"Remember that it is not the dogs that have made the mistake. It is you."
(G. Attla)

 

On this site, you will find topics related to upbringing and training doggies. You can read recommendations of what to teach your doggie, including vivid and objective pictures. We will also deal with the issue of some bad habits and unwanted behavior of some dogs. One should keep on mind that it’s necessary that dogs be brought up and trained in the company of other dogs, otherwise the dog will probably only obey when it is alone with you but will fail to obey whenever other interesting stimuli (people, other dogs) are around. Of course, it is hard to avoid making typical beginners’ mistakes, which may culminate in various problems since dogs’ bad habits are often stubborn and take a long time to cure. Therefore, it is advisible to let more experienced dogkeepers provide some advice to prevent you from such mistakes. . . Indispensable is also the exchange of experience and letting your dog run with the pack of its four-legged friends to provide them with the best natural way of building up adequate self-confidence as well as accurate relationship towards their surroundings.

Dog Clicker - a "miraculous method"?
Who belongs in a crate? ... or Beyond the iceberg's tip
Dogs, New Year's Eve and Pyrotechnics
Ethologist vers. Veterinarian
Before You Get Your Dog Castrated ...
A Few Words on Dogs in the Bed
About Upbringing, Training, Authority, Pack and Canine Communication ...
Dogs in Canada
The Codex of the "Falco Dog School"
Why Not Use a Constricting or Spiky Collar
Why Not Use an Electric Collar

My inspiration to write this article arrived in a question sent by a reader of the Consulting section. Since I am aware of the assumptive enthusiasm that this method often induces, I would hereby like to explain its real principle free from medialized distortion. The following text is an enhanced answer to the question in the Consulting section.

The clicker is an acoustic aid for so-called positive training method; the sequence is a click-sound as a positive signal followed by a reward. It is by no means a miracle; essentially, it is still based on nothing but the principle of reflex, and its use is only limited to the sphere of training. Instead of using the word the dog is accustomed to as an expression of content (such as “Good!”, “Nice doggie!” etc.)  followed by a reward, the word is only substituted by another acoustic signal – the click.

Fundamentally, the clicker method is based on the “positive training”; where needed, the dog is only praised, never admonished. Unfortunately, it is actually nothing but developing a conditioned reflex. Watching the reference guide videos from the USA (where this method originated) is enough to make one wonder about this “revolutionary method”. For instance, the “training” to teach the dog its name goes like this: The dog is lying rested, then comes addressing it by name. If the dog looks at the man, there follows a click and an immediate reward. Soon it becomes apparent that though the dog is looking at the man, it is actually opening its ears to hear the clicker. The clicker equals the reward and a “toy effect”, when the dog’s attention is focused on a thing (followed by a reward) instead of the man himself.

Positive methods in general have their hazard: They include no hint of educating effect because they completely omit the component of correction, natural authority and hierarchy. Therefore, I am far from approving these methods, whether they are based on the clicker (acoustic) or play principle. Though you may achieve some results by using the clicker, you will achieve much better results by using the principle of natural communication because you eliminate the “interpreter” and make the dog cooperate in the training as a result of the pack hierarchy, not because it hopes to get a reward. A practical experience? For instance, some clients of my Dog Training School, whose dogs know the basic items of training (“sit”, ”lay”). The problem is that once the dogs make up their minds, they do not even sit down beside their owners – not even for the reward. But they will always sit down beside me (10 out of 10) – to open the owner’s eyes, I am sometimes even bound to demonstrate this. With no reward, with no clicker – just because the dogs know their position and are also aware of mine. Try to take the clicker away from its user and watch the subsequential attention and controllability of his dog…

I only want to say that the clicker and similar aids are, in my view, instruments that actually complicate the dogs’ work because they make them focus on a target other than that which is natural to them. Instead of a man, their object of attention becomes a lifeless thing followed by a reward. Therefore, I am by no means fond of this approach, even though it will certainly prove successful as a part of a “circus performance”. However, what is importat to me is the quality of my dog’s concentration on me, not on the thing in my hand. Still, the dog’s happiness cannot be caused by looking forward to the clicker-reward sequence; it must be based on the essential cooperation between the owner and his dog. Therefore, such aids as the clicker do not go well with me, as in the view of communication they represent no part of the natural behavior patterns of dogs but only a useless (and redundant) interface between a man and his dog. The real dialog between both of them without using any aids is the only natural one, and the joy of the mutual cooperation is also its natural component, not an aim to reach.

What is then the real basis of the trick called ”clicker”? Nothing but a modigifacation of the classical Pavlov’s experiment. The analogy between “do what you’re supposed to – a bell will ring – you’ll get a reward” and “do what you’re supposed to – there’ll be a click – you’ll get a reward”. If the dog is being exposed to this method for an appropriate time, you will notice his typical reactions that have already been described by Mr. Pavlov: salivating on hearing the sound of the clicker. It is a conditioned response – acquired reaction to a certain stimulus; by the way, that’s how the Pavlov reflex is defined.

The sound of the clicker is not accidental, either. Its frequence and sound envelope is such as to draw the dog’s attention immediately. The attention invoked at the moment of the click also leads the dog towards the source of the sound, not towards the face and personality of the man himself.

What I also mind about this method is another drawback: At the crucial moment, the attention of both the man and the dog is focused on the thing (interface) instead of being directed where it should be, that is to each other. The man concentrates on the proper moment and controlling the clicker, the dog’s hearing being focused on the awaited sound.  The communication is pushed aside, or rather, there is no communication at all.

I mind the fact that these “inventions” do not lead the man in the right direction to the communication with his dog. The man does not teach his dog, does not communicate with him, and does not use the necessary direct dialog with immediate contact; the exercises, and in the worst case also “teaching the name”, is performed in an indirect circuitous way and keeps the real purpose of the matter hidden from the dog.

That is why I would like to kindly ask everybody to think twice before using the clicker and similar methods, however attractively designed and advertised as easygoing and troublefree. As a matter of fact, they are a road to hell, since they degrade the dog to a mere organism capable of responding to a certain stimulus.

Stimulus – instead of the real man himself as a leader of the human-dog pack.

________________________________________________
Copyright (c) Viktor Dostál , FALCO DOG-TRAINING SCHOOL

This Monday (October 10th, 2005) I happened to switch onto a Czech private TV channel NOVA during a reality show named Exchange of Wives just as a crying woman was monologuing about a doggie who was being locked somewhere. I had no idea about what the matter was, but I left the channel on. jsem zcela náhodou přepnul televizi na stanici NOVA během vysílání reality-show "Výměna manželek" ve chvíli, kdy plačící paní vedla monolog na téma pejska, který je někde zavřený... Netušil jsem, oč jde, ale nechal stanici naladěnou – and then I just stayed with my stomach qualmish, watching to learn what surprises the “reality” offers.

