Candi. yes you understood me correctly. Well expressed as always.
Just one little thing. What did you mean with §§§? Is this internet slang or an in US usual abbreviation for something? Hope it doesn't stand for a swear word, lol! (My English!)
Thanks a lot.

Hi, Tammy, thanks for your answer. As far as it refers to nail trimming etc, I have already given the answer to Kelly.
But as I said there, I have only exp. with my own dogs. I regularly manipulate their whole body for such things and until now never had problems with this, nor at the Vet. Just once one of the Pits was afraid of the muzzle the Vet wanted to put over her snout, because he had to take the temperature and thought she might be afraid of this. Slippie rejected the muzzle, so I hold her snout with both hands but without pressure and - wupps! - the thermometre was in. Nevertheless she is in between also muzzle trained although in normal everyday life they all don't wear one. But I train them for this because we could some day be surprised by something which hurts. So, just for precaution.

You're without doubt are right. If someone wanted, he could film a battle against nail trim, trim the vid leaving out important parts and then mislead people and declare this as torture.


Nail trimming I don't do myself, I'm awfully afraid I'd cut them somewhere where it hurts or harms. I must admit this is easy in my case, because their nails are trimmed by walking a lot. Just once the Vet had to trim them a bit. But there was no resistance at all. Probably because of all the manipulations I repeat about once a week. But other dogs are other dogs. So I can not judge.

But on the clip in question I allow myself to judge. Yes, I believe it could have been edited, but not in that way. This thing really shocked me. I know varios people who know well editing films, one of them my husband and then some friends. They all say, yes, this clip could have been edited, but not in that particular part I found so awfully horrible. They say the part where the dog tries to defend himself in the arms of his trainer and then being thrown into the water, is too short to be edited unremarkably. As my persons are experienced but not professionals, I sent this whole package to a person in Switzerland, whom we know well. He has professionnally to edit every day (but not for such purposes).
His opinion: To edit this short part would be impossible to edit without even an unprofessional eye would perceive it easily. They would have to shred it in too tiny parts and then put the desired ones together. It would look unreal. Impossible.
He also said. Nevertheless it theoretically would have been possible in another way. They could have exchanged the dog by another one, a trained one who'd behave as if he was in panic and who ressembles the original one very much.
But this would mean the trainer would have had to participate in the bad game. This, I think, would not make much sense, because he would have harmed himself.

Next possibility: he himself could have trained his dog to behave as if he were in panic. What for? Why should he put himself into such a bad light?

I in between think, that that clip (the movie I haven't seen), could have been edited by chosing the worst parts and cutting out the better ones. I can not know this. But if it happend like this and they left the worst parts, what then? The worst parts are real and remain the worst parts and not even cutting out the most wonderful ones can make the awful ones better.

 Quote: Christina Stockinger

Candi. yes you understood me correctly. Well expressed as always.
Just one little thing. What did you mean with §§§? Is this internet slang or an in US usual abbreviation for something? Hope it doesn't stand for a swear word, lol! (My English!)
Thanks a lot.

It's the sign for US Dollars, and means MONEY, which is sometimes a "dirty" word...

Christina, at this point, you are arguing with yourself. Despite no experience with this type of situation and no clue as to what really happened, you are bound and determined to judge these people. Multiple links to first-hand accounts have been provided to you, yet you discount all of these. The American Humane Association, who has substantially more integrity than PETA, has provided a statement with a precise detailed account of the complete shoot, yet you refuse to accept any theory contrary to your own. You have even enlisted the assistance of other similarly absent witnesses to support your beliefs. You insist on judging these people.

Unfortunately, this is a symptom of our modern connected society. The special interest groups, although they represent only a small minority of the population, scream long enough and loud enough to get their way even when their cause is not just.

ETA; Escape training is not the use of corrections, and it does involve using the adversive during the learning phase. You are preaching to the choir about Michael Ellis. No matter how you spin it, almost all working dog trainers, including the ones you admire, use pressure in ways that PETA may not like but are not cruel at all.

Hi, Duane, yes I'm judging as long as I see what I see and am not convinced of that pretendant form of editing. I'm arguing with myself, yes, because such thing preoccupy me. For this reason I'm trying to find ways from more people with different knowledges and opinions. I could of course in order to seem to be on the same page like you, give in and say to myself: I don't want Duane to be angry with me. But as l already said I would have to lie.

