Difference between cruelty and learning.

lightening

cowzerp wrote: »

Thats a seperate issue to hitting a dog in training.

Yeah, stupid of me to post that up I suppose...

Noopti

I had to push her back down and yell 'Sit!'

put her in a sitting position and I shouted Sit!

I shouted out everytime I did it

put her in her bed and shoute bed until she learned it.

Thats a lot of "Yelling" and "Shouting". I think a revision of your training methods is needed.
Just because they "work" doesn't justify the action. If the world worked like that it would be a hell of a place to live.

boomerang

doctor evil wrote: »

If you think thats cruelty you have lived a very sheltered life. Cruelty is what posters like Egar fight against each day.

One has to be very careful not to take words out of context.

Cruelty has a broad spectrum. I've worked in animal rescue for six years now, so I think I know.

In the context of training, shouting, pulling, yelling, pushing, slapping are all cruel actions.

fatmammycat

My father trained working collies and I don't believe he ever resorted to slapping or yelling like a lunatic at them. And these dog were trained to round up cattle and be available to go where ever he was going at the drop of a hat, be it on the back of a trailer or over long distance-including roads-off lead and on foot.
I had a dobermann for years and a firm 'no' or 'leave' was all the admonishment he needed too. He wasn't the sort of dog who would respond to heavy handed treatment, being big, intelligent and naturally athletic.
I'm not saying someone who has given a dog a slap for unruly or dangerous behaviour is cruel, but as a training technique it strikes me as counter-productive.

peasant

boomerang wrote: »

In the context of training, shouting, pulling, yelling, pushing, slapping are all cruel actions.

Hmmmm .....

Correction is part of the training. I'd agree that pulling or slapping (or anything else that inflicts pain) is cruel, but anyone that has ever trained and corrected a dog will have raised their voice at it or perhaps given it a nudge.

Yes, it would be cruelty to just stand there and shout your dog down for minutes on end ...it would be cruel to push and shove it around also.

But to class all shouting/yelling/pushing as cruel is taking it a bit far IMO.

After all, dogs among each other correct each other with barks, growls, body blocks and tackles.

Noopti

fatmammycat wrote: »

My father trained working collies and I don't believe he ever resorted to slapping or yelling like a lunatic at them.

I can well believe that.
I find, as with most things, if someone has to resort to shouting or excessive actions it is because they are unable to get the job done properly through more "normal" means.

Noopti

peasant wrote: »

Hmmmm .....

Correction is part of the training. I'd agree that pulling or slapping (or anything else that inflicts pain) is cruel, but anyone that has ever trained and corrected a dog will have raised their voice at it or perhaps given it a nudge.

Yes, it would be cruelty to just stand there and shout your dog down for minutes on end ...it would be cruel to push and shove it around also.

But to class all shouting/yelling/pushing as cruel is taking it a bit far IMO.

After all, dogs among each other correct each other with barks, growls, body blocks and tackles.

From the OP's post I gathered that shouting and yelling seemed to be the standard way he trained his dogs. It is not necessary. A dog will respect and listen to a stern voice just as much as a shout or yell in my experience.

I agree, shouting isn't necessarily a cruel act, but it is certainly not necessary.

peasant

Noopti wrote: »

From the OP's post I gathered that shouting and yelling seemed to be the standard way he trained his dogs. It is not necessary. A dog will respect and listen to a stern voice just as much as a shout or yell in my experience.

I agree, shouting isn't necessarily a cruel act, but it is certainly not necessary.

Absolutely agreed

This is more of a hair-splitting excercise.

It is cruel and unneccessary to stand in front of your dog and shout/yell a command at it and expect it to learn something from it

It is pointless, counter-productive and borderline cruel to just continue shouting commands at your dog when it's obviously confused and doesn't know what to do.