In the following week, hardly anything but this cause was being mulled over on both the yellow press and the internet. Probably all dogkeepers in the Czech Republic know what the matter was; nevertheless, let me walk thru the topic in short. In the programme named above, showing the real life of a Czech family, several times there appeared a female Labrador-retriever named Aura who had been spending her life in a crate (see the picture) placed in a children’s room. Accorging to her owners’ comment, “the apartment is there for people and the bitch would mess it up”; they also said Aura had normally spent two hours a day on a walk, and THAT IS WHAT THE BREEDER HAD RECOMMENDED: “That will do, the dog must know where its place is”.

This week, an unprecedented campaign against the family owing the bitch was initiated. Several several criminal complaints were made. The bitch (and later also the family) lost in an unknown place, certain popular journal announced a $2500 reward for those who would bring the bitch – simply, a medial cause that would increase the visit rate for some time, make some internet sites and printed periodicals sell, and abate as usual: Either the bitch will be taken away in a distraint (if she is still alive – has anybody thought about why her existence is secret now?), or nothing will be done at all, the whole case will die away and in a few months nobody will remember anything...

This week I took some time to consider whether I would write anything concerned. And since all of those emotional and rational echoes lacked one aspect essential to me, I finally decided to write a few lines.

I will not deal with the arrogance and emotional ignorance of the “masters of being” - the bith’s owners; that has been so apparent as not to need any more comments. But I will emphasize once again: In a crate, where she could hardly sit down, the bitch was spending all the time (except perhaps the alleged walk the real length of which I’d rather not know, regarding the owners’ response). But for me, much more important is a new phenomenon that is nowadays becoming accepted without making anybody upset – a phenomenon the aftereffects of which may become terminal.

Actually, the described case only represents a tip of the iceberg. Below, there lurks dirt of much wider extent. Let me start in on the sentence that I wrote in capitals in the previous text: " THAT IS WHAT THE BREEDER HAD RECOMMENDED ". Yes, I do believe it. Such “breeders” who live among us are many in number – people who never care for their puppies’ destiny; people keen-set for profit who are able to persuade incoming dogkeepers with lack of empathy and relation to animals that they are allowed to torture their dogs. Do not doubt that many similar crates can be found in people’s homes.

Unfortunetely, I have much evidence to claim so. I know a dog-trainer and owner of a dog-training institution (and againg, he is not the only one) who tells his clients that calming and “well-working” life of a dog requires that dogs spend the time that they are home alone in a crate – they say “it’ll be just fine”. Those who believe it have had a chance to check the dog’s “satisfaction” in practice. The USA and Canada are offering another "wonderful piece of knowledge" – in their view, the dog should also be in a crate at night! It is really alarming to see how many people endorse this. Besides, the dog does not feel much difference whether its owner locks it in a real crate or “punishes” it by locking it in the bathroom because “it was being naughty”. The difference between the couple in the TV program and these people is then minimal – and how many of the beholders “in righteous indignation” do the same?

What shall I think about people who keep their dogs on several square meters of a garden cote? What shall I think about keepers who include in contracts with their customers that if the dog must be castrated if it will not be used for reproduction? What shall I think about breeding companies that operate under strong public advertisement where bitches are explored in such a way that is nothing but torture? These are all people that I know personally. People who proclaim their love for dogs but behave in such a way that I would take their dogs away from them if I was entitled to.

Aura’s story is really just the tip of an iceberger that became known due to stupidity and get-there of her owners. And, as the present system shows, they are not punishable – so far. As well as all those who behave with total despect towards dogs’ lives, fully exposed to public. How much longer will it take before

... we finally push into crates those who really do belong?

_______________________________________________
Copyright (c) Viktor Dostál, FALCO DOG-TRAINING SCHOOL

A frequent nightmare of many dogkeepers and especially their dogs is the period of Christmas holidays and the New Year’s Eve celebrations.  It is a time in which your walks are accompanied by detonations and light effects of pinwheels, firecrackers and other ballast, absolutely useless from my point of view. Unfortunately, that’s just the way it is, and our dogs get confronted with such “pleasure” every year, over and over again. Since there is simply nothing we can do about it but cope, let me say at least several elementary things about how to outlive this period with as little stress for our fourlegged friends as possible.

All types of those “fun explosives” available on the market produce two different effects: acoustic and visual. None of those is natural for dogs, as they both have no natural equivalent in the natural environment (thunder and lightning have both different acoustic and visual distinctive features). Concerning the noise, the worst for a dog is the acoustic wave that accompanies this effect; the closer the source of detonation is, the worse. We must bear in mind that dogs’ hearing is exponentially more sensitive than human, which results in different threshold values of the acoustic perception. In other words, what our blunted-by-civilization hearing can bear unharmed is a disaster for the hearing of dogs. The threshold level of an acoustic effect that we assess as unpleasant is much lower for dogs. For instance, the dog perceives your whispering as the same sharp as you perceive loud speech.

Canine hearing in general has different characteristics from human. It is capable of recognizing very low levels of sound of similar volume from various directions; in short, it is not constructed to absorb severe sound effects – they can very easily destroy it.

This results in my first advice, and that is avoidance. Keep carefully avoiding places with even minimal probability that someone might throw a sparkler right below your legs or “blow it up” a few meters from your dog. One single detonation nearby can culminate in tragical results for your dog – besides the permanent hearing damage, there may arise a mental shock since the deafening bang causes the dog’s total disorientation.  The result is a terrified dog dashing in a random direction, becoming an easy victim of a first car passing by...

This has much to do with another thing: Unfortunately, a rumor of a “shock therapy method” has recently been becoming popular among certain people. According to its supporters, it is based on using violence (because the dog would never consent willingly) to expose a dog to very strong acoustic levels such as loud music, shooting or various transitory sounds to make it “get accustomed”. Sure. I would like to remind these people of the fact that this metod is not originally theirs. It has been applied on people as one of so-called brainwashing methods, causing their total disorientation in time and space to make them accessible for boundless manipulation. The effect on a dog is nothing but making it totally diminished and subdued. Someone might assume that the dog has “calmed down”, but unfortunately this interpretation is wrong. Just like a human brain, the dog’s gets totally confused by chaos, resignation and total collapse of its organism.  Do you want a proof? The dog will never consent to accept anything that it interprets as unspleasant or stressful. If you attempt to “treat” a dog according to the method described above, you will have to use all your force to hold it or tie it up. The dog will not stay voluntarily because this artificial noise, as well as any noise in general, is simply unpleasant to it and brings it into stress. Therefore, please, don’t ever let anybody persuade you that this method is effective. In its consequence, it is extremely dangerous and in a dog’s head it creates a mental timebomb that gets activated at the moment the resignation and sedation effect abates.

