Caroline Kisko is a Liar

Back on August 22nd, I wrote a post entitled "The Kennel Club: When Truth is Inconvenient, Lie," in which I noted that:

Ms. Caroline Kisko of The Kennel Club is a liar, and she's not even a very clever or smart liar -- merely a blatant and bold one.

But don't take my word for it. You can read The Kennel Club's own web site and find the results of their own breeder's survey (PDF).

In that survey The Kennel Club notes that "Health information was reported for 36,006 live dogs, of which 22,540 (62.6%) were healthy, and 13,466 (37.4%) had at least one reported health condition."

More than 37% of dogs had "at least one" health condition???

Wow!

When you consider that the average age of the dogs in question (healthy and unhealthy dogs combined) was just 5 years old, what you are looking at here is an extraordinary level of disease, deformity, and misery in Kennel Club dogs.

But apparently, Ms Caroline Kisko does not care about that truth.

No, she is paid to do a job, and never mind the dogs. She has been given her marching orders.

Now, for the record, I do not use the term "liar" recklessly.

Sometimes people are merely misinformed.

Sometimes people get the number or story wrong because memory is not perfect, or they have relied on a defective source, or they have transposed something.

Sometimes, people exaggerate a bit for effect.

These folks are not liars.

Neither is a "bullshit artist" according to Harry G. Frankfurt who notes in On Bullshit, that the bullshit artist does not care whether what he or she is saying is true or not -- they simply "fire for effect."

No, a liar is someone who sits in a very narrow chair: someone who knows the truth and then tries to lead people away from it.

Which is why Ms. Kisko is a liar.

Ms. Kisko knows the truth. And instead of acknowledging it, she has taken money to try to lead people away from it.

And the truth, just to set the record straight it NOT that 90 percent of all Kennel Club dogs are healthy, as Ms. Kisko has been telling the press.

The truth is that 37 percent of the 36,000 dogs surveyed by The Kennel Club have "at least one" health condition --and this in a population of dogs with an average age of only 5 years.

Ms. Kisko, of course, objects to being called a liar. She sends me the following email, which I reprint in full:

Dear Terrier Man

I would very much like to enter into a sensible debate with you about the matters raised in your recent blog regarding the health of pedigree dogs. However I am not able to do so until you remove from your site the libellous statement that I am a liar. I am no such thing and I expect you to remove this immediately. I have little doubt that you will hide behind the fact that you are in another continent but your nastiness and threats do you no credit.

It would be more meaningful if you depersonalised your remarks and recognised the fact that I am representing an organisation – if you wish to attack then I suggest you aim correctly in the first place.

However if you wish to make things personal, I would be very happy to meet with you. You would be very welcome to come to my home, to meet all 23 of my dogs and to come out training with my huskies. Then we might have a sensible conversation about what does and does not affect a dog’s ability to enjoy a long and happy life.

Yours sincerely

Caroline Kisko
Kennel Club Secretary
Tel: 020 7518 1056
Mobile: 07718 896492

Now, if you read Ms. Kisko's missive carefully, you will notice two things right off:

1. Ms. Kisko does not seem to know what a terrierman is (it's one word, not two), and;
   
   
2. Ms. Kisko does not actually trouble herself to correct the facts, which remain right as rain, and are there for anyone to check.
   

Instead, Ms. Kisko says that she is merely representing an organization (The Kennel Club), and I should direct my ire at that nameless, faceless organization rather than hold up any one individual, such as herself, who is actually doing the lying to the public.

No names please!

Ms. Kisko's defense, then, is not that I got it wrong, but that she should be given a pass because she is a professional "liar for hire."

She does not want her name attached to the word "liar" even though she offers no defense for her lie.

Sorry, Ms. Kisko, but you are going to have to do better than that.

And as for legal action, bring it on. Truth is a perfect defense of libel, and the truth is that you have lied about the health of Kennel Club dogs. You know it, and I know it, and anyone who checks The Kennel Club's own health survey summary can see it too.

For More Information

• Below are links to the BBC show Pedigree Dogs Exposed. It is, as the producers correctly put it, "the greatest animal welfare scandal of our time."
  
  Watch the whole thing, and then read Inbred Thinking for a little history of how we got into this mess.
  
  
  ** Pedigree Dogs Exposed Part 1 of 6
  
  
  ** Pedigree Dogs Exposed Part 2 of 6
  
  
  ** Pedigree Dogs Exposed Part 3 of 6
  
  
  ** Pedigree Dogs Exposed Part 4 of 6
  
  
  ** Pedigree Dogs Exposed Part 5 of 6
  
  
  ** Pedigree Dogs Exposed Part 6 of 6
  .

The Kennel Club: When Truth is Inconvenient, Lie

"Ms. Caroline Kisko of The Kennel Club is a liar, and she's not even a very clever or smart liar -- merely a blatant and bold one.