But it may well be necessary to let out a quick yell/shout as a corrective measure if your dog is a bit away from you and trying to test out its boundaries by deliberatly disobeing your previous instruction

In all of the above cases someone might say "I shouted/yelled at my dog" but the implications (for the dog) would be vastly different.

bigpinkelephant

Similarly to another poster, I have 5 cats and I never have to raise voice nor hand to them.
If I shouted at them the first time I told them to do something, they would soon become afraid of me. Instead I have 5 well behaved cats who do as they are told without me having to behave like a brute, and who stop exactly what they are doing as soon as they hear a firm "No" or "Stop it".
Fear can cause a number of reactions in an animal, from cowering to wetting themselves to snapping, and some day I have a feeling the OP will shout at the wrong dog.
The OP has not said why his other dog bit him, it would be interesting to know.
It saddens me that someone sees shouting as a normal course of training.

boomerang

Agree with you on the hair-splitting, Peasant... As an individual act, to shout, shove, scare or slap a dog might be necessary in a given situation - say for instance, if your dog runs out into the road. But if these actions are the only tools in your training arsenal, then the training process is inherently cruel.

Can you imagine the results of such training on a sensitive breed like a pointer, setter or collie? They become cowering, quivering wrecks, so afraid to make a mistake that they shut down and won't respond at all.

peasant

boomerang wrote: »

....to shout, shove, scare or slap .......if these actions are the only tools in your training arsenal, then the training process is inherently cruel.

...and most likely futile

fatmammycat

Noopti wrote: »

I can well believe that.
I find, as with most things, if someone has to resort to shouting or excessive actions it is because they are unable to get the job done properly through more "normal" means.

Aye Noopti, he always said a nervous cattle dog wouldn't be a good cattle dog. Plus it wasn't his way. The dogs were devoted to him too. Just goes to show you can be the 'Alpha dog' without posturing or aggression.

Sigma Force

Can I just ask people to please please not hit their dog on the nose. Dog's noses are highly sensative and can be damaged. I know of one idiot dog owner in particular (not from the internet) that had a habit of hitting the dog on the nose on occasion and the dog ended up in the vets with severe nose bleeds.

I have seen mother cats slap their kittens but humans are way bigger and don't realise their own strenght.

I think people refer to kids and pets in the same light simply because esp. young kids don't always have a voice and can't fend for themselves of can't always speak up for themselves and neither can animals.

I have spent the passed 6 years bringing my rescue collie from a nervous wrek who peed when you even looked at her to a happy go lucky dog but she will never be 100% sound because for sure someone used shouting, hitting esp. her rear end as she used to be terrified if anyone went near even to brush her. Now she's happy for the dog groomer to groom her and empty her glands etc even jumps up on the grooming table..this took 5 years.
Simply because someone used forceful methods with her in the past.

If someone raised a hand to her now she would absolutely crumble.

I don't raise a hand to my dogs I've come too far and any time my dogs misbehave it's something I have done wrong not them.

What's that saying, your puppy misbehaves, so you must get yourself a newspaper or magazine, roll it up tightly and then hit yourself on the head with it.

If a dog is misbheaving it's something the owner is going wrong so why punish the dog for something that wasn't their fault that's just passing the blame onto someone who needs you to show them how to behave properly.

kazza23

I have 2 dogs. Millie is a pitbull and Sandy is a pom x terrier x fox type of dog lol.

Millie has "issues". She was dumped off a puppy farm when they had no further use for her, was completely emaciated and covered in pressure sores when I got her last year. She has OCD (continuously licks herself, me, the couches), some guarding, particularly when there's food involved, was not house trained when I got her, and had awful separation anxiety.

Sandy was hit by a car and broke his back leg just above and below the hip joint, before I took him in. He's a happy go lucky kind of a dog, completely hyper, but very gentle.

About 6 weeks ago I decided it was time to get some formal training for the 2 of them. I suspected that Millie would be the one that would cause me most grief, because of her "issues", and that Sandy would take to it like a duck to water.

WRONG!