This doesn't mean I discount all the links I've been given. Not at all, but if I have doubts, I do have doubts and am trying to learn more about it. If something raises such doubts in me, you shouldn't derive from this that I insist of judging those people. I wouldn't have invested such a lot of time in this matter and will be going on.

By the way, I didn't say escape training is the use of corrections. It is a gentle guidance of the dog. Helping him to avoid errors. I thought to have explained my opinion about this clearly enough. What refers to corrections. Well, this again is a question of the how.

I have to build my opinions and when I hear from people who really understand something about editing, then my doubts remain. I cannot do anything against the fact that until now they convince me more. Of course there is still the possibility that they might be wrong, but the same possibility remains on the other side too.

Besides, I never spoke about the WHOLE shoot, which can have been editied easily. I spoke from that certain part, which shows cruelty. I will not repeat all this. What refers to eye witnesses I admittedly don't care very much. It is too well known in the forensics, how statements of the sam event can differ immensely and be very misleading.


I also wrote long enough about M.E. and that I am not in the least against leash pressure, provided the dog has had the possibility to get used to it properly. This can impossible compared with what we have seen on the clip, and not even remotely with cruelty. It is a necessary learning process to the point which is appropriate for the individual dog.

Duane, will we have trouble together because of this? You have another point of view than I. Can't we respect this and go on in other topics as before. We cannot demand from someone else that he'll adapt to the opinions of others, as long as he's not convinced. You might perhaps call this stubborn, for me it isn't. It is my way to gain an opinion. I'm still on the way.

 Quote: Christina Stockinger

Hi, Duane, yes I'm judging as long as I see what I see and am not convinced of that pretendant form of editing.....
I have to build my opinions and when I hear from people who really understand something about editing, then my doubts remain......
Can't we respect this and go on in other topics as before......

Christina, I for one would be very happy to let this topic go and move on. But I am responding again because some of the portions of your latest post that I have quoted above indicate to me that you still believe some of us are trying to convince you that the clip that is the subject of this thread was somehow faked or falsified, or to use your term, "pretendant." Nobody who has responded here is suggesting any such thing. What we are all referring to by the term "edited" is that only a couple small portions of the days filming were shown. Many parts were cut out, and the only parts left in were those that appear to show a dog in distress (which was precisely the intention of those who released the clip).

What happened on the video happened. The discussion, in a nutshell, is about whether each of us believes this very short clip from one day's filming constitutes animal abuse. Again, there is no question that the events depicted in this particular clip that is the subject of this particular thread did indeed happen in those couple of minutes as shown on the film.

Christina, I appreciate your deep love and concern for the welfare of dogs. I also have a deep love and concern for the welfare of dogs. On that we agree, and no, I'm not mad at you for any reason. But this is the last post I will make in this thread. It will be understood or it won't. I'm exhausted.

Each post on this thread is hopefully my last, but my passion drives me to respond to certain statements and inferences. There is no chance that I will be angered or ostracised. I value discussion and am not intimidated by differences in opinion, so worry not, Christina. What I disagree with is the use of the word "abuse" or "cruelty" when I see a trend in modern society to use such labels to villefy people. IMHO if you are going to accuse someone of such, you should have more than a layman's understanding of the situation at hand. But, at the end of the day, I cannot change a heart or a mind.

I still do not understand your take on Ellis and escape training. To be very clear and try to help you understand, we are not talking about leash pressure or anything gentle. Michael Ellis uses an ecollar to stim the dog until it complies with the given command. I am not saying that it is cruel. I am not saying that I disdain the use of the ecollar, nor in such a manner. I am asserting that the escape training that ME teaches includes not only leash pressure training but ecollar stimulation beyond correction, and this, like many methods that have been employed by successful, popular trainers, constitutes use of force (which we conveniently call "pressure").

I feel that you can force a dog (or a child, for that matter) to do something that causes it distress without doing damage to the subject or the relationship. I use a prong collar, my dog is hard enough to take corrections, and she still thinks I walk on the moon. Goodness knows that that is how the Army trained me.

I'm gonna lock this thread. I believe that everyone has stated their opinion, and the horse is now dead. Let's not continue beating it.

If anyone wants to add something productive to this, PM me, and I will add it.

If we want to continue a discussion about escape/ avoidance training, by all means, start a new thread on that subject.

Kelly