and escape of handler.

Here is a video of a Malinois doing a defense scenario and practicing avoiding the hit of a crow bar.

Note that the obedience allows for better safety of the dog since the dog can escape with the handler.

Here is a video of dogs doing various personal protection exercises at the “bite club” for owners of these dogs to master handling techniques and for the dogs to get better and more confident with different scenarios.  It is usually a lifetime commitment for owners to own a dog with types of skills.  Note that we test the dogs on muzzles and hidden sleeves.  We also have a full hidden suit that fits tightly under clothes (not seen in video):

Here is an older video of a dog being used OFFENSIVELY not defensively.  You would never guess by watching this video, but this particular dog would run away from anyone who truly creeped him out.  I am the one taking the bites from him, but I was also his care taker and he really loved me.  I am not saying that all dogs that are used for offense will run away from a threat, but I am just giving an example of how what you see may be deceiving.  He only wanted to peel the suit off me and drag it around.  We got a lot of calls for the purchase of this dog, but we ultimately gave him away for free to a good home because we knew he didn’t have the correct temperament to be a realiable personal protection dog.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the post. Sorry so sloppy.  If you want stay updated on any new blog posts I put up, BE SURE TO JOIN MY MAILING LIST BELOW AND FACEBOOK PAGE HERE: Click for my facebook fan page.

2. Use the rehab video for educational purposes.  We don’t necessarily recommend doing what we do in the video.  But, it is hard to find examples of this technique done so at least you can watch and make your own judgments.  These techniques are not necessary to work on the issues you see.  Different approaches work better on different dogs and situations.  You are mainly seeing a combination of extinction and counter-conditioning in the videos using primary and conditioned reinforcers.  We do not put our hands in the food bowls of dogs as a standard way to work on food aggression.  In the vast majority of cases simply managing the situation, basic obedience, building trust, and counter-conditioning is the best direction.

This video is an intro to some of the different types of gloves:

This is an old video showing us using some of the gloves in three different scenarios:

Want to mention one more time that there is serious risk of injury when working with aggression rehab cases and using the techniques in this post. Please use for educational purposes only unless you are a professional who assumes all the risks involved.

Feedback and suggestions are always encouraged!

I decided to do a video on cutting nails, because I realized that too many dogs are unnecessarily traumatized during the process. Although, it is good to have styptic powder, corn starch, or another solution available to help with clotting the blood from a nail clipped too short – it should not be considered the norm to always clip the nails until they bleed.

From a dog training point of view it is nearly impossible to desensitize a dog to nail clipping if the nails are consistently cut too short and the blood vessel “nicked” every time it must be done.

It is highly recommended that you use counter conditioning with any dog that has had bad experiences with nail clipping in the past. To do this simply give a treat after each nail is clipped. Some dogs may be extra difficult and require more gradual counter conditioning – whereas they are giving a treat after you simply touch the paw. Then, work your way up to touching the nails and then maybe clipping just one nail per session.

Of course it doesn’t hurt, and i suggest, to condition your dog to enjoy having his/her nails trimmed even if there was never a bad experience to begin with. Therefore, I recommend using the same technique of treating the dog after each nail is clipped as you would if you were counter conditioning the dog from a bad experience.

If anyone has any other tips or thoughts to add, please feel free to comment.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy the video below:

So what is cherry eye anyway?  Technically, it refers to the prolapse of the nictitating membrane of the third eyelid.  This gland is responsible for about 30% of the dog’s tear production.

Cherry eye is known to be more common in certain breeds and certainly seems to be at least a partially hereditary condition.  It is claimed that the prolapse occurs because of weaker connective tissue around the gland.

Left untreated, cherry eye can cause chronic irritation of the eye and remain as an unsightly red bulge in the corner of the eye.

The usual treatment is surgery, which I have assisted with a handful of times while I worked as a veterinary technician.  Success rate and cost of surgery will vary depending on the veterinarian performing the procedure.

