Question on Dog Discipline

Valmont

I was walking my Springer Spaniel earlier on--10 months old--and after he stopped to eat a pile of dog poo and refused to come to me I gave him a light kick on the arse with the outside of my shoe (exactly that) and put his lead on, saying bad dog, don't eat crap etc

A man came up to me and chided me saying "you shouldn't kick it" "that's horrible" etc. Needless to say we got into a heated argument of which you don't need to know about.

I feel I should point out, my dog wasn't yelping or in pain and I would never hurt him but;

My question to you all is:

Would you condone giving your dog the odd whack round the ears or gentle kick up the bum if they're misbehaving?

corkcomp

IMO it won't actually work for you. Dogs need to respect their owners and want to please them in order to respond to training / correction. If you can get the dog to understand "come" and "no" they can be used in a multitude of situations.

are you serious

My advice.. Keep the lead on him for the next few walks, next time he goes for the poo (he will eventually) give him a short pull on the lead saying no very firmly, you may need to do this once or twice... Neither of my two do it after the 1st time they done it...

I do know other dogs though who have just kept on doing this...

What are you feeding him, some times dogs eat poo because of their diet...

Kash

I'll probably be ostracised from this forum for life, but yes I have.

I normally train the dogs with positive reinforcement, treats, cuddles and an excited, 'yay doggie!' voice. Negative discipline is normally left to a gruff 'No', or an 'at-tat-tat' noise that they know means they should stop doing what they are doing.

This works incredibly well 95% of the time.

But... occasionally they do something so potentially dangerous that I want to do all I can to ensure they don't do it again. Take for example, this morning. The dogs were outside for a quick pee break, and the postvan drove up our laneway. They are fine with all cars apart from the postvan. I normally would not have them outside when he is due, but today he was about an hour early. So, I heard them barking, ran out to see them both running in front of the postvan causing him to slam on the brakes. I honestly thought that both dogs were hit, I nearly had a heart attack.

They were fine, but of course, that needed discipline, because they were lucky. Next time they might not be. So, for this, I have a wooden spoon. Now, I do not beat my dogs with it, don't get me wrong. But they each got a couple of smacks across the rump with it this morning, and were yelled at, and sent out of the room with their tails down. They moped in their bed until they were forgiven (10-15 minutes later) with lots of cuddles, and are happy and playful afterwards.

It might sound bad, but they are 35-40 kilo dogs, and sometimes a 'No' does not cut the mustard with them. This would happen once or twice a year. Does this make me a bad owner? Perhaps, I don't know. I do I know I love my dogs with all my heart, and will do whatever is necesaary to keep them well.

planetX

Depends on the dog maybe - mine has fear problems with people, and is already hand-shy, so there's no way on earth I would compound his problems by doing that. (He eats poop too;))

It may work for your dog, but try it on another and I'd imagine you could get a backlash. I prefer positive reinforcement.

OldNotWIse

Kash wrote: »

I'll probably be ostracised from this forum for life, but yes I have.

I normally train the dogs with positive reinforcement, treats, cuddles and an excited, 'yay doggie!' voice. Negative discipline is normally left to a gruff 'No', or an 'at-tat-tat' noise that they know means they should stop doing what they are doing.

This works incredibly well 95% of the time.

But... occasionally they do something so potentially dangerous that I want to do all I can to ensure they don't do it again. Take for example, this morning. The dogs were outside for a quick pee break, and the postvan drove up our laneway. They are fine with all cars apart from the postvan. I normally would not have them outside when he is due, but today he was about an hour early. So, I heard them barking, ran out to see them both running in front of the postvan causing him to slam on the brakes. I honestly thought that both dogs were hit, I nearly had a heart attack.

They were fine, but of course, that needed discipline, because they were lucky. Next time they might not be. So, for this, I have a wooden spoon. Now, I do not beat my dogs with it, don't get me wrong. But they each got a couple of smacks across the rump with it this morning, and were yelled at, and sent out of the room with their tails down. They moped in their bed until they were forgiven (10-15 minutes later) with lots of cuddles, and are happy and playful afterwards.

