# Shade Whitesell??



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

So was looking at the add and I may be interested in seeing her seminar. Any opinions on her as a trainer? It seems like she is all about positive motivation, no e collars prongs etc. To be quite frank I am skeptical which is why this has piqued my curiousity going out of the comfort zone and all that.

So the question is are there any opionions on her and her training? Does this only work with certain types of dog? I always understood the process to be learning = positive R. Proofing = positive P / Positive R. 

Is her way more suitable to a softer biddable dog?


----------



## Guy Williams (Jun 26, 2012)

I'm not familiar with her as a trainer but I train using only R+ and P- as e collars, prongs etc aren't allowed for us. 

It requires a shift in thinking for some people with a lot of emphasis on the foundation work. Ensuring commands are understood, consistency and keeping a balance between excitement and control in the beginning. For instance, I wouldn't put a dog on a sleeve until he had a consistent "out".

It works for us and is definately less stressful for softer/ more sensitive/ reactive dogs.

It is just as effective with stronger/ harder dogs but does generally take a better understanding of the process by the handler which is sometimes a bit of an issue in the Police as not everyone is a natural dog person.

I feel it is less stressful for the dog and we don't have any dog/ handler aggression issues with the dogs trained this way. We still have a few issues with some of the trainers who haven't fully embraced this way of training.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

she's a WDF member, correct ?


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Guy Williams said:


> I'm not familiar with her as a trainer but I train using only R+ and P- as e collars, prongs etc aren't allowed for us.
> 
> It requires a shift in thinking for some people with a lot of emphasis on the foundation work. Ensuring commands are understood, consistency and keeping a balance between excitement and control in the beginning. For instance, I wouldn't put a dog on a sleeve until he had a consistent "out".
> 
> ...


Interesting so you find using no aversives you get reliable preformance from the dogs? Does this method take a lot longer then conventional methods? What about the theory that pressure and aversives when properly incorporated in the training make for a stronger dog that can handle stress better?


----------



## Marta Wajngarten (Jul 30, 2006)

Shade is very much worth checking out if you can make it. She doesn't just work with soft dogs and is a great observant communicator. 

I personally haven't attended one of her seminars, but would if I had a chance to. Every one I know who has worked with her or attended her seminars has given great feedback. I have met her and her dog at a seminar and she is a very nice person to deal with and certainly knowledgable (not some correction free irrational nutso if that's what your concern is).


----------



## Marta Wajngarten (Jul 30, 2006)

Even if you're not willing to throw all your tools out the window and jump on the correction free bandwagon, I'm sure you will benefit and come away with plenty of new training ideas that you can implement in your training.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Marta Wajngarten said:


> Even if you're not willing to throw all your tools out the window and jump on the correction free bandwagon, I'm sure you will benefit and come away with plenty of new training ideas that you can implement in your training.


 
Well I probably will never do that with my dogs..or kids..lol. The reason Im asking is because some of those correction free "nutsos" where using her as an example of how you dont need aversives for success in IPO. Dont know squat about her but would never want to be in the same camp as those idiots...:wink:. 
I am interested Ohio isnt that far from here, it is also hard to ignore her success.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

First, I am a friend of Shades. We have trained together informally once. And I went to her seminar for a day. And she's not the only positive trainer I have trained with. I trained heavily with a person, who does not use Collars for training sport, but does use +P for "parenting" the dog off the field. 

First, Shade is a good dog trainer. Whether you prefer her method or not. She has had success. The thing I got from working with trainers who do not use punishment. Was that it did make me a whole better using rewards. You would be amazed at how good you can get with +R when you remove your access for sometime with aversives. I was absolutely astonished After about a year using no collars at how much I relied on them to cover up bad training. And I had no idea that's what I was doing. 

I am not saying jump on the +r bandwagon and throw your collars in the trash. But if there is anything I have done to make me a better trainer was to limit myself to just using rewards to get the dog to do what I wanted it to do. And I trained my for it's 3 with no collars. And all the problems I had to unwind were because of the collars. I know people will say that's because I was using them wrong, I am sure they are correct. But also, I don't think you really know what that means till you strip your dog of them and see where your at.

As for dog temperment and training. I have found, hard dogs, are usually high drive. And here's the kicker...the higher the drive of dog. The more with holding reward is punishing to the dog. And the harder the dog, the less effective +P is. When I came to the table and was asked to not use the collars. I thought there is no way, my dog has just too much drive, Primarly in Bite work. I was amazed at how obedient my dog has become.