But don't take my world for it.

You can read The Kennel Club's own web site and find the results of their own breeder's survey ...."

What do you do when truth is inconvenient, and keeping membership and income up requires telling a bold lie?

Well, if you are The Kennel Club you lie, of course. And, As Joesph Goebbels's so infamously said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Which seems to be the The Kennel Club's plan in the wake of the BBC's airing of Pedigree Dogs Exposed.

Instead of looking inward, The Kennel Club's entrenched bureaucracy has decided to try to "manage the controversy" through disinformation.

In short, they are lying and they hope people like you will remain ignorant and believe it.

Taking a page from Public Relations 101, The Kennel Club first tried to "get out ahead" by putting out a press release, claiming the producers of Pedigree Dogs Exposed were prejudiced.

Prejudiced?

My God, do these people have no insight at all? Perhaps a dictionary, at the very least?

You see, the Kennel Club had not even seen the BBC documentary and they were already denouncing it -- the very definition of prejudice.

Besides, when has the Kennel Club ever opposed prejudice?

Prejudice is The Kennel Club's raison d'etre. It is why they were created, and it is the fundamental underpinning of the Club.

The Kennel Club's entire basis of existence is prejudice against dogs that have the wrong set of papers ... the wrong coat color ... the wrong arc of the tail ... the wrong nose color.

Who cares if the dog is healthy or can do the job? A dog is to be judged solely on paper and solely on looks.

Having attacked the messenger in the most laughable way possible (especially laughable in light of the fact that the BBC is the chief television sponsor of Cruft's), The Kennel Club then rushed out to hire an expensive public relations company to put together a web site.

Now, here's the delicious part: The public relations firm that The Kennel Club hired apparently knows nothing about dogs, and as a consequence they unintentionally illustrated the web site with dogs that are genetic wrecks due to Kennel Club inbreeding.

True!

For example, we have a Dalmatian on the "splash page" of the web site, and never mind the astounding levels of deafness with Dalmatians.

We have a blue-eyed sled dog on another page (a Husky, I think), and never mind the deafness gene associated with blue-eyed dogs.

And, of course, we have a pair of Great Danes -- a dog so beset with cancer, bloat and other issues, that most of the dogs in this breed are dead by age 8.

So what did The Kennel Club do next to "manage the crisis"?

Well, believe it or not, they trotted out Caroline Kisko, the Club's Secretary, to be the "liar for hire" at the level of press, television, radio and internet.

Why Ms. Kisko? I have no idea, other than Ronnie Irving seems to have shot his credibility into the crapper by saying he does not give a damn about science.

Ms. Kisko is quoted on The Kennel Club's apology site as saying that "90 percent of dogs will not suffer from health problems that have a detrimental impact on their quality of life."

Right. And the moon is made of Swiss cheese.

In fact, Ms. Caroline Kisko of The Kennel Club is a liar, and she's not even a very clever or smart liar -- merely a blatant and bold one.

But don't take my word for it.

You can read The Kennel Club's own web site and find the results of their own breeder's survey (PDF).

In that survey The Kennel Club notes that "Health information was reported for 36,006 live dogs, of which 22,540 (62.6%) were healthy, and 13,466 (37.4%) had at least one reported health condition."

More than 37% of dogs had "at least one" health condition???

Wow!

When you consider that the average age of the dogs in question (healthy and unhealthy dogs combined) was just 5 years old, what you are looking at here is an extraordinary level of disease, deformity, and misery in Kennel Club dogs.

But apparently, Ms Caroline Kisko does not care about that truth.

No, she is paid to do a job, and never mind the dogs. She has been given her marching orders.

I am not, of course, the first person to point out that Ms. Kisko's bold assertions about the health of Kennel Club dogs do not jibe with their own data.

So how does Ms. Kisko reconcile her lies against The Kennel Club's own published survey data?

Simple: she simply says a lot of genetic defects do not matter.

And you will be astounded and amazed at what does not matter according to Ms. Kisko!

For example Ms. Kisko says congenital cataracts do not "materially affect" a dog’s life and so they can be wiped off the defect list.

Eh?

Congenital cataracts do not affect a dog's life?

Really? What dog is she talking about?

Now here's an idea: How about we rub a little nitric acid into Ms. Kisko's eyes in order to cloud the lenses (all with her permission, of course), and see how she thinks about it then?

I bet the answer changes pretty darn fast!

Of course, Ms. Kisko is not finished, is she?

No, she cannot be finished, you see, because backing out the data on hereditary cataracts alone does not move the numbers down far enough.

More hereditary problems need to be pushed off to the side -- problems like hip dysplasia and epilepsy, for example.

So what does Ms. Kisko do? How does she achieve this?