It might sound bad, but they are 35-40 kilo dogs, and sometimes a 'No' does not cut the mustard with them. This would happen once or twice a year. Does this make me a bad owner? Perhaps, I don't know. I do I know I love my dogs with all my heart, and will do whatever is necesaary to keep them well.

You may also have been reacting to the fright. I don't believe in using physical violence to get a message across but when the animal's life is in danger you are right it's different. My own dog (normally so meek and quiet) has it in for one of our neighbours. When he calls to the house she actually hangs off his trousers growling. Completely unacceptable. Now we keep a water sprayer in the hall and last night when he called, she went for his feet again so I gave her a quick squirt in the face. She backed off pretty fast! I hated doing it (and my brother accused me of being cruel) but if she did this to a child in the park for example, that's it. She's gone. Two strikes and they are out (or one serious one). I dont want her to be a danger to herself so she needs to learn this is unacceptable behaviour. Similarly, you were just protecting your babies

axle108

Valmont wrote: »

My question to you all is:
Would you condone giving your dog the odd whack round the ears or gentle kick up the bum if they're misbehaving?

By god not many responses to this, and punishment was used :eek:.

To answer your question. While positive reinforcement coupled with proper training is preferable, i have no problem using corrections if i find its warranted.

As Gargane advised, i'd keep him on a lead. Another thing is, it could be fox poo which is full of protein(meat) as there carnivores, but unfortunately can very likely contain disease.

Sindri

Whenever my dog snapped at someone I'd give him a gentle reprimand but only whenever he snapped.

Usually it wouldn't involve hitting him, but if it did it would be a gentle slap on the snout or the side and a telling off.

There isn't anything particularly wrong with it, but in the case of the OP, the dog might actually be motivated to continue to eat excrement now, to get their attention.

gud4u

I think if we get anymore politically correct with what we do with our dogs in public, the dogs will eventually be putting us on leads and kicking us up the arse.

People need to start minding their own business, the guy that reprimanded you will someday try to correct the wrong person.

Pups, kids, adults, no one was ever traumatised by a LIGHT KICK in the arse.

I'd stay away from the ears though.

Cherry Blossom

I've had labs, collies, gsd's, various terriers, mutts . . . never have I felt the need to physically correct any of them and in some cases I would definitely have lost a body part if I did. If your dog doesn't like your postman, neighbour - whoever - it's entirely because you haven't desensitised them to a situation they are uncomfortable with, causing physical discomfort only serves to further that perception that the given situation is 'bad'. If your dog runs in front of traffic it's because you haven't secured your pets. If your dog doesn't 'leave it' when told its because you have bothered to teach it the command.

Now give yourself a kick - did you learn anything from it?

DBB

Kash wrote: »

So, I heard them barking, ran out to see them both running in front of the postvan causing him to slam on the brakes. I honestly thought that both dogs were hit, I nearly had a heart attack.

So, for this, I have a wooden spoon. Now, I do not beat my dogs with it, don't get me wrong. But they each got a couple of smacks across the rump with it this morning, and were yelled at, and sent out of the room with their tails down. They moped in their bed until they were forgiven (10-15 minutes later) with lots of cuddles, and are happy and playful afterwards.