The trainer suspects that Sandy was trained using punishment methods, such as those mentioned previously in the thread. As a result, for the first week he would do nothing except sit and was unwilling to try to do anything else, in case he got it wrong and was punished. It took a long time to get him used to the idea that he would be rewarded for getting it right, and the worst thing that would happen if he didn't get it right was that he wouldn't get the treat in my hand. A few weeks later and he is doing brilliantly, but it was really sad to see that the first couple of weeks.

Millie, on the other hand, would try anything to get the treat and was way ahead of Sandy for the first couple of weeks, although he has not caught up.

My (incredibly longwinded) point is.... it has been my experience that using punishment techniques in training actually slows the process down and is way less effective than positive reinforcement.

It's a bit like parents who hit their children. If you have to resort to hitting your child/dog to get them to do something, then IMHO you have failed yourself as a parent/dog owner.

A dog who is trained using positive reinforcement is a much happier dog in the long run.

merryhappy

cowzerp wrote: »

Cesar milan does not slap dogs on there noses, he gives pokes that distract the dog, these dont hurt and dont cause the dogs to whimper and run scared, his techniques are all about encou7ragement and building confidence.

Sorry but I just couldn't pass up the chance to post the following information about these so-called dog-training programmes:

1. Remember you are watching television. That means, at the very least, that you're not seeing training and results in real time. Any ill responses can be edited out. What looks in the program like it took mere minutes may actually have been edited down from hours of real time. Events may even be shown in an order other than what occurred in real life. Some of this may be done simply to meet time constraints, but other reasons could be less benign -- to make the star of the show look better, to imply that the technique being shown is faster/easier than it actually is, to omit anything producers would prefer viewers not see. Always keep in mind that television presents a skewed view of reality, partly from necessity and partly from motives of one sort or another.

2. Give some thought to any disclaimers or warnings the show may contain. Yes, we live in a litigious society and producers want to protect themselves, but if a dog training program is broadcast with the caveat "do not attempt this at home," then it isn't serving any real educational purpose. It's either nothing more than pure entertainment, or it's a purely commercial message masquerading as a regular show. Think about it -- if you aren't supposed to use the techniques being shown, what are you meant to get out of the show?

3. Turn off the sound so you don't hear what the trainer or the voiceover may be saying, and watch the body language of the dog. Make up your own mind about if the dog is enjoying the experience, if the dog is stressed, what you think the dog might be learning. Most programs repeat regularly, so watch the first time with the sound off, make note of your observations, then watch again with the volume up, and see how the show's version of what is happening agrees or disagrees with what you saw. Don't just assume that the trainer is right and you are wrong.

4. Ask yourself "is this something I want to do/would enjoy doing with my dog?" Unless your dog has serious behavioral issues (in which case you need face-to-face help from a behavior specialist), training should be enjoyable for both of you. If you don't like what you're doing, odds are you won't do it as often or as wholeheartedly as you should. Training works best in frequent short sessions, so you need to do it often. If you don't like what you're doing, that's not likely.

5. Don't be swayed by the physical appearance, voice, or "presence" of the show host. You may enjoy listening to him or watching her, but that has little to do with the effectiveness of the training. Watch the dog or, if the camera angle permits, watch the face of the owner as training is done to her or his dog. Do they look like they're enjoying the experience, or are they apprehensive or alarmed? Show hosts are chosen because producers expect the audience to like them and tune in to see them. That doesn't make them reputable experts.

6. Look for any follow-up information. Does the show go back and check in on how the dogs and owners are doing? Are the owners given any instructions for how to continue their training? Don't just assume that what may have looked like it worked in the show continued working indefinitely. Training is a fluid process that often requires ongoing adjustment.This is just a half dozen basic techniques for assessing what you're seeing. If you watch just to watch, it doesn't matter, but if you're thinking of applying anything you see on tv to your interactions with your own dog, please take the time to give it some serious thought.

