Discipline key to training dogs

3-31
To the editor:
In regards to a "thumbs-down" for Wednesday, March 26, wherein a writer hiding behind the anonymity of that column, wrote the tidbit describing what they perceived as animal abuse - an incident that took place almost five weeks earlier.
Alas, I am the culprit. The evildoer spraying something in the dog's eyes to make it obey. I hesitate to reveal the formula because other trainers might steal it. I will only say, there's a H, a 2 and an 0, involved. To spray something harmful in a dog's eyes is counterproductive.
The obtuse, however, can't figure this out and allow their imaginations to run wild, inferring a deadly concoction intended to harm. Spraying in the dog's mouth when it is wildly carrying on, often distracts it and helps to regain control. In this case it didn't work. The guttural yelps and screams cited, were due to the dog's total frustration at not being able to attack a dog tied off, unattended, to a bike rack at the east end of Rainbow Bridge. In brief, this dog is ideal with people and kids, but hyper-aggressive toward other dogs.
And, yes, a nitwit did call the police. They provided the officer with their version of "cruelty," adding I was also using profanity. The officer subsequently interviewed me and I explained my side. A couple of saner witnesses verified my version and the case was closed. I did call one of the angry folk a brittle-brains, if that's profanity. I've been accosted before for "abusing" an animal during a correction. When I ask the person how I should go about it, the answer usually is, "I don't know," quickly adding, "but I know that's not the way to do it."
There could be a liability factor when people leave unattended dogs tied to a bike rack with a leash extending across the sidewalk (something I've observed on more than a few occasions). The dog could make an inadvertent move tightening the lead as someone steps over it, entangling their feet and causing a fall. Then, too, there are some people who are afraid of dogs. There is no good reason anyone should have to go into the street to get around a dog tied off to the bike rack.
It is now 13 years since I began training dogs in Ojai and I am closing in on 240 dogs to date (I think I trained 800 or more before I moved to Ojai). I have not heard that any of my clients are dissatisfied or felt their animals were abused. All I'm aware of is they have happy, responsive, obedient pets. If clients think they have a problem, a week, a month or a year after I finish, I don't charge extra to correct it. I've had three callbacks in these 13 years and corrected the problem within 20 minutes, to an hour at most.
When I still lived in the Hollywood area, I used to work off and on between jobs (about 12 years) with a friend, Erich Renner, former director of training for International Guiding Eyes and later the Eye Dog Foundation, training guide dogs. I also loosely associated with a schutzhund group and trained protection dogs for some people until my attorney pointed out the liability potential.
There are several in the Arcade area who have seen fit to dissuade people from having me train their dog. One complained to Animal Regulation about my "abusive" methods. I learned later that an officer observed me in the field and determined I wasn't doing anything radically different than what this officer had observed with park-trainers in Ventura City and other local areas. What many fail to understand is not all dogs are sweetness and light. Nineteen dogs I worked with did not have to be euthanized for their unruly and aggressive behavior toward people and other animals when I finished with them. I would like the dog mentioned at the beginning to be number 20. The basic methods I use, "operant conditioning" and "conditioned reflex" can be found in such books as, "Training You to Train Your Dog," by Blanche Saunders, William Koehler's "The Koehler Method of Dog Training" and a latter day book, "Play Training Your Dog," by Patricia Gail Burnham.
A more appropriate "thumbs-down" should be directed at people who adopt a puppy, then when it matures into an unmanageable "pain," dump it at a shelter instead of having taken the time to train it.
Too much love and affection does not spoil the dog - it's lack of discipline.

George Marshall
Ojai

OVN mentor's loss lamented

4-02
To the editor:
Thank you for the wonderful articles on the passing of Fred Volz. I am, like all of those who knew him, saddened by his death. I hadn't seen Fred in almost 20 years, but he was never far from my thoughts. Fred started me on the road to a career in journalism in 1965, when I began writing sports for the Ojai Valley News. He was a great teacher and mentor and accelerated my progress. Fred honored me by saying I was the first sports editor of the Ojai Valley News and I am very proud of that. We kept in touch until late 1983 and I'm sorry I didn't stay in close contact.
How good a teacher was Fred? I graduated from Nordhoff in 1968 and by 1970 I had a full-time job with a daily in the Scripps Howard chain. I figure he made me into the equivalent of a college junior when I left Nordhoff.
Keep up the good work at the Ojai Valley News. It is important to the community.

Tim Tuttle
Greencastle, Ind.

