I understand why some of you that have not actually met me or attended my seminars have misinterpreted Mr. Goodden's unfortunate phrasing.

Mr. Goodden phrasing where he used the word bluntly was not intended to convey that I willy nilly tell people to abandon their dogs to the needle. He was trying to convey that I did not attempt to misle him into thinking they can all be saved. I do not, nor will I ever bluntly tell someone to put their dog down. My job is provide options, not make decisions. I have a work shop on aggression assessment that I have taught to professionals all over North America from around the world and will be doing another in the Peterborough region in two weeks. It's popularity amongst professionals such as veterinarians, RVT's and trainers is because it helps save dogs, not kill them. It outlines protocols for diagnosis, assessment and treatment. That protocol was followed in this case as it is in all cases I am presented. After an intense assessment (I believe Mr Goodden referred to it as a "marathon" session.) I outline as I did with Mr. Goodden the only 4 options known to exist in cases of extreme aggression with extreme meaning that their is severe and immediate risk of considerable injury. The first is to investigate training options. For this there is a subset of investigative options pursued. There are cases where it is a case of hard wiring and others where it is soft. Either way the factors identifying which and influencing the ultimate outcome via training are too numerous to outline here. The second is the implementation of safety protocols to protect people. It may include the first option but may be a sole option when training is unlikely to provide results or they will not be achieved in a manner for which family and/or the public can be safe. In severe cases the tools and protocols for option 2 are impractical in that they will provide insufficient safety, then option 3 is investigated. Option 3 is to attempt re-homing of the dog. As those experienced in rescue are aware there are not a lot of homes willing to take in an aggressive dog. Most ethical rescues will not take them in. Those willing to do so have limited funds and usually do not have the ability to take them in because they do not have the space. The final option of the four and without using sugar coated words because it is an ugly option in every situation is to kill the dog. This is the exception and not the rule but it does occur with enough frequency to keep me in every case intensely investigating the first 3 options so that it can be avoided as I find option 4 no matter the necessity extremely distressing as well. However I am not a miracle worker and while ownership is a sacred obligation to the dog it does not absolve us of our sacred obligation to keep our family, friends and the public safe.

Some trainers teach obedience and occasionally encounter low level aggression. That is not the case for me. I do hundreds of aggression cases per year and the vast majority are saved and go on to live full lives. However as I specialize in aggression many of the most severe cases find their way to me. This is why I am associated with the demise of more dogs then other trainers, not because I am uncaring or unskilled. Much the same way were a cancer specialist if judged on patient stats alone and then compared to an obstetrician might be thought to be uncaring. Despite best efforts I am faced with option 4 disproportionately then most other trainers. I do not enjoy this aspect of my job but I would not be doing that job if I did not lay out all of a dog owner's options including the dark number 4.

To reiterate; I provide options, I do not make decisions for other people about what amounts to a cataclysmic event in their lives and I would never be so callous as to be blunt in these scenarios.

John Wade
Dog Training With John Wade

Permission to cross post granted.