Simple. Ms. Kisco unilaterally decides that 85 percent of the dogs reported in the breeder's survey that are suffering from hip dysplasia and epilepsy are, in fact, FINE because she supposes that these conditions might not result in premature death or cripple a dog too badly.

Eh?

Don't worry about hip dysplasia? Don't worry about epilepsy? Who cares if the dog is in pain and has to have surgery? Who cares if the dog is on pain relievers its entire life and cannot be ethically bred? Who cares if the dog is on benzodiazipam its whole life to control seizures?

According to Ms Kisko, as long as the dog is alive, everything is fine.

Right. I would offer Ms. Kisko the opportunity for her to meet one of my old Italian friends who might do a small procedure on her that will partially destroy one of her knee or hip joints. All voluntary, of course. No threat. Pure science. A little "proving of the theory" if you will.

Then, after a Black and Decker drill has wrecked her knee or hip we will get a doctor to write Ms. Kisko a lifetime prescription for prednisone and we will get a willing veterinarian to write a prescription for a Cox-2 inhibitor like rimidyl.

Now I know rimidyl is illegal for use in humans, but I am quite sure Ms. Kisko will agree to an off-label exception in this case just to prove the point that knee and hip joint destruction is really "no big deal."

Come on Caroline; lets do it for science!

Of course, if Ms. Kisko begs off, I will understand.

Ronnie Irving talked a good game about there being no problem with father-to-daughter matings until he was asked if he would have sex with his own daughter and produce a baby from the union!

Talk about a man terrified of a question!

He recoiled like a frog from a blowtorch ....

. . . . or like a Kennel Club spokesperson from a whirling Black and Decker drill placed right at her knee.



.

Caroline Kisko May Not Be a Liar ...

I may have to apologize to Caroline Kisko at the Kennel Club.

In the past I have suggested that she is little more than a paid apologist and knowing liar.

I may wrong about that. She may simply be an idiot.

How else to take her comments to Dog World which reports:

THE ASSOCIATE Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) is forming a working group ‘on the welfare of pedigree dogs’.

The group which, APGAW said, has been set up in the wake of the documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed, will aim to establish what health and welfare implications are on ‘pedigree dogs bred to certain Standards’.

So what is Ms. Kiscso's deep thinking on the matter? She says:

We are aware that APGAW is intending to carry out a review of dog breeding.

We are concerned with the statement which gives the impression that this review is to be aimed at the breeding of pedigree dogs only. It is critical that the breeding of all dogs should be reviewed – not just that of pedigree dogs, since both crossbreeds and mongrels can suffer health problems.

Now the reason I think Ms Kisko may simply be an idiot is that she does not seem to understand the difference between a certain small level of inherent defect, deformity and disease in a large population of any animal, and and the intentional creation of defect and deformity, and a predictable rise in disease, in a small and deeply inbred population.

To make the analogy to humans, there will always be a certain number of people born every year who are dwarfs, who have adolescent rheumatoid arthritis, who have heart murmurs, or who have defective eyes of some sort.

Human populations, like wild animal populations, are essentially random-bred animals with some natural selection and with frequent new gene infusions due to long-distance migrations.

That said, there is a law against Ms. Kisko having sex with her father! Ditto, as the producers of Pedigree Dogs Exposed pointed out to Kennel Club Chairman Ronnie Irving, there is a law prohibiting people from having sex with their daughters. Why does this law exist, and why is it older than the Bible?

The answer, of course, is that even the most primitive of pastoral people know that deeply inbred populations of animals (and humans are nothing if not animals) will result in an increase in known, predictable defect.

Since society will bear the burden of caring for the sick, the broken, the lame, and the retarded, the most early laws of man have centered around the taboo of incest and the mating of close family members.

But Ms. Kisko's Kennel Club does not merely turn a blind eye to the taboo of incest and the mating of close family members; they positively require it in some breeds, where a small initial genetic pool has been choked down and bottle-necked to the point that 50 percent of all dogs in that breed can be predicted to have a named serious (i.e. fatal) genetic defect!

And then there is the little matter of intentionally mating circus dwarves and side show freaks for profit.

No, no, it is not done with humans. But it is done with dogs in the Kennel Club, where entire breeds exist for no other reason than to make humans laugh because the dog can barely walk, can barely breathe, is so small it can fit in a tea cup, is so large it can be ridden like a pony, etc.

"Step right up," the carnival barker screams, "and see the teacup dog whose brains are spilling out of its too small skull! Watch it have seizure after seizure! See the Pop-eyed Pug, whose face is so flat it has no room for its eyes or its tongue! Look at the English Bulldog, whose very existence speaks of the collapse of Empire."

Of course, the laugh-riot here is that the Kennel Club not only wants to "review" the breeding of all dogs, including random-bred and "mongrel" dogs, but they want to ban anything but pure breeds sold and licensed by members of their own Club!

Don't believe it? Believe it, and read all about it here.