Though I don't agree with what you did here, I'm not going to ostracise you. However, I would like to draw your attention to what happened in this instance, and to encourage you, and others, think about what your dogs actually learned from this experience.
But I need to make sure that I read your words correctly. The dogs chased the van outside, but were inside when you hit them with the wooden spoon, yes?
Which leads me to believe that some amount of time passed between incident and punishment. Is this correct? A minute or two, maybe longer?
I think it is important, indeed critical to realise that for punishment to work, or indeed for reinforcement to work, it must happen at the moment the undesired (or desired, in the case of reinforcement) behaviour takes place. Three seconds later is too late. The reason for this is that a dog cannot make the connection between his actions and the consequences once a second or two has passed (indeed, delayed punishment is notoriously ineffective to prevent humans from misbehaving. The death penalty, for instance, does not stop people from murdering each other: and this is for a creature who is aware of time, and who can consciously link their behaviour to the future punishment).
So, if the dogs chased the postvan, were then brought inside, then hit with the wooden spoon and shouted at, they will have absolutely no idea, none whatsoever, why on earth they were being hit or shouted at. So, it is unlikely that they have learned not to chase the postvan.
Indeed, they will associate what happened immediately beforehand with being hit/shouted at... which was perhaps you approaching them? Luckily, most owners will get away with not affecting the way their dog thinks about them if this sort of thing happens once in a blue moon, but if this was done with a dog that had no reserves of trust in you, there is a very real possibility that the dog would in future be worried about what happens when people approach them, especially if that person happens to be carrying an object the resembles a wooden spoon, and/or has *that* look on their face or *that* tone in their voice.
The moping in the bed was not a result of being sorry for chasing the postvan, rather it was suppression of their normal behaviour due to the out-of-context punishment, and may also have involved a post-adrenaline slump after the exitement of chasing the van, and the stress of being punished as they were. Of course they reverted to normal after they were "forgiven", due to relief at you displaying more friendly behaviour towards them again,, but not because they knew they'd been "forgiven" as we understand it.
My own preference would be to chalk the mistake of the dogs being out at the wrong moment down to experience, then start to pro-actively train the dogs how to behave nicely when the postvan comes in.

DBB

gud4u wrote: »

I think if we get anymore politically correct with what we do with our dogs in public, the dogs will eventually be putting us on leads and kicking us up the arse.

People need to start minding their own business, the guy that reprimanded you will someday try to correct the wrong person.

I'm a little flabbergasted that someone would think it's politicaly correct to be seen hitting a dog, or "lightly kicking" them in the butt, in public! I can't think of any incident my dogs have been involved in, even if it was embarrassing for me, that made me want to physically punish them!
By the same token, if I see any owner hitting their dog, I will intervene. Actually, I think it's wrong not to.
What's the point of kicking if not to cause at least discomfort? Where do you draw the line between a "light kick", and a kick that causes discomfort to the dog?

Kash

Thanks DBB for a constructive reply. I agree with what you say in essence (not 100%, but close enough). I would certainly prefer a different form of correction, so in the interests of education, I hope you don't mind if I respond to some of your points beklow.

The dogs chased the van outside, but were inside when you hit them with the wooden spoon, yes?
Which leads me to believe that some amount of time passed between incident and punishment. Is this correct? A minute or two, maybe longer?
I think it is important, indeed critical to realise that for punishment to work, or indeed for reinforcement to work, it must happen at the moment the undesired (or desired, in the case of reinforcement) behaviour takes place.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am fully aware that there needs to be a conscious link between the action and the reaction. It forms the basis for conditional training, which is what we use with our dogs (positive or negative).

In an ideal situation you are there when the behaviour takes place, and can instruct as necessary. In my experince, tone and words are all that is ever needed here. So, to link that to my dogs, I know they have an issue with the postman, which they already link to the van. And so, I have trained them to be unresponsive when they see it appear. This works 99% of the time when they are inside, and when I am at home. There is an occasional warning HUFF bark, but no over-reaction.

Often, you are simply not around when the behaviour occurs. This happens frequently when toilet training, but specifically relating it back to my dogs again, the behaviour we have here is climbing on the couch. They are not allowed to do this. They both know this. They never climb on the couch in our presence. But if we go out, on they hop. Now, I never cath them in the act any more, they hop down before our car even pulls into the drive. But the squashed cushions, toys and residual heat tell tales. I understand that there is absolutely no point in me coming in, seeing the couch, and then disciplining the dogs. I would technically be training them that my coming home is a bad thing, or potentially that it is teh getting OFF the couch that is bad. So, I let this one lie (forgive the bad pun) as there is no viable way of me fixing the behaviour. (if anyone has an idea, I'm happy to hear it!)

But then there is a third occasion - the one where you are there to see the behaviour, but not close enough to be immediately seen or heard. This is what happened with the postvan.

Three seconds later is too late. The reason for this is that a dog cannot make the connection between his actions and the consequences once a second or two has passed

I don't agree that the reaction needs to be completed instantaneously. Quick, yes, and linked. I firmly believe that my dogs are capable of understanding action and consequence, providing there is somthing to make the link in their doggy heads. So, using the postvan as the example, their action started with them chasing the van. My reaction came when they started barking, which was as they got close to the van. The almost instantaneous reaction, was me saying 'No! Inside!', when they started barking, (coincidentally, the same time the postie slammed on the brakes) which resulted in them coming back to me and was swiftly followed up with the wooden spoon. No more than 30-40 seconds would have passed between the initial 'chase the van' action, and the final 'go to bed' command that finished the punishment. The link between all events was my tone, which my dogs are hugely responsive to.