Now, all the being said, I think there is value in +R only training, in the case that it can help a trainer become much better. I have found myself at cross roads on a few occasions where I have found +p, and -R to be very helpful.

Back to shade. I think Shade has a good eye, especially in the OB portion to take what she calls "information" from the dog. Basically listening what the dog is telling you. I also think that as of right now, in training. There is no more of a progressive group of trainers than the +R group. They are trying so damn hard to win with their method right now, that they are extremely motivated to get better at it.

Shade's a great person. With success. And I think there is no arguing the point that she has had success. So there is some value there. 

Go check it out, I am sure you won't be disappointed. The biggest hurdle to this kind of training is laying down all the pre-conceived notions you have about training and just giving it a fair shot, with an open mind. 

And this is my argument against, 99% of the people who attempt to discredit positive training is they have never even tried to do it. But yet they are subject matter experts. So coming from a guy who has given it a whirl, and not just for a week or month, but for 3 years had not touched a collar. Even if you don't buy into the whole idea. I can say from experience and not just what I think may be the truth is that the experience will reshape your idea on what you believe is going on in the dog's head.


----------



## Paul Westall (Apr 27, 2012)

Have to agree with Marta. Have not trained with Shade, but met her the the WDSA championships in WA last weekend. She seems very reasonable and well spoken, and her accomplishments speak for themselves. Going to take her online IPO methods class in the winter. I may not altogether give up on aversives, but would like to minimise them. I certainly have not been generally impressed with the results of the completely R+ trainers I have met in the past, but maybe they would hav been poor trainers no matter what their methods.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

And just one last comment. Being a dog lover. And my ultimate goal as a competitive dog trainer is to achieve success, yet while building a relationship with my dog. My fundamental theory is the relationship is often steered by the thinking process I have in my head. If my thinking process is based in the idea that I wish to control the dog as a means to get them do my will, I will get a slave master relationship. If I root my thinking in how do I motivate my dog to do my will, I will surely move closer to a mutually respectful, altruistic relationship with my dog. And I think no group of people more loudly promote this idea than the +R group. I know that some of the +R group agenda does have some motivation that include trying to dictate what we can and cannot do to a dog in training. I try not to focus on this...Simply because it does me no good as a trainer. It get's in the way of me seeing what they can bring to the table. But when I can look +R trainers and see what new, exciting, and innovating things they are bringing to the table... I get a whole new look at the world of dog training. 

These new and exciting innovations are no less valuable than what the likes of Bart Bellon has done with E-collars, or Ivan B. did when he started promoting the idea of reducing conflict in training, and reducing the intensity of pressure. 

I am rooting that a +R trainer has the ultimate success, that the level of success is undeniable to all. Then I think we can put this stupid argument to bed about how it does not work, or won't work. Or no one at the top level is +R. That's the stupidest argument in the world. The Wright brothers were also belittled for trying just because no one had flown before. That argument is not proof it cannot be done, just proof it has not been done. And again comments from people who never have even tried to train a dog +R only. +R training in IPO is just an infant compared to all other types of training. But it's the quickest maturing type of training right now. Look, +R trainers are steadily having more and more success.I think before my dog training career is over, we will see a dog take the podium that has never worn a correction collar. And I say, perfect....and what great news for the dogs that is.


The other thing I find quite funny is I trained with a trainer for a few years that never used any collars, nor did he ever make that public knowledge....He had good success, high praises from everyone....all talking about what a good job he did with such a high drive dog. I am sure if people knew how he trained half those praises would have turned into venom being spit at him.


----------



## Paul Westall (Apr 27, 2012)

Thanks for posting this, James. Makes me even more convinced to give this a try with my dog. Even if I am not successful, all I will have lost is the time.


----------



## Guy Williams (Jun 26, 2012)

Haz Othman said:


> Interesting so you find using no aversives you get reliable preformance from the dogs? Does this method take a lot longer then conventional methods? What about the theory that pressure and aversives when properly incorporated in the training make for a stronger dog that can handle stress better?


I've not felt that I had an issue with reliability. The aim is to get the dog to want to do the things I want it to do so every training issue takes a little thought to come up with ways to achieve this. You have to reward the desired behaviours and create the habit first. Once the behaviour is reliably known, misdemeanours can be dealt with by withholding the reward or time outs. It sounds feeble but these are motivated dogs that want whats on offer and will work hard to do the 'right thing' and not be removed from the field of play.

