cockers on its me or the dog

[Colin]

Colin, towards the beginning of the programme, both the narrator and the family themselves described the first attack on Emily and their plans at that point to involve the vet and put Benji to sleep.  When they went to the rescue shelter on the programme, Victoria mentioned Benji’s biting history again.  So Benji’s history was not ‘left out of the show.’

Yes, vague references to Benji biting were made but generally it was skirted over until the end of the programme when VS then pronounced he had a "neurological disorder". The general impression given to the viewer was that both Benji and Bramble had the same training problem - yet now we are told that Benji had a genetic problem, not a training problem. Why did VS use the same methods to deal with 2 dogs with 2 separate issues ?

There was never any footage of any of the kids ‘slapping’ Benji ‘about the head.’  They held out there arms at the table to try to show Victoria how they keep the dogs off the table.  

Apologies if I got that wrong - but it looked to me like the kids were using their hands to slap and push away the dogs' heads as they poked between them in an effort to get near the food. I didn't tape the show so can't check. Either way, it seems to me to be pretty irresponsible of VS to allow this situation to happen, considering she suspected one of the dogs as being mentally unstable.

As mentioned in her second statement regarding the episode, unfortunately some of the training techniques that are filmed cannot fit into the final 30-minute programme.  

What a shame that these were left on the cutting room floor in favour of the more sensationalist footage of the poor dog going to the vet and then being buried. Again apologies if I'm wrong but I understand there was a recent one hour episode where VS met up with Jodie Marsh and her dogs.* How come a bit of schmoozing with a z-list celeb got the benefit of the extra half hour, compared to the more serious issue of a dog ending up dead on the vet's slab ? If this is true, then it says a lot to me about the priorities of this programme and the compromises in integrity it is prepared to make in order to attract viewers.

For once VS wasn't able to just waltz in and spray about some of her magic dominatrix quick-fix dust - it would be nice if she could accept some responsibility for getting things so badly wrong, instead of trying to make so many excuses. Hopefully she'll learn from her mistakes in this programme and encourage the editors to show more actual dog training and less poking fun at the poor owners whilst she gurns her disapproval for the camera.

*Edit - Penny tells me that the Jodie Marsh episode was the standard 30 minutes, so I got that bit wrong. ( As if the public could possibly stand a whole hour of Victoria Stilwell and Jodie Marsh together - whatever was I thinking ?    )

[Saffie]

Breeder and reputable breeder are two massively different things. A breeder could very well be a person that passes on the results of puppy farms.

[Poppy W]

I've just caught up on this (V V) long thread.

From my point of view I really don't think that watching a 30 minute TV programme really gives me the right to comment on whether a dog should have been put to sleep. I'm not furnished with all the facts, therefore really can't make a sound judgement.

HOWEVER, whether the decision was right or wrong, I'm with those of you who think it was unnecessary to show poor Benjy being taken to the vets and then being buried in the garden. My own black cocker was buried in our garden (after being killed in an RTA) and it brought back many unhappy memories for me and my husband, resulting in an evening of tears and lots of cuddles for 7 month Percy (our 'new' golden cocker). I switched on hoping to see some gorgeous cockers...and switched off completely distraught.

I agree that it is necessary to raise issues...but not sensationalise them...and I really feel a stronger warning should have been given. I know many people who watch this programme with their children - I don't even want to think how much distress it caused them when as an adult I broke down and sobbed.

Lets hope the producers heed some of the viewer feedback and ensure they treat future 'issues' with some sensitivity.

[Tracy S]

Colin, towards the beginning of the programme, both the narrator and the family themselves described the first attack on Emily and their plans at that point to involve the vet and put Benji to sleep.  When they went to the rescue shelter on the programme, Victoria mentioned Benji’s biting history again.  So Benji’s history was not ‘left out of the show.’

Yes, vague references to Benji biting were made but generally it was skirted over until the end of the programme when VS then pronounced he had a "neurological disorder". The general impression given to the viewer was that both Benji and Bramble had the same training problem - yet now we are told that Benji had a genetic problem, not a training problem. Why did VS use the same methods to deal with 2 dogs with 2 separate issues ?

There was never any footage of any of the kids ‘slapping’ Benji ‘about the head.’  They held out there arms at the table to try to show Victoria how they keep the dogs off the table.  

Apologies if I got that wrong - but it looked to me like the kids were using their hands to slap and push away the dogs' heads as they poked between them in an effort to get near the food. I didn't tape the show so can't check. Either way, it seems to me to be pretty irresponsible of VS to allow this situation to happen, considering she suspected one of the dogs as being mentally unstable.

As mentioned in her second statement regarding the episode, unfortunately some of the training techniques that are filmed cannot fit into the final 30-minute programme.  