So what to make of it?

Is Caroline Kisko little more than a paid public relations liar-for-hire, or is she a genuine idiot and/or ignorant?

Are her actions due to limited brain capacity brought about (perhaps) by close-inbreeding between family members, or is she simply a mongrel without a trust fund who is saying what she thinks she has to in order to hold on to the paying job she desperately needs to survive?

I hope it is the latter!

You see ignorance can be cured, ethics can be improved, and liars can tell the truth, but real inbred brain-damage is forever.

Just ask the dogs.
.

The Kennel Club's "Ancient Breed" is Fake News

Getting dog advice from UK Kennel Club spokesperson Caroline Kisko is like getting cooking recipes from Jeffery Dahmer -- just because it's written down, doesn't mean you should consume the product!

Kisko is the professional "liar for hire" at the Kennel Club, and she has penned a piece about the Irish Red and White Setter that is a textbook example of weak thinking and disinformation.

Kisko's knowledge of dogs appears to be gossamer thin. She writes:

The future of one of our ancient dog breeds, the lovely Irish Red and White Setter, characterised by its distinctive red and white coat, is in jeopardy and experts believe these gorgeous dogs could die out if more people don’t choose them as pets.

"Our" ancient breeds? Really? So a dog with Irish in its name is now a British dog?  Right. I must tell the IRA.

And an "ancient" breed? (:: cough cough ::)  There are damn few ancient dog breeds, and the Irish Red and White Setter is certainly not among them. In fact, this dog was was not shown at Crufts until 1980, when an Irish dog born in 1977 ('Harlequin of Knockalla') was exhibited as an Irish Setter.  

Since Ms. Kisko seems to know little about setters in general, and Irish-type setters in particular, let's review a little history.

The splitting of types into breeds, the closing of gene pools, and the removal of dogs from performance evaluation is how Kennel Club setters swirled down the toilet bowl, same as so many breeds before them.

When the Irish Setter was pulled into the Kennel Club, and a standard based on a coat color was elevated over work and health (both of which were given ZERO points) the demise of that breed was assured.

It did not take long.

In 1946, Field and Stream's Horace Lytle wrote an article noting that Irish Setters in America were almost completely absent from the hunting field.

In fact, between 1874 and 1948, Irish Setters produced 760 conformation champions, but only five field champions -- a rather dismal state of affairs.

Lytle proposed that Irish Setters be rescued and returned to their working roots by implementing an outcross program. And what was he going to outcross to? Why to the best field champion English setters!

But wouldn't these "cross" dogs have white in their coat? Why yes, but so what? Before the Kennel Club got its hands on it, the Irish Setter often had splashes of white in its coat. The dogs had always had a bit of white on them back when they had actually been working dogs.

And so an outcross program was begun by Ned LaGrange in Pennsylvania, with the dogs systematically bred, in later generations, to return them to a pure red color.

But were these Irish Setters?  

The working folks who registered their dogs with the Field Dog Stud Book (FDSB) called them Red Setters, but they were given reciprocal registration with the American Kennel Club as an "Irish Setter".

The problem was that nonworking AKC Irish setters found it nearly impossible to compete in AKC field trials against Red Setters which has been infused with a dash of working dog genetics.

What to do? Well, eliminate the competition, of course! 

And so, in 1975 the Irish Setter Club of America petitioned the AKC to deny reciprocal registration to Field Dog Stud Book-registered dogs, and the AKC obliged. As a result, the AKC Irish Setter remains, to this day, the "least likely to succeed" bird-hunting dog to be found in America, while the Red Setter is a dog that is at least sometimes found under a shotgun.

In 1974, at about the same time the Red Setter controversy was working its way out on the American side of the Atlantic, the first "Irish Red and White Setter" was admitted to the Irish Kennel Club -- more than 50 years after the Irish Kennel Club was created.  The Irish Red & White Setter Field & Show Society was not formed until 1981. So, an "ancient breed of dog"? Not quite!  But have there always been red and white setters -- sure, for at least a few hundred years.  But this was not a breed, but simply a color version of a type.

Ms. Kisko writes that "these gorgeous dogs could die out if more people don’t choose them as pets" and then goes on to say that:

"[N]umbers of Irish Red and White Setters - a breed currently thought to be as rare as the Giant Panda - have fallen so low in the UK that the breed is at risk of disappearing from Britain for good. Numbers are now at the lowest they have been in over 30 years with only 63 born last year, and a nearly 40 per cent decrease in the last three years alone... The Kennel Club and Irish Red and White Setter Club of Great Britain believe the reason the breed is struggling is that there is no public appetite for it, because people simply do not know it exists. People are overlooking these lovely dogs in favour of more trendy, ‘exotic’ dogs, like the French Bulldog or Chihuahua, which is a great shame as they could be the perfect choice for people looking for a breed that fits their lifestyle.