Some things seem to take longer but you end up with a dog that really knows but more importantly wants to do the job. Eg. Obedience on a check chain takes very little skill from the handler and appears to be quite quick. But, take the dog off lead and it can all start to fall apart. I feel another benefit is it is more fun for dog and handler and creates less stress. There is enough stress for the dogs at work so if we can remove obvious causes like that it is a bonus.

I think you end up with more handler sensitive dogs which can be a problem for some of the harder handlers but if you're doing it right there is no need to be hard on the dog. The pressure and aversives come from the helper not the handler. If anything I think it makes dogs more confident. The threat is only at one end of the lead. If I shout and scream I want my dog to look to see who I'm shouting at not cower in case it's directed at him. The only dog-handler aggression issues we have are with the old school handlers who can't/won't give up the old ways.

Whether it creates better or more reliable dogs is up for debate but I have no alternative and we are doing ok. Learning all the time.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

I agree with Marta and Guy's statements, Haz . I have attended one of her seminars last year. I was having issues hardening my current dog with correction and slowly losing control of him on the field. 

I basically changed the way I do my foundation as per Guy's description. With this dog I basically went back to the beginning with him at 2 years old and he didn't bite anything for over 7 months. It was just OB for a toy and food. It is basically the premise if the dog can't cap himself over a ball/toy. How can we expect the dog to cap himself when a fight is presented by a decoy with a suit or sleeve? 



Haz Othman said:


> Interesting so you find using no aversives you get reliable preformance from the dogs? Does this method take a lot longer then conventional methods? What about the theory that pressure and aversives when properly incorporated in the training make for a stronger dog that can handle stress better?


For me it did take longer as I had to go back to the beginning. He still had all his bite work foundation no matter, once we started suit work again it wasn't a huge jump getting back on that train. I still have to take steps back from time to time and I still use aversives as well, but no where near where I was before. You see this dog was just accepting the aversives as part of the game to bite and it kept escalating to get the same effect. Once we were on the trial field and he tested the trial decoy then figured out I wouldn't/couldn't do nothing, it went to hell in a hand basket fast. 

As for pressure and aversives making a dog handle stress and a stronger dog. Yeah that's exactly what it did with my dog, but not quite in a way that equates to competitive scores. [-( I'm a big believer of building the dog to accept pressure and work through stress, but it doesn't necessarily have to be stress from a physical correction. There is many other ways to build any dog to accept and work through pressure and stress without heavy aversives. But that is probably a whole other thread. 

As for your original post. I'd definitely would recommend a Shade seminar if you can, better in a working spot than an audit if you have a dog in progress. She is a very intelligent trainer and a great teacher, it was very easy to understand the concepts. So you just focus on training your dog. I learned a lot in the 2 days I spent there. I came away changing many things in the way I train and I have a better dog for it, as well as being a better handler.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Guys I believe I am convinced..perhaps I have seen too many garbage results and idiot on the purely positive bandwagon which quickly soured me to it. 

I am going to try and get to the december seminar thanks for the info!


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Haz Othman said:


> Interesting so you find using no aversives you get reliable preformance from the dogs? Does this method take a lot longer then conventional methods? What about the theory that pressure and aversives when properly incorporated in the training make for a stronger dog that can handle stress better?


Haz, Here's what I have found about reliability when talking about Using Aversives vs. Not using Aversives. 

First. I have found behaviors are much, much stronger when taught without punishment, and reward witholding being the only the type of punishment. I have found that competing motivation actually becomes a reinforcement in and of itself. So if the Decoy makes a mistake and the dog sees them, that just becomes another indicator for the dog to behave. Using nothing but reward withholding, your options are pretty limited on how to deal with a dog that goes after competing motivation instead of obeying a command. Say like running blinds. You cannot be successful with this method (+R), by using the conventional training idea of setting the dog up for success. You have to spend a great deal of time on teaching them what does not get them a bite. you will see how much drive your dog really has doing this type of training. A low drive or low focus dog is going to quit. So you make the decoy try to get the dog to misbehave (or at least this is what I do) and the dog will learn that once it just listens to me, it will get a bite. Do this in enough behaviors, and the dog will generalize that listening to dad is his best option. This kind of leads into the next question, does it take long. at first, yes it takes longer to get the idea in the dogs head that they need to listen to get a bite. Higher drive, longer it takes. Also another thing that scares people, is you might see a dip in drive while the dog is trying to figure out what the hell is going on. But not to worry, once the dog understands the drive will come back, and be even more. Or people get worried when at first the dog amps, and becomes more obnoxious. This is what I think conventional training misses. Many people would just correct the dog for amping and becoming more unruly. Where as just withholding reward, makes the dgo completely responsible for it's actions, and they have to choose to either control themselves and do what is asked, or they can stay crazy and never get a bite. I think a lot of trainers feel almost as if they have to reward the dog. They get anxious to reward. So it's funny, When my dog hears a whip crack, or any of that BS. He has learned that if he ignores it, and does not go to it. The more likely a bite and fight is. 

