"BTW Jerry, the sound/noise training is working so far.
 And yes, I still clean the yard every other day, but
 now there is feces from Both dogs. Thanks Jer!"
 Marty

From:  Jerry Howe
Date:  Fri, Nov 17 2000 8:09 pm
Email:   "Jerry Howe" 

Hello lyingdodgDUMMY,

I posted Marty's first post to the group. That's
the one where you told him to stick his head up
his dog's butt to find the poo before his dog eats it.

You told him you can't stop the dog from eating poo.

He followed my instructions as Paul B. did, and his
dog stopped eating poo in a couple of days. Remember???

Tell us HOWE you'd stop a dog from digging holes or eating
poo or taking trash or jumping the fence, EVEN IF we were
willing to HURT our dogs MORE than we'd LIKE to...

C'mone. Tell us all about HOWE to train dogs, lyingdogDUMMY.

Anonymous, dog abusing.  lying, coward...

See ya. Jerry.

"Jerry Howe"  wrote:
> Got any training advice to TRAIN the dog not to do that?

Why would anyone in their right mind ever even try
to TRAIN a dog not to eat its own shit when this
"behavior" can be totally eliminated simply by
TRAINING yourself to clean up after your own dog?

Don't even try to answer that question, Howe,
it's a waste of time for you.

Because only people in their *right minds* have a chance here.

And that pretty much leaves you out, doesn't it?

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Splash!

From:  Antonio Eduardo Katz aka DOGMAN
Date:  Thurs, Oct 19 2000 12:00 am
Email:   Antonio Eduardo Katz 

Jason  wrote:

[...]

> Actually, I only have one shit-eater and he seems to
> exclusively eat the shit of other dogs and animals.
> The other dog will take a bite occasionally, but not often.

Well, they're probably going to keep doing it then, because
you really can't stop it -- once it's heavily reinforced -
- without using punishment.

Do you want to end up with a dog who is afraid of his own shit?

>> Now that I can see that your dogs ROAM, you have another
>> problem, and probably a more important problem to worry about.

>> ROAMING.

>> If you want to let your dogs ROAM, get used to them eating shit.

> Actually, the non-shit-eater is also the only regular roamer.
> The shit-eating dog doesn't seem to care to go more than a
> couple hundred feet from the house.

Then you only have to keep a couple hundred feet clean, eh?

> Thats still far enough to find the droppings of
> other animals.  I like letting them roam.  Its
> like having my own park for them to run and play.

Then get used to the trade-offs.

Having shit-eating dogs who roam, and who may in
fact not even come home one day.

But, hey, they're your dogs Jason.

>> The point I'm making here, Jason, is that it's entirely up to you.

>> Either confine your dogs to a MANAGEABLE-sized area,
>> or get used to them eating shit.  Once they have the
>> habit, it's the only thing that works RELIABLY.


> Actually its not that big a problem for me.
> They *are* confined when I am not around.
> My dogs don't do it that often and I usually
> catch them before they get too far.  I just
> didn't care for your "No findie, no eatie."
> response to the original poster.  Too simplistic.

Tough shit.

Let's hear your "more complex" answer, okay?

Anyone else out there wanna take a crack at it?

>> But if you don't believe me, go to Jerry "The Phony"
>> Howe's web site and download his "free" manual and
>> have a go at it, okay?

>Now who is giving out the rotten advice? ;-)

I thought that was the kind you preferred?

Rotten, but easy-sounding advice?

>> I'll be watching closely for your progress report.

>> ;>)

>> PS:  Good luck with your shit-eating dogs!

> Dog.  One shit-eater and one roamer, ok?

Then good luck with your shit-eating roaming dogs.

You're proably gonna need it.

--
Dogman
mailto:dog...@i1.net
http://www.i1.net/~dogman


From:  dgriffi
Date:  Mon, Oct 16 2000 12:00 am
Email:   dgri...@cs.csubak.edu

Buster Bocherelli  wrote:
> "Jerry Howe"  wrote:
>> Got any training advice to TRAIN the dog not to do that?

> Why would anyone in their right mind ever even try to
> TRAIN a dog not to eat its own shit when this "behavior"
> can be totally eliminated simply by TRAINING yourself to
> clean up after your own dog?

It's not reasonable to watch your dog 24/7 waiting for him
to take a go so you can go pick up after him.  That's why
people ask the question of how to break a shit-eater.

Dogs don't just eat their own feces, they'll eat
other dogs' feces and even eat out of the cat box.

How does one break a dog from eating out of a catbox
even when the box is one of those self-cleaning contraptions?

The dog will just wait around until the
cat uses the box and then chow down.

See the point?