Concerning the OP and others who condone hitting dogs. the only reason the dog doesn't growl/jump/pull in the lead etc; again is because the dog is AFRAID of you. Well done :mad:

Also re the whole 'dominance theory' I think this pretty much somes it up: Dunbar focuses on discounting the myths such training ideas foster. Dogs aren't wolves, Dunbar* says, generations of evolution separate the two animals. "Learning from wolves to interact with pet dogs makes about as much sense as, 'I want to improve my parenting -- let's see how the chimps do it!' " (*Dr Ian Dunbar)

bionic.laura

I'm just in from doing some training with my dog outside. We've been finding the very best way to train him seems to be ignore him when he's doing something we don't want and reward him when he's doing something right.

I don't want to hit or punish him as he's a rescue dog so I didn't want him thinking we might be nasty to him. Him being afraid isn't any good. He learns better with praise and treats than with negative reinforcements.

Dhaga

Personally I think there's nothing wrong with what the OP has stated. He doesn't abuse the dog, he just uses a more forceful approach to training the dog. I would do the same.

I play with my dog by pushing him around and holding him, does that make me an abuser? The dog likes it by the way, that's why I do it.

Personally, I think abused is determined by the mentality of the person doing it. If they do it to get a reaction out of the dog which gives them pleasure then its abuse. By the way, I don't mean thumping the dog and kicking them, that's way out of line but what the OP has said.

kazza23

As has been said before, there's a difference in rough play, and using shouting, hitting etc. as a training method.

What the OP has stated is that this is how he trains his dog, not plays with him.

boomerang

In my book, abuse is defined by the effect the behaviour has on the recipient, not the mentality of the person carrying out the behaviour.

For example:

A. Person kicks dog because it peed on the carpet. Person thinks this is what you are supposed to do to stop the dog doing this. End result? Dog is physically hurt and now apprehensive around its owner.

B. Person kicks dog because it peed on the carpet. Person does this because he is totally ticked off with the dog and thinks the little bugger deserves it. End result? Dog is physically hurt and now apprehensive around its owner.

By your logic, example A is not abuse, but example B is...

Dhaga

From his post he doesn't use hitting as a training method. He hit the dog softly once. Hardly a training method and that was because it bit him.

I think people are making too much of how he trains the dog. He doesn't abuse the dog, from what I gathered in his post, he just uses a more forceful approach to training it.

Also, if someone hits a dog and feels awful for it and doesn't do it again does that mean its abuse? People can abuse in ways that wouldn't have a clear effect on the animal, its not always physical. Therefore the behaviour of the recipient can not always be an indicator.

I agree that the behavior is part of it but so is the mentality of the person behind it.

boomerang

But that's the whole point... People here are trying to explain that forcefulness isn't required, and that it has a detrimental effect on the owner's relationship with the dog. It's not the most humane or effective method of dog training.

IvySlayer by his own admission has no qualifications or actual training experience. Anyone who actually has even simply attended a dog training class with their own pet will tell you that his "stages in dog obedience" are absolutely unneccesary.

IvySlayer

Dhaga wrote: »

From his post he doesn't use hitting as a training method. He hit the dog softly once. Hardly a training method and that was because it bit him.

I think people are making too much of how he trains the dog. He doesn't abuse the dog, from what I gathered in his post, he just uses a more forceful approach to training it.

Thank you mate, seems you're one of the few who actaully READ my post.

If I am a little forceful, so what? It's the way I do it and it's not cruel. We recieved Patches from the RSPCA, after loads of paperwork! She was taken from a farm in Offlay, which was overcrowded.

My dog was certainly not afraid of me. We had a very good relationship in fact.

peasant

IvySlayer wrote: »

If I am a little forceful, so what? It's the way I do it and it's not cruel.

Leaving aside all other implications for the moment:

Training your dog with and by force certainly isn't the best or most effective method.

Your dog will understand positive re-inforcement and patient repetition much better than force and it will react much better and quicker to it.

Why propagate an ineffective method?

hobochris

I agree with the op. If it was cruelty:

A. THE DOG WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LICKING HIM AFTER.

B. THE DOG WOULD BE COWERING OR TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM THE OP.

It is the quickist way to inform the dog that you are the alfa of the pack.

