
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, January 11, 1995                   TAG: 9501110030
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-12   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

DOGS FARE BETTER THAN CHILDREN

A DOG, in my opinion, can sniff out drugs, hunt for a lost child and be a good companion for an older lonely person. It can fetch for the handicapped and lead the blind. In other words, dogs - many were originally sheep herders - have a purpose.

Today, though, the dog population is about to take over! Two and three dogs to a family isn't uncommon. Dogs maul children, bite the mailman and frighten walkers - and owners defend them to their deaths.

While children cry out for love from neglect or poverty and their bellies growl from hunger, dogs are fed the very latest in nutrition ``to make their coats shine.'' Have we gotten our priorities turned around somehow? Is it because dogs can't talk and annoy us, or expect too much from us for 18 years?

The same money spent for a year for an animal could feed several humans for a year. How can we lie down and sleep tight at night when we realize the choice we've made here in America? Is it because we can chain the dog out back and go off for the day?

DONNA GARRETT

ROANOKE

Big Brother acts up in Danville

IF THE Danville Redevelopment and Housing Authority can prohibit a church from conducting an outreach program on its property because it's federally funded (Jan. 3 story, ``Officials oust church program,'' from the Associated Press), the same authority can prohibit individual families living in those housing units from having family Bible study, grace at meals or any other religious activity inside their homes.

God help you if you have an FHA mortgage on your home!

J. WAYNE POUCHER

BUCHANAN

Changing bad behavior to good

CAROLE JORDAN (Nov. 30 commentary, ``Abuse begins before a blow is struck'') wrote an important article on abuse. While supporting the compelling message, the term ``negative reinforcement'' was used incorrectly.

Examples of ``alternating periods of positive and negative reinforcement'' presented were ``food - starvation - food,'' and ``kindness - mindless torture - kindness.''

Starvation, torture, and deprivation of sleep, friends, money and clothing, are punishments. The intent of deprivation, i.e., the punishment, is to suppress or eliminate a ``bad'' behavior.

On the other hand, the process of negative reinforcement has the intent to increase or make stronger a behavior that has occurred. When ``good'' behavior happens, the ``negative reinforcer'' is removed. These reinforcers can be threats of punishment or the presence of an actual aversive punishing condition.

Punishment described in Jordan's article can be ugly, hostile, hurtful and frequently capricious. There's no way to avoid the pain, humiliation and deprivation. In these cases, punishment destroys.

The judicious use of negative reinforcement can have a positive effect on a person, and it does offer choices.

In writing about abuse, it's tempting to pair the words ``positive and negative reinforcement,'' perhaps due to the parallel construction and sense of rhyme. The word combination has an emotional impact and grabs the reader's attention, but let's be careful to use them appropriately. Both reinforcement strategies are used to strengthen behaviors. Punishment is meant to eliminate or suppress behavior, and most frequently is abusive and produces victims.

MARILYN GRAHAm

Professor, Department of Special Education

Radford University

RADFORD

by CNB