--
David Griffith
dgri...@cs.csubak.edu


From:  MBITTNER
Date:  Mon, Nov 20 2000 3:00 am
Email:   MBITT...@GOODYEAR.COM

Dogbutt spewed forth:

> Kari, wanna learn something?

> Ask this BOZO Bittner *why* he got bashed.

I respond to Kari with:

Yes, ask away, and check my postings. All my postings.
I only Troll Dogbutt cause he's a carp. Still got my
first hook stuck in his lip as you can see. So easy....
hmmm, BOZO. Ouch. Good luck Kari. This is a rough place.

Later.........

MArtog


From:  Dogman
Date:  Tues, Nov 21 2000 12:00 am
Email:   Dogman 

MBITT...@GOODYEAR.COM wrote:

>In article <b_cS5.48746$Ze6.10106...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
>  "Jerry Howe"  wrote:
>
>> Tee hee, heee. Tee hee, heee. Yup. Jerry. j;~}

> Jerry, your sense of humour is showing.
> Glad it's at Dogbutt's expense?

Actually, BOZO, it's at the expense of you SHIT
EATING dogs, but you're too damn stupid to see that.

Cause you're a BOZO.

:>D

You and Jar-Jar make a fine couple, BOZO.

Birds of a feather flock together.

BOZOS, too.

:>)

--
http://www.i1.net/~dogman
Proud "Gang of Thugs" member in good standing.


From:  MBITTNER
Date:  Wed, Nov 15 2000 3:00 am
Email:   MBITT...@GOODYEAR.COM

In article ,
Dogman  wrote:

hook,line & sinker

you carp....you know, a bottom feeder.

you're so easy

Later..........

MArtog


From:  dgriffi - view profile
Date:  Tues, Oct 17 2000 11:29 pm
Email:   dgri...@cs.csubak.edu

Howie Lipschitz  wrote:
> dgri...@cs.csubak.edu wrote:
>>Buster Bocherelli  wrote:
>>> "Jerry Howe"  wrote:

>>>>Got any training advice to TRAIN the dog not to do that?

>>> Why would anyone in their right mind ever even try to
>>> TRAIN a dog not to eat its own shit when this "behavior"
>>> can be totally eliminated simply by TRAINING yourself
>>> to clean up after your own dog?

>> It's not reasonable to watch your dog 24/7 waiting
>> for him to take a go so you can go pick up after him.
>
> Yes, it is reasonable, because it's the *only* way to
> *reliably* break this nasty (for humans, not for dogs)
> habit.
>
>> That's why people ask the question of how to break a
>>  shit-eater.

> No, people ask the question because they're LAZY.

No, they ask the question because they don't like seeing
their dog eating disgusting things.  Maybe you haven't
heard of this ability of dogs to find things that people
can't find.  Think carefully and you'll understand why
someone a long time ago thought dogs could be used to
track game.

> And if they're too damn lazy to even clean up after
> their dogs, then they're too damn lazy to "break" a
> dog from doing what comes entirely natural (to the dog).


Maybe you don't have to do this, but I have to go other
places like work, classes, and such so I can afford to
buy things like dog food and pay for shelter.

Therefore, I can't be around my dog 24/7 to clean up after it.

>> Dogs don't just eat their own feces, they'll eat other
>> dogs' feces and even eat out of the cat box.
>
> That means you have to clean up other dog's feces, too,
> or prevent your dog from going to areas where there are
> other dogs' feces.
>
> In short, you have to SUPERVISE your dog, which is
> what you should be doing at all times.

I have other things I need to do, like go to work and sleep.

> As far as your cat box goes, you need to find a place
> in your house for it where your cat can get to it but
> your dog can't.

Maybe it goes on the floor because there's no other place for it.

> Easy, eh?

Simple solutions for simple minds.

> Go over to the sofa, sit down and have yourself
> a cold one, and just THINK about where that might
> be, okay?

Why don't you tell me where you think a good place is?

>> How does one break a dog from eating out of a catbox
>> even when the box is one of those self-cleaning contraptions?
>
>> The dog will just wait around until the cat uses
>> the box and then chow down.  See the point?
>
> No, because the point is moot when you put the cat
> box somewhere the cat can get to it and your dog can't.

Amusing how you come up with outlandish solutions
irrelevant to the problem:  Dog eats shit when dog
find shit.  How to make dog not eat shit it finds?

The question is not about what sorts of ritual must
I perform to keep feces out of the reach of dogs
because there is no practical way to do so.

> See how easy this dog training stuff is?

You've never trained a dog, have you?
--
David Griffith
dgri...@cs.csubak.edu


From:  Dogman
Date:  Mon, Oct 4 1999 12:00 am
Email:   Dogman 

canis55  wrote:
> Dear Susan,

> Thank you very much for the feedback. It would be wonderful
> if everyone here could show as much maturity and intelligence
> as you have with your post. I had resolved to stay out of this
> thread because I'm disgusted by what it's degenerated into.