Luckily, most owners will get away with not affecting the way their dog thinks about them if this sort of thing happens once in a blue moon, but if this was done with a dog that had no reserves of trust in you, there is a very real possibility that the dog would in future be worried about what happens when people approach them

Again I fully agree, but these are my dogs, and there are extensive reserves of trust, both are well socialised and confident. I would not act the same way around a dog that I did not know.

The moping in the bed was not a result of being sorry for chasing the postvan, rather it was suppression of their normal behaviour due to the out-of-context punishment, and may also have involved a post-adrenaline slump after the exitement of chasing the van, and the stress of being punished as they were. Of course they reverted to normal after they were "forgiven", due to relief at you displaying more friendly behaviour towards them again,, but not because they knew they'd been "forgiven" as we understand it.

Agree with everything said here (save the 'out of context' addition as explained above) - their removal from my environment was a continuation of the discipline, an effective punishment for my dogs, but I am under no illusions that they are sent away to 'think about what they have done' or some such nonsense. Nor do I interpret their submissive behaviour when forgiven as being 'sorry' - they are dogs. Their level of supression between the punishment and it's removal is directly proportionate to my reaction. Their relief is of course a reaction to normal order being restored. Now, perhaps my reaction was excessive because of my fright, and it would have been enough without the spoon. But the spoon for discipline is my own learned behaviour, like many Irish Mammies, my mother had that drilled into us, and I resorted to it when stressed.

My own preference would be to chalk the mistake of the dogs being out at the wrong moment down to experience, then start to pro-actively train the dogs how to behave nicely when the postvan comes in.

Agreed. Normally I keep the dogs in when the postie is due, because as I've mentioned, I have trained them not to react. However, as we all know, what is learned inside does not always tranfer to outside - and we have never been through the postie routine outside - something I clearly need to start!

Also, someone (can't remember who - and i'm paraphrasing horribly) made a very good comment that the whole sorry incident was my fault for not securing my dogs. This of course is very true. We do not have a garden gate, so in the, albeit rare, instance that the dogs do want to run out on the road, they can do so. This is another thing that needs to be remedied ASAP. Because the fact that 'they hardly ever run out' would be cold comfort if anything were to happen.

Valmont

DBB wrote: »

By the same token, if I see any owner hitting their dog, I will intervene. Actually, I think it's wrong not to.

You are being hysterical here. There is a vast gulf between 'hitting' and 'lightly booting' a dog on the behind.

What you're essentially saying is that if someone is disciplining a dog in a manner with which you disagree you would assault that individual. I'm afraid for the people who walk their dogs around you and I hope if you attack any of them in the defense of their dogs which surely they love and care for (as I do mine) you experience the full force of the law.

Would you have run after Kash and attacked him for giving his dogs a whack on the rump with a spoon?

borderlinemeath

Valmont wrote: »

You are being hysterical here. There is a vast gulf between 'hitting' and 'lightly booting' a dog on the behind.

What you're essentially saying is that if someone is disciplining a dog in a manner with which you disagree you would assault that individual. I'm afraid for the people who walk their dogs around you and I hope if you attack any of them in the defense of their dogs which surely they love and care for (as I do mine) you experience the full force of the law.

Would you have run after Kash and attacked him for giving his dogs a whack on the rump with a spoon?

It's not the difference in pain, ie a light tap and a whack. It is the action of hitting or striking a dog coupled with the tone of voice that the dog realises they are in trouble but they don't know why.

My dogs knock heads, run into each other chasing etc and can really hurt themselves. If I was to hit them it wouldn't physically hurt them in the slightest but it would effect how they feel about me touching them in any way. One of mine is a rescue and most of the time he's fine but the very odd time he'll act very scared of my partner and thinks he might hit him. My partner never has but the dog has trust issues (probably with men) that are deep rooted and may never leave him.