No, no, and nope.

Let's start with the simplest idea: dogs are an international commodity, and Britain is not the beginning or end of anything; it is simply a small island that cannot feed itself, and which has as its national canine symbol a wheezing bulldog that cannot run and cannot mate or breed on its own. The beginning and end of no breed starts and ends in England, and it is both arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity to act as if it does. Sorry Ms. Kisko, but the empire is gone and it's not coming back. Ask the Irish!

And "the lowest number in 30 years"?  Please tell us what year this dog first appeared on the Kennel Club's roles?

The simple truth is that there are setters all over the world, and anyone who wants a Red and White Setter can find one in seconds. Even more can be made in less than 70 days by simply crossing an Irish Setter with an English Setter. But does anyone want a lot more of them?  Not apparently

Ms. Kisko seems to think all this dog needs is a little publicity and then it can replace the Chihuahua.

Seriously? 

This is being said by an adult given a responsible position in the world of dogs?  Good lord!

A Setter is not a Chihuahua.  It is not a French Bulldog.  It is a dog whose existential purpose is to run in fields and find birds,

The fact that Ms. Kisko does not seem to understand this is sad and -- for the dog, at least -- frightening.

The fourth point -- the elephant in the room -- is that people do not want crap dogs. The American Foxhound is among the rarest dogs in the world not because we are not running thick with fox hounds (they are the state dog of Virginia, and we sell them by the pound), but because the folks who want fox hounds want a working fox hound, not an inbred Kennel Club show dog that has never seen fox or field.

The same is true in the world of working dogs across the board. There's no shortage of working setters, pointers, terriers, sled dogs, catch dogs, and running dogs. But no one who is running the Iditarod is going to a dog show to acquire a lead dog, any more than anyone with a deben locator collar is going to Crufts to find a good hole dog.

And this is not new.

Back in the 1960s, Walt Disney made an entire movie about the dysfunctional world of the Irish Setter where show dogs and working dogs had little to do with each other.  Will someone please rent a copy of Big Red for Ms. Kisko?

Finally, let's put an end to all this "rarer than a panda" nonsense while we are at it. Pandas are having a bit of a breeding boom thanks to Panda-porn but, that said, less than 30 giant Pandas were born last year, and that's a worldwide number.  No Pandas at all born were born in the UK

Bottom line:  Almost every single point made by Ms. Kisko is provably wrong, ill-informed, and little more than puppy-peddler hand-wringing.  But of course, that's to be expected I supposed. Is the Kennel Club anything more than a puppy-peddler club? Not from what I can see.

KC Chairman Ronnie Irving Stepping Down

Ronnie Irving is stepping down as Chairman of the Kennel Club in the U.K.

So what?  Good point!

At best Irving was a bowl of warm porridge -- a mosh of  half-measures apologies, weak leadership and tenuous conviction.  More than two and a half years ago, I noted that history would judge whether Ronnie Irving led.  The answer is that he did -- if you count being dragged kicking and screaming as leadership.

Yes there has been small change.  Let us stress, however, that the change has been small and that Ronnie Irving has not been a very visible agent of that change.

If one were looking for a single metric of how little has changed at the Kennel Club, it's the fact that Caroline Kisko is still there -- the Baghdad Bob of the Kennel Club.  One of the first things the next Kennel Club Chairperson should due to signal a real change in leadership is to empty that seat and fill it with someone who will at least acknowledge the obvious, which is that a lot of pedigree dogs are in trouble (do they need a list?) and that it's not all "due to the Victorians" (would they like a list of dogs in trouble and admitted to the Kennel Club since 1920?), and that the Clarges Street has the power to force change now.

Irving's stepping down, of course, is now an opportunity for stronger leadership. 

The Kennel Club has come to the first big fork in the road since the first airing of Pedigree Dogs Exposed back in August of 2008. 

Will it stumble on down the road to wreckage it has been on for the last 120 years, or will it veer off and take the High Road to Health and Real Work for Working Dogs?

Time will tell, but I would keep my expectations low.

• Related Links:
  ** Inbred Thinking
  ** Is There a Kennel Club Road to Reform?
  ** Will Ronnie Irving Lead or Be Pulled Screaming?
  ** High Hopes for Ronnie Irving
  ** Kennel Club Chairman Concedes It Can Take Action
  ** The Kennel Club's Ham-Fisted Power Grab
  ** The Kennel Club is Darwin's Nightmare T-Shirt!
  ** The Kennel Club: When Truth is Inconvenient, Lie
  ** Caroline Kisko is a Liar
  ** Caroline Kisko May Not Be a Liar ...
  ** Caroline Kisko Continues to Damage the Brand
  ** Fearing Foreign Blood at the Kennel Club
  .