When confronted with the issue myself, I thought if it popped out it must be able to pop back in, and after a little research it seems that others have also managed to massage their dogs’ cherry eyes back into place.  Most recommend using some kind of an eye lubricant.  Since I caught my dog’s cherry eye early and her gland and eye was still very moist – I did the technique without lubricant thinking that the lubricant might also make it pop back out easier.  So, if I was able to get it back in easy without the foreign lubricant I did, since the tears of the eye does act as a natural lubricant.

Researching that the best known reason as to why cherry eye occurs is because of weakened connective tissue around the gland, I immediately placed Dixie on a supplement that is designed to support the connective tissue of joints – which I figured couldn’t hurt in supporting any of the body’s connective tissue.

The result: Within 4 days I had to massage the cherry eye back in 3 times.  I also massaged for a few days afterwards just to seal the deal.  I placed her on Agility supplement, and 7 weeks later still no sign of cherry eye and her eyes look good as new!  You can see the video below of the last time I massaged in the cherry eye.  Remember I am not a veterinarian and there are risks to doing this yourself, including damaging the cartilage around the eye.  Consider this post an alternative and something best discussed with your veterinarian.  Would be interested in any feedback from others who have had success with a similar plan.

1. Dog behavior can’t be explained through wolf behavior.

2. Dominance is not a factor in dog behavior or dog-human relationships?

Are these revolutionary discoveries or is it irresponsible twisted science?

According to The Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT), the largest association of dog trainers in the world, these claims are absolutely true and based on scientific research. Because of the APDT’s large following, these claims have ran like wild fire through the dog training community. The web is flooded with blog posts, youtube videos, and literature mimicking these claims.
According to their position statement located on their web site(http://www.apdt.com/about/ps/dominance.aspx):

Dogs are not wolves. The idea that dog behavior can be explained through the application of wolf behavior models is no more relevant than suggesting that chimpanzee behavior can be used to explain the intricacies of human behavior.” – Association of Pet Dog Trainers

Although, their statement doesn’t have reference to any specific studies, I will share with you some of my own knowledge about this statement – since I have worked and directed training on a professional level with humans, chimpanzees, dogs, and a wolf:
For one, scientifically dogs are in fact wolves. They are considered the SAME SPECIES by scientists and can interbreed, produce fertile off-spring, can communicate, and coexist quite well together if placed together in an enclosed environment.
Chimpanzees, on the other hand, are NOT the same species (not even in the same genus) as us, and can’t interbreed with us (despite the urban legends). Their methods of communication are completely different than ours. Judging by media history and what I have seen with my own eyes – it is at best a great challenge to deadly for humans to coexist with them.
Humans and Chimpanzees have diverged about 5 million years ago – and humans have evolved into a species with a brain weight nearly 4 times as large as a chimpanzee’s, of much higher intelligence, complex culture, and vast lingual abilities.

Me in 1996. Chimpanzees are similar to us, but body language meanings, language, and culture are very different.

Dogs are actually the domesticated version of the wolf (we are NOT domesticated chimpanzees!) and have interbred for thousands of years and still to this day. Many breeds of dogs in the world are the result of modern interbreeding with wolves (Saarloos Wolfhond, Czechoslovakian Wolfdog, Lupo Italiano, etc…). Dog’s brains are typically about 30% smaller than their wild counterpart and are generally considered to have a lower level of intelligence and range of communication skills. This is the product of domestication and more specifically the selective breeding for Neoteny, which is retention of traits normally seen only in juveniles including a personality that better accepts a submissive role within a human pack.
Whether breeding for neotency was purposeful or not, it did make for more docile “wolves” which were not as difficult to control and hence more likely to succeed in human establishments.  These were more likely to breed to other “easy to handle” wolves – and the path toward domestication began.
Some of the many breeds we see today are the result of thousands of years of selectively breeding for physical characteristics and enhancing or suppressing behaviors inherent to the WOLF in different combinations to suit a specific purpose.
Think of the strong predatory and kill behavior of most terriers – even more so than the wolf, but from the wolf.
Think of the strong tracking instinct of the bloodhound – an enhanced skill originating from the wolf.
The many hunting breeds that are skilled in hunting in packs like wolves, and herders that are skilled at stalking like the wolf.
The sight hounds which have maintained the lean body type and agility of the wolf for running down various prey which may have also included their own wild cousins.
Not one domestic dog shows all the behaviors of the wolf – most have had some suppressed so that they would not kill the sheep they are herding, or so they will stay in a fight with odds stacked against them (terriers), or for countless other reasons.
But, all these working behaviors will find an origin and can be explained through some suppression or enhancement of the wolf which in fact can be considered the complete dog – where all the pieces originally came from.