So hitting them in any way doesn't do anything in the way of discipline except make your dog wary of you.

Raminahobbin

Valmont wrote: »

You are being hysterical here. There is a vast gulf between 'hitting' and 'lightly booting' a dog on the behind.

What you're essentially saying is that if someone is disciplining a dog in a manner with which you disagree you would assault that individual. I'm afraid for the people who walk their dogs around you and I hope if you attack any of them in the defense of their dogs which surely they love and care for (as I do mine) you experience the full force of the law.

Would you have run after Kash and attacked him for giving his dogs a whack on the rump with a spoon?

Who said anything about assaulting the individual?? DBB said they would 'intervene', not assault or attack. I think you're being a bit OTT in assuming people are not safe from DBB's wrath wherever they may walk!!

I have 'intervened' when I saw a woman hitting her dog for trying to jump up on a passerby in the Phoenix Park. My intervention simply consisted of 'That's NOT how you train a dog.' She scowled, but was embarrassed I had seen her, and refrained from hitting the dog further. Since she had only hit the dog once, and not very hard, I didn't pursue it, but I certainly would have it I had seen a dog being beaten, not just hit.

I too think it's wrong to NOT say something if you witness a dog being hit, but nobody is advocating assaulting the owner (assuming we are talking about hitting, not beating. Big distinction.)

DBB

Valmont wrote: »

You are being hysterical here. There is a vast gulf between 'hitting' and 'lightly booting' a dog on the behind.

LOL. I've been called a lot of things in my time, but "hysterical" ain't one of them.
Indeed, I put it to you that your use of language is far, far too strong in response to me simply saying that I "intervene". That is to say, I would ask the person to stop hitting their dog, and talk to them about why I asked them to stop. As it happens, and you weren't to know this, I am quite highly trained in conflict resolution, and am very experienced at how to deal with people in fraught situations. So no, I don't get hysterical, if I was to do so in my professional life (for which I have done the above training), I would end up getting badly injured or worse.

What you're essentially saying is that if someone is disciplining a dog in a manner with which you disagree you would assault that individual. I'm afraid for the people who walk their dogs around you and I hope if you attack any of them in the defense of their dogs which surely they love and care for (as I do mine) you experience the full force of the law.

Would you have run after Kash and attacked him for giving his dogs a whack on the rump with a spoon?

I would ask you to retract that "assault" and "attack" statements, they are deeply offensive, and utterly uncalled for ont he basis of my post... I have no idea where how you concluded that I would "assault" or "attack" anyone from my post. And you call me hysterical?:rolleyes:
The bottom line is that hitting a dog is deemed an act of cruelty: you might even call it an act of assault. If I see someone hitting a dog (no matter what degree of force they use... your definition of "lighty booting" could be very different to mine), then I see someone who is breaking the law. Not only that, but as a dog trainer, I am fully aware of the consequences of people taking their tempers out on their dogs by physical means. So, contrary to your having to feel sorry for people around me who I see hitting their dogs, they often end up appreciating the intervention because they get some free, qualified behavioural and training advice thown in.

Evac101

So, in a case where a dog has done something potentially fatal - how do you positively reinforce them not to do it? This has puzzled the hell out of me, not that I've been striking my dogs - I'd kill the poor things, but because I end up shouting in a negative tone at them, half from what they've done and half from how it's affected me seeing the little idiots do whatever it is.

We can't anticipate everything that can happen so at least some conditioning has to be reactive rather then proactive surely and my, personal, difficulty is figuring out how to fit positive reinforcement into that situation,

tk123

My dog was held down and roared at by a vet when he was 11 months old which caused him to be afraid of being handled. Shouting at him didn't cause him any pain but it's had a HUGE impact on him. He's very wary of men and can be shy of stangers petting him. He'll often run over to people passing the green (there's a wall between the green and the foot path) then just sit with his head down - like he's dying for them to pet and cuddle him but at the same time afraid of being hurt.

So regardless of pain being caused I don't argee with shouting or hitting/tapping/kicking dogs. Would I say something to somebody if I say them hitting at their dog - I probably wouldn't be able to keep my mouth shut tbh so I'd say yes!