Now this where I found the "hole" in +R only training is for me. It's why I decided to use a collar once a again. This also a problem in the reliability on the front end of the training. but I think not using the collar showed me right where I need use collars. So, I have this behavior of lets say running the blinds, and the decoy comes out and cracks a whip. On the first one he may try to go to the decoy every now and again. So I make him do it again, and all the subsequent tries he's perfect, no matter what attraction the decoy offers, he knows he has to run 6 blinds to get a bite. But that first try....that's a problem. I have found that with +R only training my dogs, both of them may try on the first attempt to go after the competing motivation (the decoy cracking the whip). So, this is basically how I train now, I make it is perfect as I can under the most challenging conditions with no corrections. until I get to the point, where it's only the first attempt the dog fails to do the right thing. This tells me the dog knows, but is a little to free, so he takes a chance....because the worst thing is he'll just get another shot. I have tried to not give them a second chance and just put them up....but that did not stick very well. So, now I use correction on that first one. So I defintly think a high drive dog, who's rewards have been controlled in such a way that the dog believes the only way to get them is to listen to their handler is amazingly reliable on the back end, the front end gets a little dicey. And the profiency of the training will fade with lack of up keep just like any other training. 

So as for it taking longer....that's a myth. I think the initial training is not as instantly gratifying as the instant change a stim from an e-collar can create. But the training builds on itself much faster. After introduce the training, and the dog understands one behavior, and the boundries set. The second behavior comes a little quicker, the third even faster, by the 4th behavior the dog says, " I get it, If I just ignore the competing motivation, and listen to dad... I will win". Where as I feel that more conventional methods tend to degrade in effectiveness as time goes on. And so collars get turned up, and pinch collars gets used more. 

And as for handling stress. I think yes and no. first, I think if you spend the time to teach the dog how to avoid pressure from a collar, yes they will become more confident in their ability to avoid and not be so stressed. But I do not for one minute this translates to avoiding pressure in protection work. I think learning to avoid pressure from a collar is completely different than a dog having a set of balls. Case in point. I have a rescue dog, that never in his life could do protection work, but has been shown how to avoid pressure on a collar. He has zero stress from a correction collar, but never has it helped his bite work. Just like a boxer may learn how to turn stress of by complying with his trainer....but that does not make ability to handle a punch on fight night any better. My current dog did not feel a collar correction till he was 18 months old, he was always a hammer in protection work. But when I started to use correction he was soft to it at first, I had to teach him how to turn the collar off. After that he was fine. But I saw zero difference between his bite work before or after the training. His ability to stand in conflict with a human being was decided on conception, not during training. So I think the ability to handle stress is limited to it's context.... And because the dog is working from different parts of it's brain (Drives are different) during protection as opposed to learning behaviors I think that generalization to handling stress is much more difficult to achieve. But I will say this, That training without a collar for so long. I was training with Wendy Schmitt and she could tell immediatly (Where I did not see it, but noticed when she mentioned it) that he was a little too care free in his work. She noticed that he was pretty okay with making mistakes that the ramifications were not great enough to add that 10% extra focus on what he was doing to make it a little more reliable. His additude was more we are playing a game ( in Obedience) and that the work was not really all that serious. So, I do think adding correction adds some level of seriousness to the work. And doing his training this way, really made the dog look very, very intent on his work.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I agree wholeheartedly with Guy's comments. People are too caught up in what is R+ only. Consider it a communication system. Master it and you will be able to instill behaviors in a dog on a much deeper level and it enhances your ability to read a dog. I find it even more beneficial for the harder, less biddable dog. Why its considered for soft dogs or takes a special type of dog, I don't know. People lose the definition of operant conditioning and that working for something can be even more motivating than working to avoid something. The key to consistent performance is the variable reinforcement schedule and generalizing the behavior--distance, distraction, duration.