> I'm not sure whether the seeds were sown in my original post
> or not. I do know it's not an exchange of ideas.

> That's unfortunate. I guess on some level it becomes mere
> entertainment, I'm just failing to be entertained by any
> of this. I'm in a pretty pensive mood these days. I just
> wanted to thank you for putting so much time and effort
> into helping me deal with the thoughts nd considerations
> I've been having lately.

Canis, considering that you always seem to be in a "pensive"
mood, perhaps you'd be more comfortable at some other newsgroup?

[...]

> As far as the retrievers are concerned, you're talking
> about training a dog to stalk. Waiting and freezing are
> not something the dog learns, in a natural context, by
> experiencing pain. They learn it by not getting the rabbit
> or whatever it is they're hunting when they don't wait.

I have no idea what you're trying to get at here.

None.  Nada.  Zilch.  Zero.

[...]

> Lynn says the entire job's been done on rare occasion
> without compulsive methods.

Not at the higher levels of retriever competition,
Lynn is simply mistaken.

That is, not when virtual 100% reliability is required.

> So I guess either those dogs were better bred for the
> task of hunting, or the trainers figured out how to
> show the dogs what they needed to do to satisfy the
> same drives and impulses as the compulsively trained
> dogs. This would indicate to me that one way or another,
> some part of this retriever project isn't quite finished.yet.

For example????????

> Dogs don't have to participate in field trials
> to experience the satisfaction of hunting.

You don't think that dogs enjoy field trials at
least as much as they enjoy hunting?

> It's a social thing. I have nothing against people
> going to Harvard or competing their dogs, but I
> resent it when they turn it into some kind of
> elitist badge of validation.

Geeeeeeeeez.

The main reason that people field trial with dogs,
Canis, is because it's FUN!

It's FUN to train a dog, it's FUN to be around dogs,
it's FUN to work in tandem with dogs, its FUN to be
outside with dogs, etc.

It's simply FUN.

Yes, it appeals to a person's competitive instincts,
too, but the DOGS are the reason that field trials
exist, not the competition.

The actual hunting seasons are very short, while
field trials and hunt tests can go on throughout
the year, etc.

That is, it EXTENDS the hunting season and the
chance to be with your dogs having FUN!

Moreover, and here's the BEST part, Canis, DOGS
LOVE IT just as much as we do!

[...]

> I think maybe people should participate in these
> things because they (or better yet the dogs) enjoy
> it. Well actually, I think they should do it for
> any reason they want. They just shouldn't insist
> that I be involved, even on a level of appreciation.

I have yet to meet the first field trialer who cared
one red cent whether you ever attended a field trial, Canis.

> It doesn't have anything to do with me. They can present
> their participation in the hopes that it will have the
> same meaning to me that it does to them, but it's pretty
> ego-centric to assume it means the same thing to me as it
> does to them.

I couldn't possibly care any less about what it means to
you, Canis. I only try to explain what it means to the
people who *do* participate in it.  People like *myself.*

It's in the hopes of helping you to understand us just a
little bit, because it's obvious that you don't understand
us at all.

> If they're competing to impress me, they're wasting their time.

Canis, the number of people who give even one rat turd
about what impresses you is roughly the equivalent to
the number of people in your immediate family.

I think the person with the real "ego problem" here
is you, Canis, for even suggesting that others outside
your own family should give a shit about what impresses
you or not.

> If it were me, I wouldn't be training dogs in the first place.

Now *there's* a good question for you to chew on, Canis.

Why exactly do you train dogs?

[...]

> At this point, I guess I'm in it for purely economic reasons.
> Dogman unintentionally pointed this out to me somewhere in
> this thread when he said he believed the American institution
> of slavery was fueled wholly by economic considerations.
>
> Whatever the case, my heart definitely isn't in it anymore.

Then you should get out of it -- and the sooner the better.

> I'm sure that will have an effect on how well I'm
> working, and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm into
> something else completely within a year's time.

Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

> I don't know what happened, Susan. This thread wasn't
> about a forced retrieve or some specific article. That's
> where everybody chose to take it.

This thread is about self-righteous HYPOCRISY, Canis.

This thread is about PROSELYTIZING.

This thread is about WHINING.

This thread is about IGNORANCE.

This thread is about some folks here trying to
make real dog people actually feel bad about
even owning dogs!

> I think we all know what's involved with training the
> forced retrieve, so the article so many want to see
> posted, and who's authorship remains unconfirmed, is -
> -I think--irrelevant. I do hope Marilyn does not post
> it.
>
> Dogman did a fine job of explaining what's basically
> involved in the process. The article merely goes through
> the procedure in a lengthy step by step process, and if
> it is any more disturbing than an ordinary leash correction,
> it's only in the description of the duration of pain some
> of these dogs endure;

Here we go with the pain thing again!