Caroline Kisko Continues to Damage the Brand

Kennel Club spokesperson Caroline Kisko really has to go. She is a proven liar; a small fact I have demonstrated in previous posts. It's hard to do press when you lie about core issues, and it's so easy to prove that you lie. A small problem!

Perhaps as serious as Ms. Kisko's casual relationship with the truth is the fact that she appears to be incompetent at her press job.

Only she could take a silly PeTA bus poster (put up at only two locations) and turn it into newspaper fodder on two continents (see here and here and here).

Now veterinarian and columnist Peter Wedderburn is shaking his head in amazement, noting that PeTA actually has a point, and going so far as to highlight it; Pedigree dogs really are not as healthy as cross-bred dogs!

Thanks Caroline Kisko! No one has done more to show the degree of entrenched inbred thinking going on at the Kennel Club than you have. How could anyone mishandle the press to this extent and still hold a press job? Amazing!

Of course the thing that makes this doubly comic is that it reminds us that the Kennel Club is not only built around eugenics theories, but that Caroline Kisko herself has a BNP member snuggling up next to her in the bedroom.

Perhaps the Kennel Club needs to "do a Costanza" and go in the opposite direction from whatever direction Caroline Kisko is headed, and see if they might achieve some messaging success that way?

Just a thought...

Of course, the real problem may be above Kisko. The buck has to stop with Ronnie Iriving, doesn't it? I have always thought the real litmus test for Kennel Club change is the departure of Caroline Kisko but, perhaps the change needs to start right at the top....


..

All Dog Training Systems Pass a Minimum Test

I am not an e-collar trainer by any stretch. That said, I am also not a fool, and I keep my eyes open.

I know some very good e-collar trainers. Their dogs are happy, healthy, and almost always on the edge of ecstasy because their owners can take them anywhere, and so end up taking them everywhere.

I mention this because a few weeks back I was sent a link to this study about "The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward Based Training."

The first alert was that this "study" was coming out of the U.K where there is a move to ban e-collars, and there are not very many experienced e-collar trainers.

Let me say it straight: there's a lot of bullshit that comes out of the U.K. 

Would you salute advice on sled dogs from someone who had never run a dog on 30 miles of snow? Would you accept as a "wolf expert" someone whose entire experience with wolves was feeding and playing with tame wolves at a theme park outside of London?

Right. And so it is with e-collars. You are about as likely to find an expert on e-collars in Britain as you are to find a serious wolf biologist or an expert on sled dogs.

Nonetheless, I popped the link

The second danger sign was that the "study" included all of 63 dogs, broken into three groups. For those of you who might be math-challenged, that's 21 dogs per group, which means any one dog represents about 5 percentage points for that group. Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!

The third indication we were entering the world of nonsense was that the dogs "received two 15-minute training sessions per day for 4–5 days." What? That was the entire extent of the "training?" 4-5 days (and which is it?)??

The report on this study is actually a bit of a mess.  It actually presents two "studies," which have nothing to do with each other.

You can read the paper itself, but here's the fascinating part: Despite all, the e-collars worked and when assessed at the highest performance standard, they worked twice as well as trainers not using e-collars. At the highest level of effectiveness, the worse results came from trainers affiliated with the Association of Pet Dog Trainers which got "very effective" scores that were half that of the e-collar sample.

A = dogs with e-collars.  B = same trainers, but no e-collar  C = the Association of Pet Dog Trainers.

The "researchers" who put together this paper, of course, brush off the actual compliance of the dogs. Training? What does training have to do with compliance? And so the fact that non-e-collar training did not work as well as e-collar training (not that this was much training!) is buried in data about cortisol saliva production and tail carriage.

And speaking of cortisol, which is supposed to be a sign of stress, did I mention that the dogs trained by the Association of Pet Dog Trainers had the most of it?  And that these same dogs also whined the most (another supposed marker of stress)?  But guess what? The researchers decided none of that mattered.  Right. And I believe them. But would they have said the same thing if the e-collar dogs had been producing cortisol and whining? The researchers themselves say "no"!

The Kennel Club, which has shrugged off a lifetime of pain and discomfort when it comes to the wrecked genetics of show ring English Bulldogs, Pugs, Cavaliers, Shi-Tzus, Dachshunds, Neopolitan Mastiffs, and a dozen other breeds born with defective limbs, eyes, heads, airways, and spines, pup out its congenital liar and spokes-idiot, Caroline Kisko to comment.  Caroline Kisko tells the Daily Mail that the study "proves" e-collars hurt dogs.

Of course, Kisko is lying. Again. What the study actually says is that "there was no evidence of psychological disturbance" with the use of e-collars.

Not that everything is absolutely equal. The study found that the e-collar trainers, whether using e-collars or not, were consistently putting their dogs in action, and twice as many commands were given. Dogs moved when given to balanced trainers, and when they were not moving, they sat.  And what about the dogs being trained by the Association of Pet Dog Trainers? They seem to have mostly stood, sat much less often, moved less, and were given half as many commands. Apparently, they spent a lot of time just standing there sniffing and whining for treats. Imagine!