OldNotWIse

Valmont wrote: »

You are being hysterical here. There is a vast gulf between 'hitting' and 'lightly booting' a dog on the behind.

What you're essentially saying is that if someone is disciplining a dog in a manner with which you disagree you would assault that individual. I'm afraid for the people who walk their dogs around you and I hope if you attack any of them in the defense of their dogs which surely they love and care for (as I do mine) you experience the full force of the law.

Would you have run after Kash and attacked him for giving his dogs a whack on the rump with a spoon?

I kind of agree with this. Obviously if I saw someone clearly hurting and abusing an animal I would step in. I was in the park a while ago with my little angel (not) who (having small dog syndrome) likes to run up to other dogs and then bark and growl at them after they run away, which can be a little embarrassing. She did it to one dog and I scolded her and put my hand down to her to clip her lead back on. When I did, she cowered (she was a rescue and we suspect she has been abused in the past). I wouldn't hit her, but I felt terrible because to the owner of the other dog, it looked like I was going to hit her (and that she was used to it) and the guy started shouting, "no, no it's ok, leave her, they were just playing" - I felt so bad!

planetX

borderlinemeath wrote: »

It's not the difference in pain, ie a light tap and a whack. It is the action of hitting or striking a dog coupled with the tone of voice that the dog realises they are in trouble but they don't know why.

My dogs knock heads, run into each other chasing etc and can really hurt themselves. If I was to hit them it wouldn't physically hurt them in the slightest but it would effect how they feel about me touching them in any way. One of mine is a rescue and most of the time he's fine but the very odd time he'll act very scared of my partner and thinks he might hit him. My partner never has but the dog has trust issues (probably with men) that are deep rooted and may never leave him.

So hitting them in any way doesn't do anything in the way of discipline except make your dog wary of you.

same with my rescue, trust has been hard-earned and physical punishment would wipe that out.
I don't believe it works anyway. There's a dog we have to pass sometimes that I'm worried about. It's a husky, the owners have it on an extending lead and can barely hold it while it lunges at my dog. They deal with it by smacking it on the head, which just aggravates it even more. If the lead ever snaps I don't know what will happen, it scares me. I just wish they would look into a more effective way of training:mad:

Valmont

borderlinemeath wrote: »

It's not the difference in pain, ie a light tap and a whack.

There was no pain involved in this kick - I can't emphasise this enough. I approached him side on, telling him to come, bad dog etc, and when I was standing side by side with him and he was still munching the crap, I kicked him off the poo with the outside of my shoe onto his back right hand-side. He didn't blink, flinch, cower, just hopped on to the lead and carried on; he is a gun dog, they're quite tough, I wouldn't have done the same to my 13 year old Sheltie, for example.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

So hitting them in any way doesn't do anything in the way of discipline except make your dog wary of you.

I don't accept this as a blanket assertion. Some dogs will be wary if you give them a boot, others like mine, got the message and figured his poo meal was over. He's sitting under my legs as we speak and he is not 'wary' of me.

DBB wrote: »

Indeed, I put it to you that your use of language is far, far too strong in response to me simply saying that I "intervene".

I would ask you to retract that "assault" and "attack" statements, they are deeply offensive, and utterly uncalled for ont he basis of my post.

I retract my statement gladly, but if you meant verbal intervention, you should have specified.

DBB wrote: »

The bottom line is that hitting a dog is deemed an act of cruelty: you might even call it an act of assault.

No, I hoofed my dog off a pile of crap and had I not done so he would have eaten the whole pile. Now, he's only 10 months and I still have a lot of work to do towards getting him to leave the poo alone via verbal commands, but until then I'll either pull him off or hoof him off if I have too.

DBB wrote: »

So, contrary to your having to feel sorry for people around me who I see hitting their dogs, they often end up appreciating the intervention because they get some free, qualified behavioural and training advice thown in.

This is where we differ. If you were to come up to me, chide me, and offer me some free "advice", I'd tell you where to go - which is what I said to this fellow yesterday.