[...]

> I had no idea Marilyn was going to start talking about
> all that stuff. The whole point of the thread was not
> whether or not we're hurting and exploiting dogs, or
> to what degree we're hurting or exploiting them.
>
> It was more about whether or not we're going to seem
> like monsters 200 or 300 years from now.

Geeeeeeeeeeez, boy, Canis, do you have some "issues"
to work through.

Get some professional help!

[...]

> So all this time I'm thinking we're doing that to dogs right now.

Yes, we're "enslaving" them, Canis, and if you have
a problem with that, really, you should get out of
dogs altogether.

[...]

> There seems to be some disagreement as to the definition
> of torture. I bothered to look it up in Webster's. Not
> only does what's outlined in the forced retrieve fall
> under the definition of torture, but so would a standard
> leash correction. So I guess we all better get comfortable
> with the idea that we're torturing dogs. We are.

Geeeeeeeeeeez, well, I'm not, Canis, and no "pensive," squeamish
little simpleton like you is ever going to convince me that I am.

If you want to equate a collar correction with TORTURE,
Canis, you're an EXTREMIST ANIMAL RIGHTS LUNATIC.

Period!

> I gotta figure out if I want to participate. And I
> gotta figure out if I have the right or duty to speak
> out against those who would.

Speak out all you want, Canis, it's called freedom of speech.

But the same freedom of speech allows me to point out
to others what you really are, and that's an EXTREMIST
ANIMAL RIGHTS LUNATIC.

>I'm wondering if I should continue to hurt dogs,

You should get out of dogs altogether, Canis.

> At this point, I think it's all about the human
> need to control, to conquer, and to dominate.

Yeah, right.

Again, Canis, it's highly obvious that you have some
serious "issues" to deal with, and I wish you'd deal
with them PRIVATELY.

> We've created all these different looking and behaving
> breeds by isolating gene pools. We establish "breed
> standards" and determine the value of a dog based upon
> some human concept of an ideal.

Geeeeeeeeeez...what a bunch of snot-nosed whining!

[...]

> P.S.

> After proofreading this piece, I see how it may
> cause some to believe I'm moving into the perspective
> of an extreme canine right's advocate.

That's EXACTLY where you've ALWAYS been, Canis.

And the sooner you FACE IT, you'll be a lot happier person.

> I don't believe that this piece is outside the scope of this forum.

Yes, it is, because it really belongs down at talk.politics.animals.

That's EXACTLY where you belong, Canis.

Please, go there, and spare the vast majority of
us here from enduring even more of your  EXTREMIST
ANIMAL RIGHTS LUNACY.
--
Dogman
mailto:dog...@i1.net
http://www.i1.net/~dogman

The Big Question:Why is there something rather than nothing?

      From:  Dogman
Date:  Mon, Oct 4 1999 12:00 am
Email:   Dogman 

tricia9...@aol.com (Tricia9999) wrote:

>> The main reason that people field trial with dogs,
>> Canis, is because it's FUN!

> well, this may be a stretch since lots of the owners
> just pay handlers (lots of money) to train and compete
> their dogs. :)

No, it's no stretch at all, Tricia.

It's still lots of FUN, or they wouldn't be doing it.

Maybe their competitive instincts have gotten a little out
of whack, but they still do it to have FUN with their dogs.

And most of these folks still *handle* their dogs themselves,
whether they have a professional retriever trainer help them
out or not.

Yes, it can cost lots of money -- so what?

That doesn't make it any less FUN, does it?

Owning and racing a horse can cost lots of money,
but it's still LOTS OF FUN, eh?

Owning and flying your own airplane costs lots of money,
too, but it's still LOTS OF FUN to do it, isn't it?

Geeeeeeeeez...it won't be long now before people are roundly
criticized and insulted for wanting to have some FUN!

What in the hell is our country turning into?????????

A bunch of self-righteous and WHINY little hall monitors, I think.

:>(

--
Dogman
mailto:dog...@i1.net
http://www.i1.net/~dogman

 From:  Dogman
Date:  Mon, Oct 4 1999 12:00 am
Email:   Dogman 

tricia9...@aol.com (Tricia9999) wrote:

>> A bunch of self-righteous and WHINY little
>> hall monitors, I think.

> Lighten up!

Actually, I thought I was being pretty "light."

Wanna see some of my "darker" stuff"

> Your hypersensitive and so fond of name calling. :)

Yes, Tricia, I'm known around the world as someone
who calls a spade a spade, and if you don't like it,
you know what you can do about it, eh?

But let me know if you need a hint, okay?

They're free.
-- 

Dogman 
mailto:dog...@i1.net 
http://www.i1.net/~dogman