And what was the "study's" actual conclusion?

The bottom line is that all systems worked, that over 91 percent of the owners said they had seen an improvement, and "there was no evidence of differences between the three training Groups."

Which is not too terribly surprising.  As I wrote some years back:

Psssst! I'm whispering. That's because I am a dog whisperer. I know secret things that others may not be willing to tell you.

Are you sitting down? Good. Now brace yourself, because I am going to (pardon the expression) let the cat out of the bag. Here it is: there are a LOT of ways to train a dog, and almost all of them work.

Yes, that's right: William Koehler's methods work, and so too do Ian Dunbar's.

Cesar Millan's methods work, and so do Karen Pryor's.

Victoria Stilwell's methods work, and so do Tamar Geller's, Jan Fennell's, Patricia McConnell's, and Barbara Woodhouse's.

All of these people have made careers out of successfully training dogs.

Anyone who tells you different is a liar.

Yes, that's right. The people who slag Cesar Milan are liars. So too are those who sneer at Karen Pryor. It all works.

You want another secret? Fine. Here it is: Like everything else in the world, dog training is subject to fads, philosophy and branding. Everyone is trying to sell you something (if only their own expertise), and part of sales is to convince you that they have something better, and the other guy has something worse. Sometimes it's true. Mostly, it's bunk.

You want more? Fine. Here's a little about dogs -- the tabula rasa we are working with.

Dogs, like humans, are pack predators and scavengers that operate within a loose social hierarchy. Like humans, they have their own language, and like humans they learn best when instruction is clear and consistent and when it comes after a "recess" period involving physical exercise.

Like humans, dogs operate for rewards, but they also shy away from adverse consequences. Like humans learning the alphabet, dogs can learn to string small bits of knowledge together to form entire sentences of instruction, but first they have to learn the vowels and consonants.

There. That's the basics.

You want more? Fine, here it is: While there are a lot of ways to make a puppy or young dog learn the basics of walking, sitting, coming, etc., most out-of-control adult dogs are a mess for the same three reasons:

1. Not enough ACTIVE one-on-one time with the owner (including real exercise and long walks);
2. No consistency, and;
3. A confusion, by the owner, that the dog is a child.

That's it.

Watch any dog trainer, and you will see I am right.

What most dog training professionals bring to the table is simply a routine: If you spend 10 minutes, twice a day exercising a dog, and another 10 minutes, twice a day, training a dog with ANY training system you find on a shelf, your dog will probably end up brilliant within a few months.

Of course, that will only happen if the owner/trainer is consistent. This is the second thing the trainer brings to the table. Most people and most families are wildly inconsistent and, as a consequence, are poor communicators. Professional trainers teach owners to be consistent in their messaging.

Of course, it is the third point where a great deal of the controversy lies. A lot of dog people are terribly confused about dogs. They think a dog is a child, and they think children should only have positive rewards. In their mind, no child and no dog should ever get a correction.

It is, of course, complete nonsense.

Here's a hint about dogs; dogs are the actual experts.

And guess what? Dogs do not click and treat. Dogs communicate through body movement, voice, and yes TEETH.

What? Dogs use "coercion" with each other? Yes, sometimes. A couple of times a day in my little pack.

And, of course, dogs have pecking orders every bit as developed as that of chickens.

And YES, dogs are looking for a leader. This last point is one of the secrets every successful dog trainer brings to the table.

Most dogs crave leadership every bit as much as they crave food, love, and time in the sun.

Most dogs have the capacity to be submissive to a true leader. Puppies are submissive to older dogs, and smaller dogs are submissive to larger dogs.

Submission is not fear -- it is followship, the analog to the leadership you should be providing.

Of course this notion of "leadership" runs riot in a lot of people's heads.

In the modern world, too many people eschew leadership. They want everyone to be equals, and they want every little thing to be talked out and negotiated, especially within the family.

What does that mean for children?

It means if you tell your teenager they need to be home by 10 pm, but move the hour to 11 pm after a half hour of argument, you are teaching your child that arguing works -- and you are sure to get a lot more of it!

The same goes for dogs.

Consider this: your refrigerator door is probably a better dog trainer than you are.

Why do I say this?

Simple: For your dog, the refrigerator door should be the most important door in your house. Behind it lies every type of food your dog has ever dreamed of.

And yet, your dog never barks at the refrigerator door.

Why not? Simple: because your dog knows that door will never open no matter how long it is barked at. When your refrigerator says NO, it means NO.

In some people's minds, this kind of absolutism smacks of "authoritarianism." They think there should be some give and take with the dog. "Just Look at Tricky-Woo. He looks so hungry!"