Patriotism not blind acceptance

3-31
To the editor:
We should think about what patriotism really is. Is it the blind adulation of some "leader" or waving of flags and chanting slogans, or is it working for the betterment of the society as a whole? Is it right and sane to "support" our troops in Iraq, sending them on fool's missions all over the world in the interest of "making the world safe for democracy," whether or not the people affected want our brand of democracy or any other. There are people who do believe that theocracy is the way to go - see Israel and many of the Islamic countries. We might want to think about the Middle East where many are quite satisfied with their brands of theocracy, old or new Bible or Koranic versions.
If it does not endanger us, we have no reason to be there. Hussein is a threat only to the Iraqis. None of the terrorists have been Iraqis (so far), they're Saudis, Pakistanis, etc., etc., not Iraqis. Hussein will never make it to the Hitler or Stalin league.
Bush claimed that Saddam and Osama were in cahoots. That's been dropped by the administration - then nukes, rockets, gas and biological weapons. After six months of inspectors and our troops all over Iraq nothing has turned up. The administration never responds anymore other than to say later.
Now Bush talks about that making the world safe for democracy, no matter what the world wants. When we "free" a town they look at us in that surly fashion reserved for any conqueror from Genghis Khan to the British. Let's be honest, the world hates our guts for this and will continue to do so for at least a generation if not much longer. I've gotten the word from several Americans abroad that they do not feel safe anymore; in fact, they have been accosted in the streets of one European and two Latin American countries.
The only reason that Bush wants this is so that Cheney and the boys can fatten up Halliburton and Company, i.e., the war profiteers.
For this we are depleting the treasury, running the biggest deficits in 12 years and rising, sending our men and women to very possibly die.
Is it patriotic to blindly support this? Thomas Jefferson told us to "Question authority." Is it not the patriotic thing to make the leaders think and admit error at the earliest time and get our people home? There is nothing patriotic about supporting their deaths and wrecking our economy.

Gary Orthuber
Ojai

Vote in order for arts ordinance

3-31
To the editor:
How appropriate it was that in the issue following the latest progressive-at-large rant ("Nation's Debt Harms Poorest," OVN, March 26), the OVN publisher would remind readers that the "Majority Rules" system is at least still alive, if not all that well, in America. This majority rules concept is what has, for centuries, afforded Americans some measure of protection from idealistic utopians that go to great lengths to spend other people's money to realize their own dreams.
Teddy Roosevelt quotes notwithstanding, any argument over who (percentage-wise) pays the highest and lowest taxes, ergo, who should reap any reward from tax breaks, would be as fruitless as "debating" the situation in Iraq. Both issues have factions on either side that could care less what the other has to say, but, no matter how little she cares about the current American president, Kale Starbird might want to take into account that a majority of the nation's taxpayers might actually like Bush's tax breaks. A lot of people may feel more would be in store if only the government would cut its spending. They might go so far as to suggest that there is nothing standing in the way of the Starbirds of the world using the previous administration's tax code to calculate their taxes and tearing up any return they may get so they could sleep better, feeling they have done their parts, while those who feel otherwise could enjoy keeping a little more of the money that they have earned. It's a beautiful choice, but it just never seems to be enough for people who embark on missions of importance to mostly themselves; they have to drag everyone else into their plans.
Though this scenario has inconspicuously played itself out time and time again, the good people of Ojai are getting an opportunity to see it happen in real time. Much like the land conservationists' plan to get Ventura County's taxpayers to cough up money it can use to "protect" vacant parcels, the arts community in Ojai is putting the finishing touches on a decades-long quest to tap into easy revenue sources to fund (?) public art. Too lazy to put out the kind of effort needed to get money out of disinterested taxpayers, local public arts enthusiasts are following the lead of land conservationists by asking the city of Ojai to enact an ordinance that will prohibit taxpayers from refusing to participate in this folly. And the lone, but consistent, voice of dissention among the city's leadership corps has been Councilwoman Sue Horgan.
As obvious as Ms. Starbird's disdain for George Bush Jr. is, the fact that a majority of the city's taxpayers are clueless about what their City Hall is doing pales it in comparison. The "Funding for the Arts" plan will affect so many nonsupportive people, the fact that Horgan is the only council member displaying any concern that a vast majority of city taxpayers' money is going to be spent without blessing is frightening. Proposition 218 passed for a reason, and no matter how carefully City Attorney Monte Widders crafts the language of the ordinance, a tax is a tax. The spirit of Proposition 218 would suggest a public vote is in order.

Bruce Roland
Ojai

Prayers should be for suffering

4-04
To the editor:
George Bush said on Sunday that he and his wife had prayed earlier in the day for all the U.S.-led troops, especially those who had lost their lives, and he had asked God's comfort for their families.
He didn't say anything about also praying for the little Iraqi boy in Basra with half his head shot away or the little girl in a Baghdad hospital speechless and shaking from a shell in her back.
Nor did he acknowledge that his decision to illegally attack Iraq had led to all this death and suffering.
I believe that true prayer asks for God's blessings upon everyone. I believe that to pray for only one side is not prayer; it's propaganda.
I believe that an all-loving God is never on our side or their side.
God is always on the side of the suffering.

Clive Leeman
Ojai

© 2003 The Ojai Valley News

Return to editorial search

Back to the news