The solution is something else, and that’s my second advice. Unfortunately, for some of you it may already be late since they may have missed the appropriate moment long ago. But I believe that the overwhelming majority still has the chance. The fundamental keystone is, again, the dog’s psyche and the principle of the pack. In short, every dog who has to solve a problem gets in some degree of mental pressure, depending on the particular issue and individual dog. But, above all, there is the pack leader to solve problems (this is one of the reasons why every dog is willing to leave this post for someone else), and that should be the dog’s owner. If his dog believes him, it will leave let things go without a care - including the light and acoustic effects: If its pack leader ignores them and leaves them with no comment, the dog itself feels no need to deal with them; that’s how they get filtered out. My dogs behave just like that (I say this to give an example, not to show up) – neither of them has ever been trained to pass hunting exams, but neither of them has ever had a problem with firecrackers or a New Year’s Eve. I have never “trained” them to endure the noise; however, they both disregard the bangs: both my almost submissive golden retriever Dino and my wild, bright a fiery laica Shaddy. And they are far from being the only ones: hybrid human-canine packs that really do work (if dogs are their members from puppies) have no problems. Dogs brought into pack from shelters may be different since their previous life experience is usually a mystery. Other problematic dogs are those with hysterical or non-communicative owners, and also dogs kept out in cotes, with hardly any social contact. Have you noticed that those cote dogs usually suffer from stress most?

Therefore, bring up your dogs since their puppy age in a close physical contact with you, in an environment of a pack based on real communication. It will bring its fruit thousand times, as it really is the alpha and omega of brining up a dog. When you are spending Christmas and New Year’s Eve holidays with your dog (without soothing it with sedatives!), keep in direct touch with it. Don’t let your dog “solve the problem”, never leave it in the garden or ever in a cote. Keep your doggie with yourself, where it is used to stay (no hiding in the bathroom), behave absolutely naturally a also speak to it naturally – no regretful tranqulizing, which would only assure it that something’s in the air. Just the other way round: nothing strange is happening, no danger at all. That’s how your dog will even tolerate phenomena that fundamentally cannot be pleasant to it. If you operate as a pack, the dog will not “solve” what you don’t regard as worth solving, yourself.

On behalf of my whole pack, I wish you beautiful and troublefree Christmas and New Year’s holidays. And to those who have read this article of mine, please caress your doggie on my behalf :)

_______________________________________________
Copyright (c) Viktor Dostál, FALCO DOG-TRAINING SCHOOL

Dear Mr. Dostál,

let me give you at least a brief response to your often piffling advice and philosophy. I understand that you must have certain wisdom sovereignty in the field of dog ethology, since that’s what you live on. As regards you attitude towards dogs in bed, I find it surprising that you haven’t become a dog yourself yet. It only reflects the perversity of the present times, in which people let a dog into their beds rather than their own children. Bringing up a dog into an excellent and self-confident companion, correctly ranked in the hierarchy, is also possible without “the bed” and even (!) without letting a dog in the house. The problem is that people believe they should bring up a dog in the same way and patterns as a wolf pack does. In the past 7,000 years, dogs have learned to accept humans as a natural authority (of course, it’s useful to regulate their behavior, which is hardly possible with some breeds, especially natural breeds with high amount of independence), therefore people’s conception of such upbringing is wrong.

As regards the castration of animals, your opinion is literally absolete. In the USA a Canada, frequent castrations are carried out for the following reasons:

1. control of dog population (dogs breed like rabbits, they are tortured, undernourished, etc.
2. early castration of bitches is 90% effective in the lacteal gland cancer prevention
3. pyometra preventio
4. prevention of cystical endometrial hyperplas
5. prevention of diabetes and epilepsia, etc., etc
6. positive changes of behavior

Contraindication: YES-agression and other behavior disorders

Dog castration:

1. prevention of benign hyperplasi
2. necessary with cryptorchid
3. prevention of prostate and testical tumor
4. prevention of paranal and hepatoid gland
5. outstanding improvement of the territorial behavior including all further effects

Every veterinary university in the world propagates castration, including Professor Dr. Vet. Miroslav Svoboda, Dr. Sc., as an operation beneficial for animals.

I’ll leave it at that.

Cordial greetings,

Stanislav  Cienciala, Dr. Vet.

Dear Mr. Cienciala,

I usually disregard e-mails written in a similar spirit and at a similar level – I prefer devoting my time to more useful activities, but I finally suggested your e-mail would be a pity not to share - in addtition, regarding that most contemporary veterinarians provide similar arguments...

So, I will start from the beginning. I have never endeavored to claim that I have “wisdom sovereignty” – neither in these websites, nor anywhere else. Besides, the things concerning dogs that I deal with are, rather than wisdom, a matter of instinct, empathy and essential respect to the nature and living beings – which are, with all the respect to your profession, what I completely miss in your message: To be honest, you write like somebody who, however a good veterinarian in the view of general criteria, would never be the one I would ever let treat my dog.

I can fully assure you that although my dogs share the bed with me, I have not turned into a dog. I do not even make an effort to become a dog, because I appreciate dogs too much to do so, and, above all, it would be a pure nonsense. If you deduce the perversity of the present days for the phenomenon that people (whether adults or children) share their bed with a dog, then I dare to assert that your view of the world is very peculiar. At least, this sentence again confirmed your apparent absence of any positive relation to animals (at least dogs), which appears really alarming with someone of your profession.

If you had devoted at least some minimum of your time to read my Consulting Service, you might have found out that living with their dog (rather than only beside it) and bringing it up in the canine way is far from being strange to humans. You would also learn that dogs do NOT accept humans as a natural authority in any case; authority must be built up, and only a limited number of people are capable of making it. Your fiction of the successful "cote" upbringing of dogs (quot.: "... even (!) without letting a dog in the house ") has been and also will be the real cause to majority of cases when dogs attack humans.

As for my "obsolete" opinions of dog castration: I hate to say this, but the adjective is more like fitting to your own views. Above all, I do not think at all that we should form our opinions according to what is usual in the USA and Canada (did you really mean it, or did you only paraphrase the old motto “The Soviet Union – The Model For Us”?). Perhaps, before accepting things as suitable for us, we should rather test them and verify their impact in advance. Second, as I have stated many times on these websites, I only accept castration as reasonable in those exceptional cases when the dog is suffering from a serious healthy problem and no other treatment is possible. Unfortunately, in other cases it is roughly misused in the name of human laziness, ignorance and arrogance of the “masters of beings”. That’s what I stand for. Or are you really convinced that the Nature (or God) is guilty for having equipped dogs and bitches with organs that are useless or even dangerous to their health? Have you ever heard such terms as “evolution” and “natural selection”? Do you ever presume the consequences of making operations that you, as a veterinarian, recommend to dog keepers (unaware of the issue) so vehemently? If I am informed correctly, dogs have never changed their way of reproduction, and they only reproduce in the sexual way - not by means of cloning or cell segmentation. If we want puppies to exist, we must keep dogs’ and bitches’ reproduction organs (which are also the dominant producers of male and female hormons) where they are. And, Mr. Doctor, you or anyone else have never given life to even a single puppy. What makes you so sure that you may make decisions about their destiny – “let’s castrate this one, since he is only a crosbreed, let’s not castrate this one, ’cause he is a breeder with a pedigree“?