Granted, if I saw someone really hitting their dog and producing a strong yelp or evidence of injury, yes I would say something too but otherwise, I'd just mind my own business!

borderlinemeath

Valmont wrote: »

There was no pain involved in this kick - I can't emphasise this enough. I approached him side on, telling him to come, bad dog etc, and when I was standing side by side with him and he was still munching the crap, I kicked him off the poo with the outside of my shoe onto his back right hand-side. He didn't blink, flinch, cower, just hopped on to the lead and carried on; he is a gun dog, they're quite tough, I wouldn't have done the same to my 13 year old Sheltie, for example.

Did you not read my post? The harshness of the kick doesn't matter, it's the action itself. One day you'll do it and he'll turn around and nip your ankle to defend himself.

I don't accept this as a blanket assertion. Some dogs will be wary if you give them a boot, others like mine, got the message and figured his poo meal was over. He's sitting under my legs as we speak and he is not 'wary' of me.

He's only 10 months old. Give him time and he'll be wary enough of your boot.

I retract my statement gladly, but if you meant verbal intervention, you should have specified.

No, I hoofed my dog off a pile of crap and had I not done so he would have eaten the whole pile. Now, he's only 10 months and I still have a lot of work to do towards getting him to leave the poo alone via verbal commands, but until then I'll either pull him off or hoof him off if I have too.

Put him on a lead and a slight pull and a verbal command would be a lot easier.

This is where we differ. If you were to come up to me, chide me, and offer me some free "advice", I'd tell you where to go - which is what I said to this fellow yesterday.

Quite the charmer aren't you:rolleyes:

Granted, if I saw someone really hitting their dog and producing a strong yelp or evidence of injury, yes I would say something too but otherwise, I'd just mind my own business!

Because you're not an expert like DBB? Or because you truly believe that hitting/kicking a dog in certain circumstances is warranted?

In your field of expertise (whatever it may be) if you witnessed somebody making a complete hash of something, would you not offer a word of assistance or intervene?

I certainly would.

Kash

Granted, if I saw someone really hitting their dog and producing a strong yelp or evidence of injury, yes I would say something too but otherwise, I'd just mind my own business!

I think I'm the same here - it depends on the level of the physicality, and the type of dog.

I would be highly likely to intervene if I thought anyone was being cruel to their dog. But I would not consider a 'move on' shove with a foot to be cruel, particularly with a big dog, unless the dog was clearly reacting to it in a negative manner.

Likewise, I do not consider my use of a wooden spoon to be cruel, but would not use it on a smaller dog, or on a more sensitive part of the dog (nose/ears etc) as I would consider that to be cruel. I consider cruelty to be trying to cause pain or suffering, and I don't think any of the examples mentioned on this thread constitute as cruelty. As for the dog turning around and attacking you in return, or cowering from your touch - this would clearly show that you had misread the signs and stepped over that 'cruelty' line. However, without knowing the dog, you can't blanket all dogs with the same statements - every one I have ever had has their own distinct personality, and requires different treatment.

I understand that other posters may have lower levels of tolerance, but I feel that a couple of smacks on the rump once a year, or a shove with a foot to get the dog to move away from something potentially harmful is not cruel, and needs to be kept in perspective.

kylith

I have, on occasion, put my toe on one of my dogs and given them a little push, I think this may be what the op is talking about. It's not a 'kick', the leg is not swung, it's a shove with your foot.

I'll admit to them getting a right kick once or twice, but only when they dive under my foot mid-stride and there's nothing I can do about it.

Fenian Army

I've found that a slap works wonders on a dog.

Only on rare occasions of course.

Discodog

I really admire the guy who complained & people like DBB. It takes a lot of courage to speak out against possible cruelty. The command "Leave" or "Leave It" is an essential & easy to teach with positive reinforcement. The Military & Police have to totally rely on training & they have now switched to only using positive reinforcement.

Maybe you weren't hurting the dog but I would rather see people complaining than doing nothing. One of the reasons why we have such a bad animal welfare record is that people do not complain.

gud4u

DBB wrote: »

I'm a little flabbergasted that someone would think it's politicaly correct to be seen hitting a dog, or "lightly kicking" them in the butt, in public! I can't think of any incident my dogs have been involved in, even if it was embarrassing for me, that made me want to physically punish them!
By the same token, if I see any owner hitting their dog, I will intervene. Actually, I think it's wrong not to.
What's the point of kicking if not to cause at least discomfort? Where do you draw the line between a "light kick", and a kick that causes discomfort to the dog?