Some dogs can be more similar to wolves in their behavior and interaction than extremes between the different dog breeds. Dark colored wolves are due to crossbreeding with domestic dogs 12,000-15,000 years ago. Wolves, Dogs, and Dingos are all subcategories of the same species and have all been proven to have crossbred to some extent and in the case of the dingo started as a wild animal, became domestic, and then back to the wild. Also, dingos have been bred back into some modern breeds such as the Australian Cattle Dog. Environmental conditions with all these varieties of the species have led to their fine differences in behavior and physique - just like the wide variety of differences seen within our domesticated versions. In the photo above a wolf and dog play using the same body postures and facial expressions understood by both varieties of the species.

Virtually, all of a dog’s body language and communication skills will find an origin from some point in the wolf’s life cycle and most dogs can communicate quite freely with wolves.
Just about every behavior problem plaguing dog trainers and behaviorists can also find a source from the behavior of wolves:
Food aggression and resource guarding although normally suppressed during domestication is a normal behavior in wolves.
Separation anxiety, a common behavior seen in our dogs, is also common and seen if you separate a wolf from his/her “pack”.
Social related aggression seen in dogs toward each other and their human “pack members” are directly related to the potential triggers seen in wild dogs and wolves.
Fearfulness and skittishness may be labeled “weak nerves” when attempting to shoot a shot gun near a hunting dog, but the same quick reflexes and hypersensitivity to the environment protect wolves from falling trees, hunters, and countless other dangerous situations.
Not only can most our domestic dog’s behavioral problems be traced back to wolf behavior – we can actually see a trend of reverse domestication going on because of the reversal of good selective breeding practicing in this world (especially the US where the mighty dollar rules most breeding decisions).  Skittishness, resource guarding, and more serious adult like behaviors are common amoung the products of puppy mills – even in breeds that were bred for centuries to have calm, docile, and more juvenile like temperaments.