Concerning the influence of castration on the dog’s or bitch’s temper – this is simply the reality that is not spoken about deliberately. Besides, in your article you negate your own statement in the 6^th item (“positive changes of behavior”) directly in the very following statement (“Contraindication: YES-agression and other behavior disorders”)… Don’t get angry, but your theory of “prevention”, which is often the argument of castration apologists, is a mere “shot in the eye” to both dogs and their owners. Again, I must recommend that you read the Consulting Service contributions, where you can find enough evidence of my statement – right from the dog owners who followed their vets’ recommendation “Get it castrated, it is a harmless operation and has no influcenco on the dog’s temper” (however, this operation had also been recommended to tranquilize dogs, so how come it has no influence?) and later learned the cruel truth, dependent on the animal’s age: either the better case - their dog or bitch did not change at all and the problems remained (castration at a higher age), or the worse case - problems even grew severely (castration at an early age).

I keep on reading your reasons: prevention, prevention, prevention… Do you really believe that this is the sufficient reason to mutilate an animal? Mr. Doctor, please don’t feel insulted – what would you say if I personally offered you that I will castrate you to prevent you from getting cancer? I would only hold back decently that this “miraculous” offer will actually be no good for you because you will always be depreciated as a castrate, every community will ostracize you, you will only get food while your living motor dies away... Would you accept this?

You may be surprised that I myself have a monorchid dog – the “ideal candidate for castration”. Just guess now – is he castrated? I’ll make it easier for you: he’s not. I preferably let him live his life to the fullest, even if it may perhaps be shorter. Today, he is 7.5 years old, enjoying his life, chasing bitches. Do you think I am cruel and don’t love him? Just because I love him very much, I will not hurt him. And I’m keeping my fingers crossed for him to win this lottery of life.

We could have a long debate about the “outstanding improvement of the territorial behavior” that you have mentioned, as well as about the “positive changes of behavior” that you advertise. And you can believe me that it would not be difficult to prove that you are even wrong in this point. But it requires accepting one thing: that dogs are at a much higher level than you are willing to admit.

I do not know Mr. Professor Dr. Vet. Miroslav Svoboda, Dr. Sc., whose name you have used to shield your arguments. But sincerely, if he used the same arguments as you did, he would also get the same answer as you did. No offence – luckily, there is also another kind of veterinarians: Besides being good at treating dogs, they have an open mind to accept and absorb new views and, above all, deep inside they have enough humility and respect towards living beings. When a dog owner comes to them asking castration without a good reason, they persuade him to forget about that instead of recommending that. I really revere these vets.

I’ll leave it at that.

Have a nice day,

        Viktor Dostál

Quite frequently, my Internet Consulting Service receives questions concerning either castration itself, or a castrated dog/bitch. My opinion on this issue is now well known in general, but I suppose that it is reasonable to also give time and space to explaining why I insist upon this distinctive opinion so strictly.

First of all, I would like to emphasize this: I am FOR castration that must be carried out for LEGITIMATE MEDICAL REASONS, when there is no other possibility from the veterinary viewpoint. But I am firmly AGAINST castration that is done for such reasons as indolence (the bitch in season), loss of control over the dog (the dog's natural dominance versus the owner's inability to build up natural authority), ignorance (vets and shelters washing people's brains with statements about the "benefit" of this operation), or ordinary human cruelty and disrespect towards the nature and living beings. In such cases I claim with full responsibility: CASTRATION = DELIBERATE MUTILATION.

Vets' argument that castration has no effect on the dog's character is absolute nonsense. The same nonsense is also the statement that castration is beneficial to tranquilize the dog generally - it is just a purpose-built argumentation, and it proves total ignorance of canine psyche and behavior patterns...

What is castration in reality? What impact does it have on the dog or bitch? Castration of dogs and bitches is a surgical operation resulting in the elimination of some organs that produce male (dogs) and female (bitches) hormones. Like with every vertebrate (the dog, wolf, cat, man, etc.) explicitly these hormones regulate the behavior of the particular individual in terms of basic instincts  - and these are actually the driving force that gives the individual his aim, sense of life, and essentially influences his behavior.

After castration and expenditure of the residual hormonal level, the organism passes through devastation. First, there comes a fundamental hormonal imbalance physiologically affecting the metabolism. I suppose the reader can imagine how hormonal imbalance affects people's condition, how complicated the treatment of hormonal disorders generally is. And I remark again: The canine organism works on the same principal as the human one! The evolutionary development of every living creature's organism has been tuned to provide the best performance and optimal function. It is impossible to intervene the organism violently and believe naively that nothing will change or that we may even have helped nature! No. Unfortunately, it works in a different way.

I already saw many castrated dogs of various breeds. None of them had been castrated for medical purposes; their owners had all of them mutilated for the purpose of ignorance (in the better case) or indolence (in the worse). For no good reason - the one to blame had never been the dog. Besides, none of them had ever asked the question how would this surgical operation affect the psyche of their dog - except perhaps the confidence that "now I get the control". And that is something I have never been able to empathize. Having a dog does not mean making things easier at its expense but mainly understanding its psyche. Or is my reasoning sick?

None of castrated dogs would survive in a natural environment; none of them would be accepted into a pack. Perhaps you may think: "So what? Our dogs do not live in natural packs..." But that is just the mistake. You can read in the Consulting Service how many dogs have not "improved" after castration but, contrariwise, suffered even more problems with their surroundings. Namely, it is a fully logical consequence. Why?

Besides the temper and other dispositions, the aftereffects of castration also depend on the age in which the operation is done. If you do it before the dog reaches mental maturity, you will actually stop further mental development of the individual. In other words, your dog or bitch will stay a "puppy" eternally: frisky but also very unbalanced psychically. It will never achieve steadiness, insight and self-confidence of a healthy adult individual of its breed! This results in lower level of excitability and rash behavior in stressful situations. I do not think that this is the right evidence of "unchanged personality".

If castration is done at the age of mental adulthood, the dog will literally turn into a mere shade of its former existence. Its behavior will principally become controlled by its established habits (dogs castrated in older age may even keep marking and jumping on bitches; however, this is just habitual, not instinctive). Its communication with other members of its genus (i.e. other dogs) is zero.