I'm not saying beat or hurt the dog. a tap is enough to get his/her attention and let it know who's boss.

other methods such as clickers etc (although they don't seem it to you) are actually mentally torturing the dog into compliance.

peasant wrote: »

Your dog will understand positive re-inforcement and patient repetition much better than force and it will react much better and quicker to it.

Why propagate an ineffective method?

If like in the op's case the dog is turning vicious against its master then this is not exactly an option. especially if the dog is currently or about to attack its master.

Dhaga

boomerang wrote: »

But that's the whole point... People here are trying to explain that forcefulness isn't required, and that it has a detrimental effect on the owner's relationship with the dog. It's not the most humane or effective method of dog training.

IvySlayer by his own admission has no qualifications or actual training experience. Anyone who actually has even simply attended a dog training class with their own pet will tell you that his "stages in dog obedience" are absolutely unneccesary.

I have attended those course, yes its not necessary but its a different way of training the dog. As I said, he doesn't abuse the dog, he is just more forceful. There are plenty of things in life that are not necessary yet we still do them.

Also, he said he has a good relationship with his dog, so do I. If these slaps were regular or for every little wrong doing then I would be on your side but seeing as they are not, there is nothing morally wrong with it.

IvySlayer

boomerang wrote: »

But that's the whole point... People here are trying to explain that forcefulness isn't required, and that it has a detrimental effect on the owner's relationship with the dog. It's not the most humane or effective method of dog training.

IvySlayer by his own admission has no qualifications or actual training experience. Anyone who actually has even simply attended a dog training class with their own pet will tell you that his "stages in dog obedience" are absolutely unneccesary.

Oh I forgot they were needed before they gvae me the dog license!

I didn't need to attend classes, don't like my methods, fine, but it's certainly not cruel. If you think it was, report me. My dog could sit, heel, go outside, and into her bed at a command. People are acting like I kicked her when she wouldn't do something, no, I never hit her for that, as I have stated I hit her once when she bit me, it was bloody painful and she needed to learn that it was completely unacceptable!

I will only hit a dog IF they are endangering somebody. Cruelty cannot be listed solely as under hitting.

How many people leave their dogs in their houses unattended for all hours? How many people teach their dogs tricks like Paw, Play dead, roll over, which are completely unecessary. How many people groom their pets over and over that it's abuse to them!

She died of a brain tumour and I miss her so much. I was a good owner, maybe my methods weren't the best, but they stuck. I didn't wallop her every time she didn't do something. I may of been a tiny bit rough, but it did no harm to her. I brought her to the vets every 6 months, and he said that we were very close and she was in perfect health. Everyone who has me down as a monster, I can assure you I am not.

peasant

hobochris wrote: »

I agree with the op. If it was cruelty:

A. THE DOG WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LICKING HIM AFTER.

There are three reasons why a dog would lick you. Pick the most likely answer why a dog would lick you after you've hit it / shouted at it.

1) The dog is showing genuine affection
2) The dog is afraid of you and wants to appease you
3) you've covered yourself in liver pate

IvySlayer

peasant wrote: »

There are three reasons why a dog would lick you. Pick the most likely answer why a dog would lick you after you've hit it / shouted at it.

1) The dog is showing genuine affection
2) The dog is afraid of you and wants to appease you
3) you've covered yourself in liver pate

What would YOU have done if you were me in that situation. Talk to him? Pet him?

He was going for her! Although he's not my dog, I had to take action as she would've been defenceless! Also since I gave him the slap, he hasn't been violent.

I agree hitting is not always the way to go, but in that instance I stand by my decision.

Whispered

IvySlayer wrote: »

I agree hitting is not always the way to go, but in that instance I stand by my decision.

I think people are more taking issue with your general training methods of shoving, yelling, pushing, shouting (your words not mine) than that one incident.

arybvtcw0eolkf

helena.ryan wrote: »

I think people are more taking issue with your general training methods of shoving, yelling, pushing, shouting (your words not mine) than that one incident.

We're not even allowed do that to recruits in the Defence Forces anymore!.



Now, god be with the days :P