I've been to one of Shade's seminars and enjoyed it. Really liked her dog who exuded every aspect of her system.


T


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

So basically it boils down to no aversives = incomplete reliablitlity. But lots of +R and minimal aversives carefully placed = best case scenario. 

So what do you do if you end up with a lower to mediocre drive dog. Where you encounter competing motivation that is equel to what you have or greater? Obviously withholding the food or the tug wont be enough to incite change then what?


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Haz Othman said:


> So basically it boils down to no aversives = incomplete reliablitlity. But lots of +R and minimal aversives carefully placed = best case scenario.
> 
> So what do you do if you end up with a lower to mediocre drive dog. Where you encounter competing motivation that is equel to what you have or greater? Obviously withholding the food or the tug wont be enough to incite change then what?


Haz first just to be clear that's my experience with experimenting +R training. 

And as for lower to mediocre drive dog. I cannot say, I have no experience trying the training on that kind of dog.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Haz Othman said:


> So basically it boils down to no aversives = incomplete reliablitlity. But lots of +R and minimal aversives carefully placed = best case scenario.
> 
> So what do you do if you end up with a lower to mediocre drive dog. Where you encounter competing motivation that is equel to what you have or greater? Obviously withholding the food or the tug wont be enough to incite change then what?


Not even close. One thing about it, you have to have an open mind. I train to get into the dog's head and not with any preconceived notions. My take on it is that people who use adversives--like them or see value in them. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything when I work a dog. You go with the dog in front of you and you make a decision on what is the best plan of action. The drive of the dog has nothing to do with it if its about motivating him. I deal with high drive livestock dogs. Trust me, I know all about competing motivations. I also have dogs that don't work for external rewards. They release but not off the stock and back to me for an external reward. I have learned with one dog that leadership plays a role in whether that dog values working for me for reward and that the marker/release itself is enough reward to build the behavior and consistent performance. Correction played zero part in any of this. Just like external reward isn't high value enough, no correction will be meaningful enough if she hits a certain drive state. My 2 year old male may be the perfect balance--high drive for the work but clear and reward is a pat on the head for me and sending him back to work. My friend and I just spent a year re-training her bitch. She began with all the drive and hardness you could want but zero respect for her handler. The combination of NILIF, negative punishment and R+ has turned her around. +P meant nothing in turns of building consistent behaviors. 

T


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

Was trying to decide if I should reply to this thread or not and really pleasantly surprised by all the nice things people are saying about me. 

R+ training is really about a mind shift. I am just thinking I need to motivate the dog to want to do the behaviors, rather than to make him. So my eye and my training is focused towards what the dog is doing right, rather than fixing what he is doing wrong. 

Regardless of method, what I really see is people are inconsistent with their commands/cues, inconsistent with what they expect their dog to do when they say something, don't have training plans, and don't teach their dog in low enough arousal for the dog to be able to think. I help people out with those kinds of things, plus tug mechanics, and how to make your dog's prey games more useful with training. For instance, if your dog won't bring the ball back, why are you using the ball as a reward?

This is just my opinion, but my nightmare is a soft no drive dog. Give me a high drive, hard dog any day. The more motivated they are for the bite, the easier they are to convince to work through me. 

On the protection field, there really aren't any competing motivators. The helper is the motivator. It's great, a reward built right in to the trial scenario. 

I can cause stress in many ways as a handler by teaching, and see how my dog deals with stress. It is also up to the helper training to make sure the dog is prepared to deal with the stress associated with bite training. I think I am with Jim on this one, either it is in the heart of the dog or not. 

I don't think it takes more time. Reik had 2 times IPO 3,(including 5th at AWDF) and a french ring 1 by the time he was 3.5 years old. I do think it takes the novice handler switching methods more time. It's hard to learn something new and the novice handler trying to do R+ usually makes alot of mistakes. 

I don't find R+ is less reliable. Again, that is really the fault of the trainer not holding to criteria, the same as it would be if a traditionally trained dog wasn't reliable. 

I have trained with e collars, pinches, much positive punishment. This training I am doing now is more effective, and more reliable. But of course, I am a much better trainer now than I was 15 years ago!

Purely positive is a myth, every dog corrects itself and experiences aversives in his life.

Hope to see you at my seminar!


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Thanks for coming on the thread! I hope to be there if all goes well, figure its good to step out of the comfort zone once in a while.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Haz Othman said:


> I hope to be there if all goes well, figure its good to step out of the comfort zone once in a while.