But there is also another problem. All castrated dogs and bitches do strongly realize that they are not full-featured anymore. In the framework of the survival pattern, they consequently endeavor to mask this fact: Adult dogs avoid the pack and stop communicating (attitude: "I don't exist at all"), bitches show increased aggressiveness towards dogs (attitude: "I won't let you come closer so that you can't learn"). By the way, this fact concerning bitches has already been "discovered" by the vets, too - for instance, see the article in the magazine "The Canine World", 11/2003, p. 24 - 25.

Another thing that only few people realize is that dogs are descendants of wolves, and they still retain their deep-seated principles of pack and natural selection. If a healthy dog meets a castrate (be sure he will learn!), then he will react: He will either ignore or attack this handicapped individual, since in natural packs the weak or handicapped individuals are liquidated; there only remain strong individuals, capable of further reproduction of their high-quality genetic material. This principle is essential for the law of natural selection, which is still valid nowadays, deeply encoded in our domesticated beasts...

Recently I read in a cynological magazine a veterinary article concerning castration. The author was not joking, and it was totally killing me, because I understood that vets (except some great experts, who I really honor and respect) usually take castration as a remedy to the diagnoses "NATURAL DOMINANCE OF THE DOG". The article really dealt with "dominance-reducing tablets", praising castration as the most efficient cure. I really can't find words to comment on this... There is only one message I can leave to these people: Please, never get a dog, because you know nothing about the basic principles of nature and you are not able to respect it. Unfortunately, your fanaticism and ignorance also drags down inexperienced owners of dogs who trust you. Treat dogs, if you can do it well. But never recommend castration of a healthy dog if you do not really understand the canine genus. And NEVER recommend castration of a dog for the purpose of his subsequent controllability and tranquilization. This "fashion", keenly supported by shelters and town councils is, together with its pseudo-justifications, total nonsense in terms of ethology and dogkeeping. The problem is somewhere else: In the failures in upbringing methods and in the fact that some people should really never have a dog. But exacting vengeance upon a dog, which has been given no chance to choose its human pack, is unethical, immoral and very dishonest. That's what I insist on.

Those who only take a dog as a training material will naturally claim that castration left no negative effects on their dog/bitch. Sure, castrated individuals are also able to achieve good (but never excellent) results in individual training. But honestly - that is not the most important thing! All of us should be primarily concerned with the dog, which is a sociable being communicating and living interactively with its surroundings - both human and canine. But this is where its handicap takes effect - due to its owner, who decided on the castration. Not in training but in everyday life, and mainly in its own awareness. Please, never live in the illusion that a dog is nothing but a mosaic composed of instincts, reflexes and basic needs. No, the dog perfectly realizes itself as well as all interventions that a human commits on it, whether it is its owner, a vet, or anybody else.

Remember all this whenever you may think of castrating your dog. Promise me that if your dog means something to you and if you anywhere near consider what I publish here or on my Internet sites, you will carefully read this chapter again to fully realize what castration brings and what influence on a psyche it has. Do not forget: Castration is an irreversible step that you can never take back.

Summary:

• I do agree with castration in cases where it is absolutely necessary and well-founded for medical reasons.
• I condemn and I always will condemn castration if it is done for any other reason.

_______________________________________________
Copyright (c) Viktor Dostál, FALCO DOG-TRAINING SCHOOL

I very often come across the opinion that "the bed is no place for a dog". In the view of many people (unfortunately dog keepers), neither is the bedroom or the living room... In the better case, the dog is at least allowed to stay inside the apartment, in the worse case it will never see the dwelling of its masters, because "it sheds, and I won't keep cleaning it up!" The very natural consequence of this approach is the provable fact that such groups of "dog-keepers" grow into the statistically significant majority of those who subsequently send desperate e-mails about how uncontrollable and aggressive their dog is, and how they have no idea what went wrong.

It's really evil how little people know about the essential natural needs of a dog. Brainwashed by popular books about dogs and/or "reliable advice" of other owners who know nothing about ethology or dog upbringing, they bring a three-month-old puppy into their home and immediately set the rules: The puppy is not allowed on the bed, and often not even in the bedroom; its dog-bed will be in the hall, just let it get used to it. Ignorance? Cruelty? In natural packs or in self-sufficient packs you will never see the cubs expelled from interacting with and touching the adults! They always keep in close physical contact with each other, their mother, as well as with other members of the pack. Namely, it is absolutely natural and irreplaceable for all cubs: What will happen with a human cub if it is denied physical contact with its mother or another human after birth? It will become an emotionally deprived individual; this topic has also been the subject of various studies, but quite needlessly, if the human being better followed his instincts instead of trying to provide "scientific" evidence...

Let's get back to the dogs. Once the puppy gets to its new pack, usually at the age of two months, it needs to familiarize itself with its members; it needs the contact to know that the pack has accepted it. If the pack moves it somewhere out of their sleeping area, in its way of understanding they do nothing but expel it - not to the bottom of the pack but OUT OF THE PACK! Namely, this is exactly the way a natural pack would ostracize an undesirable individual. Therefore, from the dog's point of view, the interpretation of such an environment is unambiguous: "The new pack puts up with me but has not accepted me... I don't belong among them. Why? I don't know..."

We're still considering the puppy stage. Probably everybody understands the term "socialization". But the socialization stage also includes the period of so-called imprinting - i.e. getting accustomed to another animal genus (a human for dogs) and its "adoption". If you fail to enable the most frequent and intense physical contact with your puppy (occasional caress is really far from being enough!), your dog will never acquire the fully valuable relation to you! That's just the way it is, and never can that be corrected or remedied later - it is one of the elementary laws in the evolution of every living being - and I repeat again: the same as with a dog or a cat, it is with human.

When I got Dino more than 7 years ago, the most natural and instinctive thing for me was that he would sleep with me, so that I embodied the most devoted being to him. Not being able to walk him out at that time (I live in an apartment in a block of flats and I had to spend another month waiting till his vaccination was complete and his immunity full), I used to sleep with him on the kitchen vinyl flooring on a groundsheet. Every evening we would fall asleep together, he was wound around my neck and had no problem with loneliness or mourning. In the middle of the night he usually woke up, went to the hall to evacuate on a paper, and came back to me again. He never happened to return anywhere else - he always needed to be clamped onto me, preferably where he best perceived me, close to my face. Nowadays many people admire our beautiful relationship. I know that if I had sentenced him to some "place" at that time, our relation would never have reached such intensity.

Two years ago we were joined by Shaddie - a natural breed, which always obeys his instincts (unlike so-called cultural breeds). From the very beginning he slept with Dino and me, so he immediately incorporated himself in our pack - instinctively, because we accepted him in an instinctive way.