What a shame that these were left on the cutting room floor in favour of the more sensationalist footage of the poor dog going to the vet and then being buried. Again apologies if I'm wrong but I understand there was a recent one hour episode where VS met up with Jodie Marsh and her dogs. How come a bit of schmoozing with a z-list celeb got the benefit of the extra half hour, compared to the more serious issue of a dog ending up dead on the vet's slab ? If this is true, then it says a lot to me about the priorities of this programme and the compromises in integrity it is prepared to make in order to attract viewers.

For once VS wasn't able to just waltz in and spray about some of her magic dominatrix quick-fix dust - it would be nice if she could accept some responsibility for getting things so badly wrong, instead of trying to make so many excuses. Hopefully she'll learn from her mistakes in this programme and encourage the editors to show more actual dog training and less poking fun at the poor owners whilst she gurns her disapproval for the camera.

I have to agree with everything Colin has said. I think  perhaps the programme had taken on more than it had bargained for with this case and we should all be aware of our limitations.

To sensationalise and captilise on these sought of issues is completely wrong.

[Mary]

I forgot to record the show, seems fate intervened

TBH, I only remembering seeing a couple of episodes from the first show and not being at all impressed.  I felt there was no indepth training methods shown, it gave the impression that the results of a little training happened over night

In VS's latest statement she says the following:

Because the format of the show is only 30 minutes long, it’s sometimes difficult to include all of the details and information involved in any given situation.  Indeed, there is often quite a bit more training advice I wish we could include in each episode which I think is interesting and would be helpful, but due to time constraints, not everything can make it into the final version. 

This needs to be addressed.  I'm pretty sure the public would find this more useful than being shown the burial of a much loved pet

[spanielsrule]

I've just caught up on this (V V) long thread.

From my point of view I really don't think that watching a 30 minute TV programme really gives me the right to comment on whether a dog should have been put to sleep. I'm not furnished with all the facts, therefore really can't make a sound judgement.

HOWEVER, whether the decision was right or wrong, I'm with those of you who think it was unnecessary to show poor Benjy being taken to the vets and then being buried in the garden. My own black cocker was buried in our garden (after being killed in an RTA) and it brought back many unhappy memories for me and my husband, resulting in an evening of tears and lots of cuddles for 7 month Percy (our 'new' golden cocker). I switched on hoping to see some gorgeous cockers...and switched off completely distraught.

I agree that it is necessary to raise issues...but not sensationalise them...and I really feel a stronger warning should have been given. I know many people who watch this programme with their children - I don't even want to think how much distress it caused them when as an adult I broke down and sobbed.

Lets hope the producers heed some of the viewer feedback and ensure they treat future 'issues' with some sensitivity.

I have to agree with Poppy W.
Rather that the strong reaction here being seen as an attack on the show, I would be happy for the programme's producers to accept that the ending will have been very upsetting, and perhaps a bit of a shock, to those who were expecting cheeky, food-stealing cockers. To acknowledge this for future episodes would, perhaps, be a positive outcome for all. I think it is rather unfair of the viewing public to expect ANY trainer to be infallible. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?
Poor Benji 

[Cob-Web]

Don't know about everyone else, but I was half hoping the Benjy had come from a puppy farm and not a breeder, it's just awful to think that a dog with this type of aggression has come from a reputable breeder   

why??

so his aggression would be 'justified' if he came from a byb ?
'proper' breeders can produce dogs with bad temperaments too !
 
a badly handled dog will become aggressive regardless of where its from !

I agree - and my OH has a phrase which is very relevant to this issue -  if you want a guarantee, buy a toaster 

It is well accepted that nature and nurture both have a huge impact on a dogs temperment and behaviour - getting a dog from a reputable reeder in no way detracts from the need to dedicate time and patience to training, socialisation and habitualisation 

[stueymac]

There are extra notes by Victoria regarding the episode here:

http://www.victoriastilwell.com/benj-com-10-18-06

[miche]

I think VS and the production company have got the wrong end of the stick.  They keep referring to the family, dog and outcome.

Forget the content of the show for a second, what about the fact that it was irresponsible and sensationalist to show a topic such as this in such a flippant way on a show that didn't have the time or inclination to go into the details about agression in dogs, bad training and possible outcomes.  I haven't heard that being addressed anywhere

If a documentary was being put on TV (after 9pm) highlighting such issues, maybe seeing the outcome of Benjy would have been more acceptable, although I doubt a documentary would have wasted time in showing a dead dog being buried.

[Luvly]

thanks for replying to my questions  Vs admin . I think you will find col is a fair forum and will listen to views   we rarely have heated debates . but you have to understand this show has upset a large amount of people not just cocker lovers but dog lovers too .