It's interesting you say you will step out of your comfort zone. When I went, I was at my wits end ready to quit the sport or retire my dog at 2 years old. So for me it was a last ditch effort to try to figure where I went wrong in my training. I was desperate as the dog itself is a good dog. But I had built a pushy self rewarding beast who had no respect for me, decoys and just wanted to do things his own way no matter how nasty the corrections got. He just wore me out and it was no fun to train him as it was always a fight. 

Now training is fun again for me and him too I think. We still have some details we are always working on (who doesn't) but the points are going in the right direction and the performance on the field is strong still. 
Just go with an open mind, keep your eyes and ears open, take notes and video of yourself. I think you will be pleasantly surprised with what you take home with you.


----------



## Guy Williams (Jun 26, 2012)

Haz Othman said:


> So basically it boils down to no aversives = incomplete reliablitlity. But lots of +R and minimal aversives carefully placed = best case scenario.
> 
> So what do you do if you end up with a lower to mediocre drive dog. Where you encounter competing motivation that is equel to what you have or greater? Obviously withholding the food or the tug wont be enough to incite change then what?


I think dogs do whatever is most rewarding for them. You can make behaviour A most rewarding by making any other behaviour painful, uncomfortable, unrewarding in some other way.

This is very unscientific but you get the gist of it. I 'pay' my dog for behaviours I want. A recall in a field with no distractions costs me $1. So I do 10 of those and pay him with a $2 ball throw. A recall when he is on his way to investigate another dog costs me $2 so I pay for that with a $5 bite on a tugger. Sometimes I will do a $1 recall in an empty field and pay him with a $10 bite on the helper. Then I do a $25 dollar recall from a running helper and cash in what's 'in the bank'.

The foundation work is all about creating the habit and making sure the dog thinks the command hes been given is the most rewardig thing on offer. By gradually increasing the difficuly by making it achievable and increasing and varying teh rewards it keeps behaviours strong.

In the case of the recall, when it is reliable I will then set up forced failures where I let him go further than hes ever been before, get closer to the helper than hes ever got before then recall him with the expectation he will fail. It has been set up so the helper disappears through a doorway etc and the dog learns a failed recall is unrewarding. when he comes back - bite fest!

Withholding rewards helps to get the dog to perform the commands but is not the tool of choice for dealing with competing motivations. That becomes more 'do A then you can have B'. You need to control the environment and think about ways to make it happen without the dog being able to get B without doing A.

Less motivated dogs are harder work for sure. I think less is more with dogs like that. I find myself doing as much running around as they do. Then I vow to never train with a dog (or student) who isn't motivated again.

Does that help or is it just gibberish? It started off making sense but I think I'm high on painkillers (bad back - working too many fat dogs).


----------



## Steve Pettit (Nov 26, 2008)

Shade is excellent! IMO she is one of a very few trainers I've seen who uses 'real' +R to train. Great at reading dogs and a gifted and passionate teacher of people as well. I'd highly recommend attending her seminars to anyone regardless of their experience or sport..... agree or disagree with her methods (and I'd doubt anyone with an open mind could argue with the science she uses to support her approach) she will make you think about what you are doing with your dog and to me that's invaluable. 


------- Steve


----------



## Chad Byerly (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Shade Whitesel*

Shade's an accomplished and smart trainer, plus a gifted teacher and coach for other trainers. Of course I have a working spot with my young dog. So many great comments on this thread!


----------



## Billie Fletcher (May 13, 2013)

*Re: Shade Whitesel*

I've taken an online course with Shade as an observer and really enjoyed every minute of it, I think she is a very talented trainer and the seminar would be well worth going to, am jealous she isn't running seminars in NZ


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

*Re: Shade Whitesel*



Billie Fletcher said:


> I've taken an online course with Shade as an observer and really enjoyed every minute of it, I think she is a very talented trainer and the seminar would be well worth going to, am jealous she isn't running seminars in NZ


Bill....She probably just needs an invite!


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: Shade Whitesel*



James Downey said:


> Bill....She probably just needs an invite!


And a round trip plane ticket?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I've been to one of Shade's seminars and enjoyed it tremendously!


----------



## Billie Fletcher (May 13, 2013)

*Re: Shade Whitesel*

Yeah the cost of the flights is pretty prohibitive - though could be a bit cheaper if a club here was to split the costs with a club or two from Australia... Any Aussies on here?


----------