Nowadays, Dino is an adult and Shaddie an adolescent dog. When I go to bed, my dogs are lying close to my bed. During the night one of them jumps up to the bottom of my bed, then skips back down again, and the other one takes his place. I live in a close union with my dogs, and our pack works well - I have no need to allocate my dogs anywhere else, they know their limits (I can leave a plate with food in front of them, and they don't even touch it), and they are also aware of their rights, i.e. living in the pack, which I lead and which they recognize as theirs. I have no problem with authority (which is another nonsense argument of those who refuse sleeping with their dogs) just because I allow my dogs sharing my couch - authority is built or spoilt by other reasons without being dependent on the delimited territory.

As a matter of fact, there is a great difference between OWNING A DOG and LIVING WITH ONE'S DOG. You can own a dog, pushing it out to a position comfortable for you as a human but totally strange to your dog; thus, you will have a dog that will live its own life BESIDE you but will never become an instinctive defender willing to lay down its life for you since you have initially moved it into that position. Or else, you can live with your dog, and in that case you will have exactly that kind of fellow who will not only obey your instructions but will read your wishes from your eyes, being connected with you in the closest relation that dogs know: integrity within the pack.

It is a matter of every owner's choice. But as a man who comes in contact with many "problematic" dogs (and also people :)) I can say one thing: About ninety percent of problems that are solved in the Consulting Service or by means of the Training Service is caused by the fact that the dogs live out of the pack. The effect is particularly strong with dogs of natural breeds (northern breeds, shepherd breeds) that will sooner or later become problematic and even potentially dangerous to their owners. Cultural breeds (shepherds, social breeds) rather tend to shrink into their own world, in which, however, they are no happier.

Keeping a dog does not only mean feeding, walking, caressing and training. Responsible keeping also implies devoting it enough time and energy to make it live a happy and adequate life. And this also includes such a seeming detail as sharing a common sleeping place. It is not an all-purpose remedy, but it certainly represents one of the basic conditions of the pack existence and also full-featured relation between a human and his dog.

Please: Take your dog to your place for this night. And if you own a large garden with perhaps a German Pointer, take a groundsheet and sleep with it outside. You will realize what it lies in, how wonderful the feeling is to sense beside you the warm dog body, which even in its sleep remains lucid and ready to do anything and anytime for you - protect you or follow you perhaps to the edge of the world...  The Arabs sleep with their horses and with their hunting greyhounds. They know why they do it. So do I. Now you can discover it, too.

_______________________________________________
Copyright (c) Viktor Dostál, FALCO DOG-TRAINING SCHOOL

I have decided to begin the following part by talking about "training, authority..." The speech will be perhaps a little controversial, and some people may not be in agreement; however, it will express my personal attitude towards the issue of dog training itself and the causes of failures in the relations between some people and their dogs, which is an attitude established on observing people and dogs - both others' and mine.

The overwhelming majority of trainers show you a well-established method of training dogs: monotonously repeating the commands "Sit!", "Down!", "Stay!", "Heel!" (if we focus on basic obedience and controllability) till the dog "drills up." Emphasis is placed on the speed and precision of the exercise almost with perfection of centimeters. The dog turns into a robot - German Shepherds are the typical breed that often gets truly brainwashed; the dog stops thinking and becomes completely dependent on commands... This is not just my feeling. Unfortunately, this is reality. Such methods, founded on thoughtless drilling and repeating, result not only in total deadening of the dog's brain and its abilities but also losing the capability of canine communication. I would not like to speculate about the percentage - how many dogs of those "trained" in this way have become dangerous towards their surroundings, principally to other dogs. Whenever I observe these dogs I feel sad, because their behavior obviously differs from that of dogs that have not experienced such a process - not in terms of training but in terms of their ethogram.

I am not acquainted with the situation outside of my region. But in my region (the city of Liberec, Czech Republic), the FALCO DOG SCHOOL is still the only training institute where trainings are interlaced with collective pack-organized outing of dogs WITHOUT LEASHES AND BASKETS including the instruction in recalling dogs from the pack! Whenever my clients mention this to other trainers, their reaction is dismay, consternation and spitting fire onto my incompetence.

Why, though? What is at the heart of canine life? Are dogs meant to spend it in contradiction of canine nature on a leash, separately from other individuals of their genus? This results in the violation of the canine character - either towards aggressiveness or towards anxiety, which gives rise to their inability to survive within their own genus. Just remember your own experience with raving dogs, furiously rearing up on leashes, which most of you sometimes meet. These dogs would never survive in a normal pack, since they have not been given the chance of developing their social behavior and canine communication.

I do not know why other trainers find free running dogs so insufferable, why the dogs always have to be on the leash. Or perhaps I know... I have seen several trainers working, observing their strategy a bit. The conclusion? They work in total ignorance of canine psyche and pack principles. Dogs are leashed because otherwise nobody would be able to control them! I have seen trainers who were even scared of dogs. I have witnessed a situation in which the trainer shouted to his client who had luckily (or perhaps inattentively) happened to release his dog from the leash: "See!? Now he might have harmed me! Leash him up immediately!"

No. This is not a grotesque gag. Unfortunately, that's reality. The product their clients get is entirely distressing: They believe that their dog obeys (yes, it does, but only when leashed), and they are brainwashed so perfectly as to suppose that every dog MUST be on a leash; should they happen to meet a released dog coming close to greet their dog, they are convinced that it aims to kill that of theirs. Again, I know a trainer who persuades his clients that a dog is a predator, and as such it always seeks to kill another one. I must disagree. The dog is not a brown bear. It is an animal of the pack, with the instinct of cooperation enrooted deep within - unless a human kills this instinct. If the dogs did not have this instinct, their wolf ancestors would not have survived - their survival is fatally dependent on their teamwork abilities. Wolfs are among the most intelligent and best socially organized genera on this planet. Please, keep this in mind! The dog is nothing else but a domesticated wolf with perceptions less keen and some instincts subdued - except natural (FCI uses the term "primitive") breeds - but they still retain their social patterns of social behavior and genus communication.

Why do I write on this? Just stay for a moment...

As I have already written, in the FALCO DOG SCHOOL the dogs are unleashed, with no baskets or any other restraints. Puppies, adults, bitches... This is how they acquire the desirable habits and experience, they develop their power of reasoning, ability to survive and communicate with their surroundings.

Unsurprisingly, to make this work with no harm to the health of both dogs and people, one essential prerequisite is needed: It is the existence of such a human pack leader (technically super-alpha individual) who is able to communicate and make himself understood by all of his dogs (i.e. all dogs that have just appeared in the scope) - not by means of drilled commands but using the "canine language". I am the one who occupies this position with full responsibility; if I did not, it would naturally fail to work. Primarily, I assert that my influence is at the expense of the authority of the owner of the dog - he either has it or doesn't, but I never falsely intervene their relation - I just control the pack. I am capable of sending a dog to its owner if he can't recall it, I know how to "start the dog up" and leave the rest up to the particular owner.