Now for the APDT statement on dominance:
“There has been a resurgence in citing “dominance” as a factor in dog behavior and dog-human relationships. This concept is based on outdated wolf studies that have long since been disproven. Contrary to popular belief, research studies of wolves in their natural habitat demonstrate that wolves are not dominated by an “alpha wolf” who is the most aggressive pack member. Rather, wolves operate with a social structure similar to a human family and depend on each other for mutual support to ensure the group’s survival.” - Association of Pet Dog Trainers
So what they are saying is that wolves are not like dogs and humans are not like chimpanzees, but wolves ARE like humans… Does that make sense?
What they are referring to is the original study where wolves were observed in captivity. Here unrelated wolves were placed together and an “alpha” emerged as the most assertive wolf that would be in control of limited resources and ultimately social interaction.
They are now attempting to debunk this theory because of further studies out in the wild typically will be made up of related wolves, and naturally there is less aggression seen in these established packs where the pups are born to parents that already have the upper hand. Wolves, like normally acting dogs, do not show aggression for no reason. And, if they must it is always minimal amount.
Now, let me ask you this… How many dog owners have actually giving birth to their family dog? Compare this to the number of families that are actually bringing outsiders (pups or rescued adults) into their home and are unrelated. Ok, that will be 100%.  A dog, just like a wolf, will need to know who has the dominant role in the household in order to relate properly to the humans and know who makes the important group decisions – whether it be who to trust at the door or who is entitled to take possession of the unclaimed poisoned rat discovered in the yard at the same time.  If no one shows this to the dog, depending on the dog’s personality, he may either claim the role himself, or just be insecure and wait for someone else to take the role.  This is what dominance is about in our relationship with dogs – and if you don’t communicate that you want the role, yes, a dog may “dominate” us if it fits his personality type. To “dominate” is to be in control and this does happen all the time in households with no knowledge of how to “dominate” their pets. Does dominating a dog have anything to do with force as suggested… only to the uneducated “old school” trainer and those who credit them as representing professional dog training. Dominating your relationship with your dog has to do with who is making the initiatives, who is in control of unclaimed possessions, play, and other activities. This is what gives you the upper hand needed in the dog-human relationship and tools to motivate your dog for further training. It involves calm leadership with precise relationship rules. It is not about “alpha rolls” or physical punishment of any kind.

Ad that brings us to ultimately what is wrong with the APDT’s statement – that dominance in dog training, dog culture, and wolf culture all have to do with violence and aggression.  This is far from the truth, and by allowing the violent trainers’ definitition of dominance training stand as the accepted definition of “dominace training”, it forces others who do understand what dominance is about and how it is important to use a different term – out of fear of being grouped with the ignorant.

I haven’t really used the term “dominance” or “dominant” with my clients for a few years because of this.  Instead I use the term “leadership”.  Calm “leadership” is what successful dominance really is – and it is important and it does exist in the relationships of dogs, wolves, humans, and in any working combination of the three that must interact.
So does dominance exist? Of course it does. Dogs and wolves are complex creatures with different personality types – and just like us humans that have type “A” and “B” personalities, so do dogs and so do wolves and some more type “A” or type “B” than others. So call it dominance or call it another name because of a conflict in Webster’s dictionary, but saying it doesn’t exist as a trait within some dogs is just twisted science.
The dog training world too often is explained away only by simple operant conditioning models. Operant conditioning is the simple cause and effect learning process that creatures as simple as flies and slugs prove to easily master.  It it is important to dog training or any type of training with any creature no matter how simple.

But, to wipe away common sense and the complex nature of our dogs and their undomesticated counterparts is as irresponsible to the student dog trainer as it is to the dog that suffers when sentenced to euthanasia for not being understood.

I respect the APDT for spreading the word of gentle – positively reinforced dog training, but there statements on this subject I have to disagree with.

All intelligent opinions are welcome,  and I am curious as to what APDT members feel about this statement –

Before I go on defending Cesar Millan, let it be said that I mostly consider him good entertainment.  With the “attention getting” kicks, neck jabs, rolls, etc… He is more physical and hasty than I like to see – but like I said, it is meant for entertainment, and is a show that is made to get ratings.  But, just because a bull fighter can handle themselves around a bull, doesn’t necessarily mean that is the best, safest, and most humane way for farmers to control them.  That is probably the best analogy I can make with Cesar – with respect to the fact that he is honestly trying to help the dogs instead of killing them as the bull fighters kill bulls! That is why there is a disclaimer about it being for entertainment purposes only – which many people forget.

Anyhow, Mr. Cesar Millan does commonly use one technique called flooding to help dogs that need to “face their fears”.

The concept behind flooding is simple – force the dog to encounter a stimulus that would generally elicit a flight or fight response, but prevent the dog from using those two coping mechanisms to deal with the stress.  The hope is that when the dog experiences that nothing scary happens from the encounter – they will learn that the flight or fight response isn’t necessary and will therefore put them on the path of a more normal behavior for that situation.

Does flooding stress the dog out? Yes. 

Does flooding work? It depends if our expectations are reasonable for the individual dog.

Are there better ways to do things? Usually, but sometimes it does have its uses.

Take some human examples:

Can a person get over the fear of jumping in a slightly chilly pool by being pushed in?

Can a person with a snake phobia learn to get over snakes if they are forced to have snakes slither over them with no incident?

It all really depends… and leads to more questions.

Are these fears we are trying to get a dog over genetically based or just due to lack of exposure?  This will make a difference.

Also, if a dog is forced to “face his fear” and the feared stimulus actually becomes somewhat pleasant – is it still considered flooding or start spilling over into a different category of “canine behaviorist” jargon.

Think of dogs that are forced to take a bath and then seem to enjoy the attention and massaging of the experience once they stop squirming, or the person who throws there scared retriever into a lake for the first time and then they can’t get him to stop jumping in himself.

There are tons of examples and lots of grey areas, but needless to say there aren’t as many “evil” techniques out in the dog training world as one would think – only those who misuse and don’t understand them.

There are many, many, MANY dogs that die every year because all options are not considered for training before a professional of some sort says there are no more humane options.

Below is a video of Darren.  He is a dog that has been recommended for Euthanasia without alternative techniques against the most accepted being considered.

Darren is definitely “flooded” by me in the video.  I believed the benefit from the spurt of stress from the exercise outweighed the other options of chasing a scared dog around in the kennel for an unknown amount of time into the future and risk him fear biting, hurting himself, or physically suffering from the prolonged exposure to stress.

Consider this is a dog that has been in a shelter for 8 years and was so fearful that even months of handing him treats through the kennel has failed to get the desired results in the past and he has had at least one fear bite through the kennel when someone attempted to hand him a treat in his kennel.

This is a very fearful and fragile dog that has proven to be very difficult to work with using the most accepted and popular methods.

Me and Earl made our decision as what to do after a long discussion on what we felt would be the best way to move Darren along for his betterment.

If you think the video is a little scary for Darren – consider that there are no legal standards for dog trainers in the United States.  Depending on what hands he fell into he could have been exposed to harsh corrections for the behavior, downright abusive beating, or even an appointment for euthanasia from even the most “humane” trainer.

I am hoping to get feedback and discussion on this post – to not only get a feel for popular public opinion but also suggestions and feedback from other trainers and behaviorists no matter what their background may be.

After all we are dog lovers here and our goal is to simply help as much dogs as possible while making our best attempts to always be as humane as possible.  I believe Darren has more to teach people than I do.

If you believe in our efforts to reach out to the most disadvantaged dogs please consider a tax deductable donation to Putnam Humane Society located here: PutHumane.org

My opinions do not necessarily reflect theirs, but they have stood by a lot of these disadvantaged dogs and have giving them a comfortable life while awaiting options that served more justice to these poor dogs than death.  Thanks for reading!  Video below:

PETA can sell you a coat, ear muffs, or scarf that will match your own dogs’ fur.  Think of the fashion possibilities!

I can not find the 2009 records but these are previous 3 years numbers for dogs and cats:

Skeptical? Here are the public records: Click Here

Why are they against non-kill shelters and sanctuaries for dogs and cats?

They can answer better than me so here are their own words from their own web site:

Here is what they say about non-kill shelters: Click Here

Wow! Hey, how about just improving the situation in the shelter… Improving the training, enrichment, and socialization programs of the non-kill shelters?

Good thing PETA isn’t in the human orphanage business…

Of course they offer no solutions besides death.  They even speak against the best known way to potty train a puppy – using a crate.  This will cause more dogs to end up in their kill shelter, get into trouble, or get hurt when not supervised.  Like I said, good thing they aren’t into the ethical treatment of children, because I guess cribs wouldn’t be allowed.  Their words on their own site: Click Here

I am not against kill shelters, because as of now they are a necessary evil.  But, I am against hypocrites and those who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

Don’t you think it is time for a serious change in this country in the way our dogs are treated?

Does PETA really represent animal rights? 

A majority of people in this country consider their dogs as family members and treat them as so – so why are not more people doing more to stop what is going on in this country and set the pace for the rest of the world?

If dogs are like our family members than let’s just describe what the equivalent would be if we were dealing with humans.

If dogs were humans:

“Baby farms” would be legal and babies would be sold to many middlemen that allow them to just pee and poop through bars in their cribs.  Meanwhile, orphanages would be overflowing.

“Baby farms” and backyard baby producers would cage people with known genetic based illnesses and psychological problems to give birth to babies to sell as long as they were cute babies and there was someone willing to buy them.

Orphanages would be overflowing with children.  Some orphanages, ran by places like PETA, would kill most the children instead of improving the orphanage and developing programs there to help the situation.

Children that have developed behavior problems or are harder to adopt would be killed off to make room for easier to adopt children coming in.

Their would be little public programs in place to help these children.

“Kill” and “No-Kill” orphanages would be in a war against each other as to who is worse.  The orphanage who has to turn new orphans away because they are filled or the government contracted orphanages that must take in all orphans and kill them.

THERE WOULD BE NO REAL CONSOLIDATED EFFORT TO REALLY FIX THE PROBLEM BECAUSE SOCIETY HAD BECOMED DESENSITIZED TO THE FACT THAT WE WERE KILLING MILLIONS OF CHILDREN EVERY YEAR FOR AS LONG AS THEIR GRANDPARENTS COULD REMEMBER.

People would send their child to the orphanage for potty training issues, for talking back, for hitting, for any kind of behavior problem.  The child would be eventually killed and the person would adopt another…

It would be a common suggestion for top Universities on Child Psychology and even family doctors to recommend people kill their kids because of their behavior problems or to kill off the kids in the orphanages with behavior problems.

Now back to the real world of dogs…

It’s hard to believe that there are not more people that can look outside the box and see how absurdly easy it would be to make real changes in this country.

Do you believe in justice?

Can you look into the face of an abused, genetically disadvantaged, or unsocialized and untrained dog that was set up for failure’s face and honestly believe that his life is worth less than any others?  Do you believe he fears death less than your own dog that you love?

Many dogs have died during the time it took for you to read this article and millions more will this year in shelters.  Do you know who is killing them?

Us… WE are killing them.  As long as WE do nothing we are killing them.  Worse than PETA, worse than the puppy mills, worse than the evilest animal abuser on the planet.

Who is going to save them?  Are you going to rely on the Humane Society of the United States with their $100 million dollar budget?  Go to your local shelter and see how much of that any dog really sees.  Do your own research if you care.

If you really believe in the rights of man’s oldest and most loyal friend than please do one or more of the following:

Forward, share, or spread this article to anyone you feel would like to be informed.

Get involved with your own local shelter to see how you can help them.

Do not support the cash crop puppy industry no matter what that pet store says and no matter how clean it is.  If looking for a dog… Adopt a dog or at least support a reputable breeder (that breeds to better the health and temperament of a breed ) who stands by and rescues their own dogs that they produce.

Above all stay educated.

Programs in place and developing at Putnam Humane Society:

-        Free socialization and early intervention programs for all county puppies

-        Free dog behavior problem and success clinic for all county residents

-        Training, rehab, socialization, and a CHANCE at a new life for ALL sheltered dogs

-        The social worker program for adopted shelter dogs – to help with the success of an adopted dog with special needs and management

If you are looking to place a tax deductable donation with a charity and you are an animal lover please contact Putnam Humane Society and help us help the world’s dogs by setting an example for others to follow.  This article does not necesarily express the views of Putnam Humane Society and was writtien only by someone who is trying to help them and the dogs that they have stood by.

Please donate here (tax deductable): Putnam Humane Society

Please forward to all that will care!