I too have just subjected myself to watching this over again  and yes we all know there are dogs that cannot be helpted but I cant help but think some harm has been done by not exsplaining there are reasons why dogs will bite and there are things that can be done to find out why these things happen . I feel that the show should of cut the burial and fit in more about why he was pts stating that pts should always be a last resort after advice form a vet to rule out medical problems /injuries and behavour that could be sorted .
alot of people are already saying rage ..... I think Rage is very hard to diagnose . .  Mabe you could pass on the rage website for victoria to read threw
http://www.cockerspanielrage.org.uk/index.htm the treatment and what should you do if you suspect rage might be useful .
about byb's and breeders
Any dog can turn nasty in the wrong hands  I dont think anyone can blame this breeder without giving him/ her a chance to say what s/he thinks she took this dog in so she must have cared about it .

[Michele]

Having read that statement I can only presume that too much money had been spent on producing that episode and that rather than be sensitive to the family and scrap it. they decided to sensationalise it even further by the way the programme ended.

[scooby's mum]

Don't know about everyone else, but I was half hoping the Benjy had come from a puppy farm and not a breeder, it's just awful to think that a dog with this type of aggression has come from a reputable breeder   

why??

so his aggression would be 'justified' if he came from a byb ?
'proper' breeders can produce dogs with bad temperaments too !
 
a badly handled dog will become aggressive regardless of where its from !

Who said anything about this behaviour being justified if from a byb?  It would have just made me personally feel better knowing that this dog's behaviour had been borne from bad breeding - that's what I meant.

I do not think that dogs from "proper breeders" are totally free of severe behavioural problems - I know I'm no expert but I'm not that naive, and if this dog did have a degree of "rage" this could have shown itself regardless of whether the dog was badly handled or not 

[Claire]

Colin, towards the beginning of the programme, both the narrator and the family themselves described the first attack on Emily and their plans at that point to involve the vet and put Benji to sleep.  When they went to the rescue shelter on the programme, Victoria mentioned Benji’s biting history again.  So Benji’s history was not ‘left out of the show.’

Yes, vague references to Benji biting were made but generally it was skirted over until the end of the programme when VS then pronounced he had a "neurological disorder". The general impression given to the viewer was that both Benji and Bramble had the same training problem - yet now we are told that Benji had a genetic problem, not a training problem. Why did VS use the same methods to deal with 2 dogs with 2 separate issues ?

This is exactly what I thought and mentioned in an earlier post - why was a one-size-fits-all training approach given to 2 dogs with completely different training needs?

I don't think anyone is suggesting in general that dogs that attack children should not be pts.  I just feel, from the footage that we saw, that the trainer and the family failed poor little Benji badly, and the TV production company sensationalised their failing in a tasteless and very upsetting manner, without even managing to use the tragedy to portray to the public the terrible outcome that a lack of training can have.  What a sad waste of a life.

[Nicola]

Just read the second comment on VS's website... so if Benji went back to his breeder after the attack where did all the stuff about him being taken to a rescue centre who begged to keep him come from?? Did someone just make that up? 

[Cob-Web]

I have read and re-read the various statements made by VS and her associates - here, and on the offical VS site, but cannot find an answer to a question that has been bothering me for a while  ....


I understand the sequence of events as follows:

Benji bit one daughter, in what could have been considered a "resource guarding" situation.
He was taken to the vets by the family, given a clean bill of health, and on the advice if the vet, he returned to the family home.
He then bit again, a frenzied attack - the mother of the household - in what was described as an unprovoked attack.
He was again taken to the vets, who conducted further examination, and advised the dog was put to sleep.
The family discovered that they had been accepted on "Its Me or the Dog" and so disregarded the advise of the vet, and Benji took part in the show
After the show had finished filming, Benji attacked a third member of the family, unprovoked.
On the advice of the vet (who had already advised this before the third attack) and of VS, Benji was PTS

I don't understand why VS/Channel 4 was prepared to feature Benji on its show after the vets advice had been disregarded.  Filming for the show required leaving Benji within a home with children.
VS says herself, she believes that "once a dog has shown the propensity not just to bite, but to attack (especially unprovoked), that dog can never be trusted not to attack again"     It seems to me to be very irresponsible for someone who believes this to allow Benji (who had carried out one unprovoked attack at this point) to remain in the family home, especially when the reason the family chose not to take the advice of the vet was because of the show itself

VS Admin says here on COL that

In my opnion, it was irresponsible enough of the breeder to take Benji back for the 3-4 days he was with them having a young daughter in the house.

How is this different from allowing Benji to go on living with the family for the purpose of filming??


Can anyone help me out here?  I really can't understand how anyone who believes that once a dog has bitten it is a danger could have allowed the dog to go on living in a home with children while they filmed a TV show