Now, back to the topic of training. The dog is an extremely intelligent being. It can effortlessly learn basic skills of obedience - sitting, laying down, staying and waiting. But why can't so many people recall their dog or let it stay and wait? It is just because they wrongly believe (and are convinced by trainers) that it is necessary to repeat the commands and drills with their dog dully, over and over again. But that is a bad mistake. The dog soon learns easily what it is expected to do and how it is supposed to do it. The problem is somewhere else.

The problem lies in AUTHORITY AND ATTITUDE. Both wolves and dogs can communicate among themselves at a much higher lever only by means of their body language, facial expression, and short sound signals (the body language developed for the Special Forces of the U.S. Army has been developed on the basis of their communicating signals). A good example is the perfectly coordinated cooperation and teamwork of these beasts in hunting. But no wolf or dog wants any other one to lie down, sit, or come to its heel in the human meaning based on commands. There is something one must realize: Using our human methods, we want our dogs to do nothing but several circus pranks, which are actually unnatural for the dog. If we teach it to them in the drilling way, we will only achieve their knowledge of the circus pranks, nothing else. If we teach them using their natural instinctive language, we will achieve much more - we will achieve making our dogs understand us - and not only our dogs but also others'. Again, I speak about my own experience. When we were, some time ago, attacked by two German Shepherds, it was sufficient to "have a word with them" in the canine way without even touching them - not speaking about all the dogs with negative intentions, which I sent away remotely. This all is possible; to control a dog (or better, to transfer your intention), you can cope with a hand gesture or facial expression.

Have you noticed that there are people who can only use a silent voice to make their dog do anything in the world? And have you noticed that there are people who can't recall their dog whatever they might try? I see members of both groups among my clients. I keep explaining to all of them that it only depends on them what relation they will make with their dog and how their dog will respect them. I never teach anybody's dog to obey, since the only result would be that their dog would obey me and not them. I teach owners how to behave towards their dogs so that they may teach their dogs obedience by themselves. I help them get started. But the rest depends on them. Some people cannot understand and absorb that. If they can't, it will either return to them some day in the future (in case the breed is more fierce), or their dog will be sentenced to lifelong bondage on the leash and an empty life.

So, success in training (or controlling the dog) does not depend on methods based on drill. As I have already written, the dog will very soon understand what it is expected to do. If it does not do it, it proves that the relation between the dog and master does not work to the fullest. Please, remember also that the purpose is not turning the dog into a 100% functioning robot incapable of using its brain and with no desires and needs among which is also the contact with other dogs. The purpose is bringing up a dog capable of living in the environment as similar as possible to the unaffected one - a fully operating pack in which it can survive, communicate and feel home.

A clever dog is not one that masters most commands. A clever (intelligent) dog is one that thinks, even about how to evade obedience! It uses its brain, at that is what counts. If I had brought up my West Siberian Laika Shaddie using classical methods, I would have brought both him and me to an end. Yes, it is anchored in everyday measuring strength of brains. Laikas are ranked among the most intelligent breeds, but one of the results was, for instance, that in several exhibitions that we had participated in the board awarded him the Personality Prize, one of them also in the Adolescent Category, where Shaddie was the only dog that waited to get measured (length, height) and touched at "intimate parts". The reason? When the pack leader is tranquil and the dogs trust him, they can manage anything in the world.

Do you know how drug sniffer dogs are trained? About them, the most important thing is that they maintain their inborn instincts, smartness and power of independent reasoning. Their training is based on game, never on restrictions...

The dogs can either be of calm or lively temper, but they must always be balanced. Much more important than absolute obedience (which never exist, let's forget dreams of perfection) is absolute confidence in the master and unaffected authority, which can neither be crammed, nor drilled. It is a gift that a human must have within; if he doesn't, he shouldn't have a dog, either. He must also be open-minded and reasonable enough to acknowledge that the dogs are different from people, they do not understand human behavior, do not know vindictiveness or hatred, cannot lie, and their natural environment is THE PACK.

If you hold the canine gene within and are unprejudiced to accept things described enough, you will cope with every dog. Please, do not spoil it with "long-established methods of training". It is not the right way. Dog must be admonished, praised and explained to in the canine way, not in the human manner. The key to success is authority and space left for independent activities of your dog.

By the way, have you noticed a phenomenon (conceivably yet underrated)? I often meet homeless people, whose only companions and friends are their dogs - unleashed, always holding to their masters without getting distracted by whatever interesting stimulus in their surroundings. On the other hand, I believe that they are able to lay down their lives for their masters - dogs of various breeds, crossbreeds, numerous in sizes, but living in an environment that strongly resembles a classical pack: No cote, no chains, free motion, and 24 hours a day with their leader. How gorgeous! These dogs are absolutely unproblematic and, as far as I have observed, well nourished and healthy. Surprising, isn't it? No, it isn't. It only confirms that the more canine our behavior to our dog is, the better its condition it will be. Namely, dogs also have emotions and very, very rich mental lives.

That is all. I do not claim that my truth is the only truth. It is only my personal viewpoint of training, prerequisites to its success, and dog-man relation, which I personally apply on both my dogs - Golden Retriever Dino and West Siberian Laika Shaddie.

_______________________________________________
Copyright (c) Viktor Dostál, FALCO DOG-TRAINING SCHOOL

I’ve happened to find your website and I am pleased by your approach towards dogs. I am far from having read that all, so I am about to get back to yours sites again. I must emphasize your advice sounds good to me, though some of them are in total contradiction with the view of dog upbringing and keeping dogs in North America. I am the last one to claim that those “in America” do always the right thing – more to the contrary is true. I live in Winnipeg, Canada.

The standard here is to recommend locking puppies in transport plastic boxes for night and even for the time of several hours of the day when you have to go out for some time. Many breeding stations do so from the puppies’ sixth week of age to get the puppies accustomed to that somehow. They justify that by easiness to teach the puppies going out to do their needs. The dogkeeper simply places a tidbit into the crate, and in some the dog will go to the crate by himself – even an adult dog often sleeps in the crate voluntarily with the door open.

Similar is the situation with castrating both sexes. Local vets recommend to do so before the 9th month of the dogs’s age, of before the first heat of bitches. Theirjustification is based on prevention of some kinds of cancer in later age and unwantedpuppies. When you buy a puppy that you don’t want to exhibit, it is normal that youmust sign an agreement on castration. Of course, the breeder is unlikely (however possible in theory) to sue you ever. If the animal is from a shelter, you are supposed to sign a similar contract and, besides, you have to pay the castration in advance.  I can account for this by providing links to many websites.

Have a nice day,

Alex

(contribution arrived on the 9th of July, 2003, by e-mail from Mr. Alexander Stelsovsky)

Greeting to Winnipeg :)

To tell the truth, having read about how people in Canada treat our four-legged friends, I would never like to live there. Like many other people, I am used to live with my dogs, rather than only beside them, and certainly not pushing them into plastic cages. Different places bring different cultures, but this is really extreme.