Of course it's not politically correct to hit a dog, that's not what I meant to imply. Today I have given much thought to the subject and realise that while I tap my pup on the nose for chewing stuff, I think I will change the approach, aha works well, but lately he just won't give stuff back and a light tap on the nose works, then thanks and a treat, maybe there's a better method, which I am open to hearing on screen, but not in public.

But if someone can't draw the line between a light tap and a kick then they shouldn't own an animal of any kind.

You give good advice and I agree with a lot of the things you say, here and in other threads, but I think(meaning MY opinion), that it isn't always right to approach someone and rectify what you see to be incorrect training methods.

I say this from the sharp cynical view I have of society today, unfortunate, but true.

I do not liked being approached by strangers in public, it will change my demeanor, the dog I used to have picked up on this instantly and would go for the person. That didn't end well and it's not up for discussion.

I'm bringing light to the subject that not everyone will be happy to recieve helpful information about training their pet.

As for being flabbergasted:D, you'll probably hate me for this....

But, I would never approach someone hitting or kicking an animal, for 2 reasons.
1. Someone intentionally causing pain to a defenseless animal has something wrong in their brain and aren't too far from inflicting pain on a human. Just look in Tuesdays Independant Country section, a farm in Tipp had to phychos torture 2 lambs to death and scare a heifer so bad she aborted her calf.

This is what is walking around in a part of todays society, I hope you're never the person to bare the brunt of them having a bad day.

2.Unlike my Jack Russell, I know I'm not 8 foot tall, I don't stretch much over 5 foot, so, if I am going to intervene in something, I need to know I can handle myself, and right now, if I saw some scumbag hitting a dog, well...abort mission and get out of there would be my reaction. I have seen people get the sh"t kicked out of them for intervening in couples fighting, let alone, someone smacking an animal.

Is my post rediculous, probably, maybe, but it's my opinion. Anyway, I'm off to report the local farmer to the ISPCA for tapping his cows on the arse to get them across the road:D

DBB

@ Kash,
Whilst we may agree to disagree on some aspects of how the postvan incident was dealt with, I have to admire your honesty in your reply to my first post. It's not often you see such openness

@ OP, and other posters wondering how one is meant to react when things go horribly wrong, here's my take on it. I think that a huge amount of good dog training involves pro-actively preparing the dog for the unexpected, and pro-actively positively training the dog to stop problem behaviours.
I see examples all the time of how owners are trying to stop their dog from doing something by using some sort of physical chastisement (including gentle taps, leash snaps, shouting), and in every case, the problem is not going away. Why? Because the dog is not actually learning what the owner thinks they're teaching them. If he was learning, he'd have stopped doing what he's doing long ago. Again and again, I see proof that the physical/verbal punishment route does not work, unless it is very harsh, and perfectly timed every time. And that's not an approach I could advocate, even if it does work sometimes.
On the contrary, pro-active, preparatory, positive training does work for emergency situations: Discodog cited the use of this sort of training for service dogs, because the services have realised the effectiveness of gentle, clever training for use in dangerous, quickly changing, life-threateneing situations. So, if it's good enough for service dogs, it's got to be good enough for our pet and working dogs.
For instance, the emergency stop is an essential command to teach all dogs: this is taught on an ongoing basis, and is started off at a low-distraction level, but gradually moved up to ever more difficult and complicated situations.. you do NOT wait until you need to stop a dog to teach him this command, and I think a lot of the training being discussed here is reactionary, not pro-active.
For poo-eating, I have a dog that does this, she's just a couple of months older than OP's dog, but after 2 months of gentle, ongoing training, we're nearly there. Not only does she trot away from poo on command, she actually looks from the pile of poo to me, waiting for the command to happen. In fact, the past week or two, I don't need to be in her view for her to walk away from the poo, because she has learned that trotting away from it gets her a reward from me. I have never even raised my voice to establish this, because as above, I pro-actively trained the dog rather than waiting for the full-blown situation to hit me out on walks.
How to pro-actively train it? