somebody[ies?] on Vic Stilwell's crew got it WRONG; a form-letter won't make it RIGHT

leashedForLife · #1 (**permalink**) 16-05-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Dear XXXXX,

Thanks for your message (we did not receive any e-mail from you other than the one below).
We're sorry that the recent episode of It's Me or the Dog which included trainers from K9-1
upset you so much. As you know, Victoria is dedicated to promoting force-free, positive reinforcement
methods through all of her various media platforms, the most visible of which is It's Me or the Dog.

As I'm sure you can also imagine, she has quite a tall task every week in managing the content of what goes
into the show, making sure the training methods she discusses and displays are portrayed accurately in the final
version, and actually doing the training work with the dogs and families.

Obviously the majority of dog trainers working in the field today are not televised and only have the last
of those three concerns to deal with on a daily basis, and while Victoria feels blessed to be able to have such
a unique platform from which to help move the needle in a positive direction in the debate over training methods,
she also realizes and accepts the fact that by putting her work on such public display she opens herself to criticism
from all corners. We appreciate your feedback and value your input, but at the same time we do not agree
that the airing of the episodes in question resulted in the level of tragic consequences that you detail below.

Very, very few of the viewers of the show will know the background of who the various 3rd parties are
that Victoria works with on the show, and even fewer will go out of their way to investigate them to the point
where they'll become confused by the message of the show. In fact, a closer watching of the actual episodes
will reveal that despite whatever methods the trainers in question may promote privately, all of the methods
and tools used on the shows only serve to support Victoria's vocal promotion of positive reinforcement methods.
So while the inclusion of the trainers may be questioned, the integrity of the message delivered by the shows
including those trainers cannot.

Victoria is proud to be a part of the growing movement of positive reinforcement trainers
in the world and in the U.S., and we feel confident that the overwhelming majority of the impact
she and her show have had and continue to have on the average dog-owning public are true to her ideals
and accurately reflect her passion for advocating force-free methods at the expense of compulsion training.

She has filmed over 100 episodes of the show which is aired in over 50 countries, and though she is the first
to admit that no trainer (including herself) is free from having made mistakes, we don't feel it's a fair
statement to suggest that she or her show have `undermined' all positive
trainers.
More than most, Victoria is acutely aware on a daily basis of the uphill battle faced by those trainers who practice
force-free, science-based methods, especially since she is in the position of fighting that uphill battle
on a very public scale.

As for the use of the trainers from K9-1, there are several factors that went into their inclusion on the show,
the most visible of which were unavoidable.
Victoria is sometimes only notified at the last moment who has been brought in as a 3rd party, as was the case here.
While she knew they had historically promoted more compulsion methods, Victoria was under the impression
that they were changing their overall philosophies, and she did not have the benefit of your apparently
local knowledge about the full background of the trainers in question.

Her primary focus while filming each episode is on managing the well-being and progress of the dog(s) while
maintaining a safe, positive and productive working environment for the family, crew, children and dogs involved.
The show is watched by millions of people, and apart from trainers like yourself who are well-versed in the debate
over training methods and those who are local to wherever certain episodes are being shot, the vast majority
of viewers will not take away anything other than responsible dog ownership and positive reinforcement techniques
from the show.

While it may be true that the trainers in question may now have relatively limited `bragging rights', we feel it is
irresponsible to suggest that Victoria herself is complicit in setting back the movement towards positive reinforcement
methods. For the above mentioned reasons, we also feel it's irresponsible to suggest that dog owners should
no longer watch the show, as the message relayed by the show has been consistently positive (including the episodes
including the trainers in question).

Again, we thank you for your passion and your interest in Victoria's efforts to promote +R globally, and hope that this
has helped to assuage any concerns you may have going forward. Please feel free to re-post this e-mail (only in its
entirety) on any message boards/email lists you feel would benefit from hearing from Victoria directly.

Best wishes,
Victoria Stilwell Enterprises, LLC
Victoria Stilwell Positively*|*The Official Victoria Stilwell Website
van.zeiler@...

i can understand that she does not always know who is being selected as a 3rd-party guest -
i cannot understand how a form-letter could claim that having 2 trainers who use flooding, choke-chains,
prongs & coercion to "treat" or to "prevent" unwanted behavior does not deliver a mixed-message
to the viewing audience.

the show focused on keeping kids safe from dog-bites.
there are so many highly-regarded reward-based alternatives to K9-1 that it's inconceivable to me
that someone did not suggest, promote, etc, these guys... Dogs & Storks or Doggone Safe
or Colleen Pelar are all much higher-profile, nationally known programs in the USA.

i'm stunned.

absolutely stunned. someone who chose these fellas as the show's special-guests
should be, IMO, fired - for making such an enormous, embarrassing, co$tly mistake, which will generate
public apologies for months if not years.

the production-crew of It's Me Or The Dog needs to grasp the essential concepts of pos-R,
so that no future major-conflicts of ethics & interests occur between the show's values & their guests' values.

bad weeding process, poor selection, weak excuses.

IMO a full & frank, "oops, we made a serious error, & we're sorry to say that So-&-So will not choose
our guests in the future...", would have been much more forthcoming.

Pawsitive · #2 (**permalink**) 16-05-2011, 03:04 PM

I haven't seen any of the US shows - what happened? They had aversive trainers on there?

leashedForLife · #3 (**permalink**) 16-05-2011, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pawsitive

...They had aversive trainers on there?

see any of the many videos on UTube posted by k9-1.
shock-collars, prong-collars, choke-chains, flooding, IMO deliberate provocation -

and cooing 'good dog...' while shoving one's leather-gauntleted hand into the food bowl
does not make it reward-based or positive-reinforcement training, when the dog is well-known
to resource guard.

that is a sting-operation; teaching a dog learned helplessness - ['we can do this & growls won't stop us...'] -
is NOT helpful, as the dog learns that growling is pointless; we have now removed the warning system
& the dog will go direct to "bite" without bothering to growl. growls are valuable communication;
they are to be heeded IMO, not extinguished.

that they trained with reward-based methods while on her show does not alter their modus operandi.

Pawsitive · #4 (**permalink**) 16-05-2011, 03:27 PM

eek :s totally agree that she needs to be more careful (and more involved!) with who comes on the show as a trainer. (Especially seeing as it's likely people will obviously approach them afterwards to train their own dogs).

Not a very good response from her people either :S

leashedForLife · #5 (**permalink**) 16-05-2011, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pawsitive

...she needs to be more careful (and more involved!) with who comes on the show as a trainer.
Especially seeing as it's likely people will obviously approach them afterward to train their own dogs.

Yes - the 'bragging rights' is not at all as silly or minimal a concern as that letter makes it seem.
claiming that she "endorses" their training is probably more than they could get away with,
but claiming she endorsed their BITE PREVENTION program specifically is not.

she announced their names, biz-name & location during the show - whether that was verbally,
text on the screen, signage at the door?... i have no idea; i don't get Animal Planet & didn't see it.

that she'd run a mile the other way if approached about 'endorsing' their behavior modification
will never occur to most potential customers; they'll only see her name & make the association.
they will EXPECT reward-based, positive-reinforcement, coercion-free methods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pawsitive

Not a very good response from her people either :S

no - very inadequate IMO, & no assurance that there won't be major bloopers in the future.

lucysnewmum · #6 (**permalink**) 16-05-2011, 05:00 PM

its television....designed to entertain and keep the ratings up!!!!

as with all television trainers everything seen or heard should not be taken as gospel.....but the ideals behind the programme should be thoroughly researched before being put into practise...

grandad · #7 (**permalink**) 16-05-2011, 05:51 PM

I've wathced her series and I get e-mail blogs from her. She has in the past in the UK series, used fridge magnets with the photo's of faces of the family and shown how the structure is. I.e. dog at the top mum dad and kids below and then gone onto say that the training will reverse this situation. As with all TV prog's, nobody except the crew know what goes on behind the scenes.

RobD-BCactive · #8 (**permalink**) 16-05-2011, 06:30 PM

People make mistakes at times and I can believe that someone can pass some kind of interview knowing what the show expects. Noone saw such being used on the show did they?

As for the Pack Leader type stuff, just about everyone was saying that until relatively modern times, and even though it made me kind of smile & chuckle as it seemed a touch ludicrous, everyone "knew" that was the way it was with dogs. There's plenty of ppl who don't have the flexibility to change their minds in light of better evidence either.

I tended to break the rules, but feel a touch guilty about it, but never had a problem dog, so never worried overly.

LuvMyDog_Worldwide · #9 (**permalink**) 16-05-2011, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leashedForLife

i can understand that she does not always know who is being selected as a 3rd-party guest -
i cannot understand how a form-letter could claim that having 2 trainers who use flooding, choke-chains,
prongs & coercion to "treat" or to "prevent" unwanted behavior does not deliver a mixed-message
to the viewing audience.

the show focused on keeping kids safe from dog-bites.
there are so many highly-regarded reward-based alternatives to K9-1 that it's inconceivable to me
that someone did not suggest, promote, etc, these guys... Dogs & Storks or Doggone Safe
or Colleen Pelar are all much higher-profile, nationally known programs in the USA.

i'm stunned.

absolutely stunned. someone who chose these fellas as the show's special-guests
should be, IMO, fired - for making such an enormous, embarrassing, co$tly mistake, which will generate
public apologies for months if not years.

the production-crew of It's Me Or The Dog needs to grasp the essential concepts of pos-R,
so that no future major-conflicts of ethics & interests occur between the show's values & their guests' values.

bad weeding process, poor selection, weak excuses.

IMO a full & frank, "oops, we made a serious error, & we're sorry to say that So-&-So will not choose
our guests in the future...", would have been much more forthcoming.

It'll only generate apologies if 'someone' gets their panties in a bunch and doesn't let it drop. Simples. If 'someone' makes a big fuss about it and draws attention to it then it'll become a big deal instead of quickly and silently slipping beneath the waves never to be heard of again, all nice and quiet hush hush like...

People make mistakes (shock, horror) and they learn from their mistakes (really..) and hopefully they don't make them again (lesson learned).

Over reacting and going straight for the blame stick never solved anything. I'm amazed you don't understand that, as a trainer......

Victoria, bless her, is the figurehead of a very large crew and behind the scenes organisation. I wouldn't EVER expect her to be able to check up on each and every single person there....that's why they have their job, and she has hers. If she had to check every single person all the time she'd never get her own job done, and then where would her message be? Here's a hint: 20 hours per day of meetings 7 days a week.....

The NYFD rescue teams use prong collars, they appeared on a Saturday daytime TV show and not one single person it appears apart from me has noticed or said anything on any one single forum I've been to, ever. Is it really such a big deal Terri? Never thought of having a quiet grumble to yourself?

I met Vicki in an airport lounge years ago and asked her what her views on prong collars were, she said "oh, we don't use them on my show"...so I pressed further and asked her personal view on them, she said "I wouldn't use one on the show"..... huh??? Some stand and crusade against em eh?

Amazingly enough Terri, the APDT in the USA aren't against aversive or corrective measures either (or prong collars for that matter, like OMG, gag me with a spoon) and you should know, you've obviously read their manifesto and mission statement before sighning up....didn't you?

Here's a tip, when you fly off the handle at something instead of overlooking an obvious error and cause a lot of fuss, you inadvertantly promote what you're trying to suppress. BTW, ever heard of Sun Tzu?

regards,

Austin

LuvMyDog_Worldwide · #10 (**permalink**) 16-05-2011, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leashedForLife

We appreciate your feedback and value your input, but at the same time we do not agree that the airing of the episodes in question resulted in the level of tragic consequences that you detail below.

I am intrigued.....what was the 'email below', and what were these tragic concequences that were shot down so flippantly, sorry, detailed tragic concequences? A one sided view often leaves the most important information out.

Quote:

Victoria was under the impression that they were changing their overall philosophies, and she did not have the benefit of your apparently local knowledge about the full background of the trainers in question.

Ah, once a criminal always a criminal, no such thing as rehabilitation. Um, has anyone ever successfully rehabilitated a problem dog, maybe? If so, then you'll know it can happen unlike "someone" knows. That's actually quite tragic, a company who may potentially have been turning over a new leaf don't get any positive encouragement, or support, or even credibility.....just 'local knowledge' slurs, name calling, hearsay and an attempt to disrupt their business because they previously used....... and were about to turn over a new leaf when........
Shame some people can't show compassion, understanding and extend the same empathetic R+ (or NegR-+Pxe=mc2) training ethics to other human beings as well as their dogs....people learn so much from being scolded, accused and harassed by teachers (by that I mean "trainers").

regards,

Austin

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Contact Us - Terms of use - Top
Pet Forum \| Dog Forum \| Cat Forum \| Small Animals Forum \| Bird Forum \| Horse and Equestrian Forum \| Reptile Forum \| Poultry Forum \| Fish Forum PetForums is part of the Pet Media group of websites including \| Pets4Homes \| PetsLocally