I have commented castration in my Consulting Service so many times that it is no use to repeat anything. I would just like to ask Canadian vets whether they don’t think that if the integrity of genitals with dogs of bitches was unwholesome, the nature’s evolution would have solved their reproduction long time ago by some other methor, for instance by dividing:) I only hope that in the Czech Republic we will not live to see similar “achievements” in some time. Since the Czechs are a nation that always needs some models to adore, I am very afraid of that even today. Or perhaps should I send this modest proposal to some of our politician who needs to highlight himself?

Thank you once again, have a nice day!

Viktor Dostál - Falco Dog Training School

My Falco Dog School has been training dogs since 1998, and it focuses on all breeds. I have written a so-called Codex, because the owner must learn many new things in the sphere of upbringing and training, as well as his dog. It is a collection of fundamental suggestions, aiming to help a human with forming the appropriate relations with his four-legged friend in the field of training. If you carry out these suggestions consistently, you are on the right way towards seamless coexistence between you and your dog. The training will be a pleasure for you, and will bring both of you the feeling of delight. Here it is:

» The Codex «

• When upbringing and training my dog, I always have to be patient and consistent.
• I must NEVER punish my dog with a leash, a club, or a hand. The leash leads, and the hand caresses. The punishment is an adequate rebuke "in the canine way".
• If I want to train my dog, I must be cool myself. My nervousness and negative emotions will be reliably transferred onto my dog.
• When training my dog, I endeavor to develop the maximum concentration.
• I carefully observe my dog, and I try to understand its facial expression and body language.
• I always devote much time to walking my dog.
• During walks I play with my dog, strengthening his acquired habits in a nonviolent way.
• My dog must worry about me, not vice versa.
• I will keep my dog unleashed for as long as possible. If it is on a leash, then on a short one, leading it at my heels.
• When my dog is running unleashed, I must not forget that I am the one responsible for its conduct with people and other dogs.
• Never will I forget that my dog is an intelligent being, not a robot to obey my commands mechanically.

_______________________________________________
Copyright (c) Viktor Dostál, FALCO DOG-TRAINING SCHOOL

Unfortunately, I very often come across the opinion that if I want a dog to learn something I have to use a constricting or even a spiky collar. I resolutely have to disagree with this, and I will also try to explain why. Of course, I will talk about common training focused on obedience and controllability; I do not intend to deal with service (assistance) dog training here.

The first reason is the ethical aspect. If I teach my dog to obey using brutal coercive means, into which both types of collar fall, it reflects no professional or human competency. The method to build up my canine authority must be other than throttling my dog or stabbing sharp spikes into his neck. Of course, this is also one of the ways to break a dog. But it only results in authority forced out by fear of pain - you do not achieve natural authority that should always occur between a master and his dog. If your dog only obeys you because of fear of punishment, it is always the wrong way. Not talking about the fact that a human does not intentionally cause pain to someone he loves. And if the dog regards you as a natural authority and leader, its relation to you will also be different. Every dog must keep its self-confidence and personality - otherwise it becomes a slave, not a partner and friend. And if you ever committed the mistake and tried these methods on self-assured natural breeds such as Caucasians, Middle Asians or similar, then God save you. You would end up in a hospital with serious injuries and thank goodness for having survived. Why? Because a dog won't wait to eat dirt, either - especially one of those breeds. Those dogs are brusque and, above all, independent. They either do choose you as their leader (or rather a peer) or don't. And if they don't while you lack the natural authority, you cannot achieve it by force. Even a serene dog will let you understand in that case: "OK, I succumb, but only because your body is stronger. But your personality is weak."

The second reason is the aspect of training. Every dog-trainer knows that the dog must not be taught to pull on the leash. When I teach the dog at heel, I use the leash as a correcting instrument. The use is based on jerking the leash - I must not compete in pulling with the dog. If I only pull the leash, the dog interprets it as a challenge to compete in pulling, and will soon get used to wearing a burden on the neck. In contrast, jerking the leash is a mechanical stimulus that the dog understands and accepts. And now imagine that the dog is not wearing a classical leather collar but a constricting collar assembled from metal units (a chain string). Then we cannot jerk, but we simply throttle the dog slowly. A dog with a constricting collar is even able to choke to death, breathes heavily, but keeps pulling the leash till the end.

Give your dog a solid leather collar and a firm leash, learn to use these tools, and soon you will find out that your dog can walk at heel. The constricting collar is unsuitable (though some people might find it impressive, yet it is very effective in ripping the fur from the neck - especially if used on long haired breeds), and the spiky collar is brutal. You can master teaching your dog through classical tools, with a kind and tranquil approach, if you devote your self to your dog in this way from the puppy age.

_______________________________________________
Copyright (c) Viktor Dostál, FALCO DOG-TRAINING SCHOOL

An electric collar is quite a simple device. Shortly, it is an ordinary collar containing a small box with a remote controlled electrical circuit that generates more or less painful electrical impulse, the intensity of which is adjusted by the remote control (another box) in your hand.

It may sound quite attractive - the dog is out of scope and has just done something wrong, one can only push a button and the punishment is done. Unfortunately, all this "modern convenience" has a dark side. First and foremost, I emphasize that I strictly refuse using this punishing instrument (I intentionally do not call this thing a "training tool"). Why?

1. First, I consider it absolutely inhuman and mortifying to send electrical shocks into any living being - it is an atrocity, whatever the reason may be.
2. Even if I disregard this fact completely, let me ask a question: What intensity of the impulse is optimal for the particular dog - effective without killing it? Pain is always interpreted subjectively, and dogs feel pain in the same way as people - only the thresholds of pain differ from breed to breed, and are strictly individual.
3. This form of punishment is totally strange to the dog, incomprehensible, and can turn a well-balanced individual into a psychical wreck. The point is that it may become very seductive to push that trigger on any misbehavior... Moreover, every punishment must be based on direct contact, and the dog must know from whom it comes.
4. I am convinced that the dog, as well as a human, will later build up certain immunity against electrical shocks (in other words, it will get used to the particular intensity of pain) - and what then? Increase the intensity of pain endlessly?
5. If I am incapable of teaching a dog without using similar coercive means, then I am also incapable of training the dog. It must always be emphasized that dogs should act on the basis of NATURAL AUTHORITY, not on the strength of PAIN and COMPULSION. As regards those who are incapable of doing so, don't let them have a dog.
6. Pokud nejsem schopen psa něco naučit bez použití podobných donucovacích prostředků, pak nemám na to, abych psa cvičil. Stále je nutno si připomínat, že pes by měl veškeré cviky a požadované činnosti provádět na základě RADOSTI, DOBROVOLNOSTI A SPOLUPRÁCE ("chci to sám udělat"), ne na základě BOLESTI A DONUCENÍ ("když to neudělám, bude mě to bolet")...