Here we come to the root of so many problems: Vacillating people who are unable to send consistent signals on the front end, and who are unable to deliver consistent consequences on the back end.

Let's think about the kids again.

Your teenager borrows the car and does not come home at 11 pm, as agreed, but sneaks in the back door at 3 am.

Best to ignore it, right? If you do, see if you do not get more of it!

And so it is with dogs.

Slip a simple chain slip collar on a dog, and give a decent jerk every time the dog pulls at the end of the lead, and your dog will straighten up and be walking at your side in no time.

Reward it with a small piece of hot dog, or a scratch on the head when it walks slightly behind you on a loose lead, and he will get the message even faster.

Yet, there are people adamantly opposed to simple slip-chain collars, just as there are people adamantly opposed to levying negative consequences on their own children for bad behavior.

Who are these people?

They fall into several camps.

Some are armchair philosophers who have no experience working with difficult dogs.

Because they have trained a few retriever puppies they are sure they know the score for all dogs all the time, and never mind that they have no clue as to how to handle an adult dog-aggressive Pit Bull, a deer-chasing Lurcher, or a sheep-worrying Collie.

Another group are folks who are emotionally incapable of being true leaders. These people will tell you they "love" their dogs so much they could never be so "cruel" as to jerk on a chain slip-collar, no matter that the dog quickly stops pulling and is not in pain from the correction.

Does that mean these people can never train their own dogs?

No.

The good news, is that almost ANY dog training regime will work if it is done consistently (even pure click-and-treat training) provided it is done consistently, and the dog is young or has no other serious behavior problems.

Will a "pure positive" training regime be a bit slower than if the owner had used a more balanced training system with a chain collar? Probably.

Will the dog be as "bomb proof" as it might be if a more balanced training method had been used? Probably not.

Will a pure positive training system fix a sheep-worrying terrier? Nope.

But will it probably work for you and your young dog? Sure.

As noted at the beginning, almost any published dog training method will work provided it is done consistently, every day, by a calm owner who clearly communicates with his or her charges after a decent period of exercise.

This is the real "secret" to dog training, and it's really no secret at all.

A Short History of Do

Crufts Bans Russia and Tosses Kisko

The Crufts dog show has kicked off after a two-year absence due to Covid, and the first order of business was to exclude 30 Russian breeders and their 50 entries due to the sanctions over that country's invasion of Ukraine and the wanton killing of civilians that has followed. 

One face that will not be there is Caroline Kisko, the former liar-for-hire employed by the Kennel Club as a paid apologist for closed registries, and selection for color and defect. 

It seems Ms. Kiskco quit (actually she was fired and paid off) back in 2019 after she used a racist phrase ("nigger in the woodpile") in a meeting. 

The Daily Mail says "The 63-year-old official is said to have used the expression during a meeting with two colleagues, one of whom has a partner who is not caucasian," which makes it sound like the offense would have been overlooked if a -- you-know-what-lover -- hadn't been in attendance. 

Which is probably true. 

It's hardly a secret that Kisko was racist-adjacent; her husband's name appeared on the membership roles of the hate-spewing British National Party, a point I noted a few years back. 

And as for the Kennel Club itself, it was founded on eugenic principles where not a drop of "foreign" blood is allowed, and where sterilization and the gas chamber have been the traditional answer as to what to do with mixed-race mongrels.

The Kennel Club paid Kisko a six-figure sum to leave, but the payment was authorized without the approval of  Kennel Club members and the board as required, leaving open the possibility that the board itself would be forced to fund Kisko's payoff out-of-pocket.  No idea how that got reconciled.

And what would the Kennel Club get for payment?  No doubt a non-disclosure agreement designed to paper over past gaffs, crimes, and tribulations as they relate to sponsorships, donations, and personnel and registration matters.

Not a Great Look for the Kennel Club

The UK Kennel Club has re-embraced Caroline Kisko, who was fired after making a racist comment about “niggers in the woodpile”.

Previously, Ms. Kisko's husband was outed as a subscriber/member of the right-wing (and quite racist) British National Party or BNP.

Kisko is the former liar-for-hire public relations flack at the Kennel Club. I do not use that phrase lightly — as Kennel Club spokesperson, Ms. Kisko knew exactly where the truth sat, and directed everyone she could away from that.

Cooking Lessons from Jeffrey Dahmer

Getting a lecture on puppy peddling from Caroline Kisko, the Kennel Club' "liar for hire" and paid apologist for inbreeding and genetic defect is like getting a cooking lesson from Jeffrey Dahmer.

To be clear Kisko works for the Number One puppy peddling profiteer in the UK. The dogs registered by the Kennel Club are known and documented to be less healthy than their cross-bred counterparts, and Kisko has been at the forefront of papering over the holes.

Perhaps in her next article she and her husband can give us their views on mixing foreign blood?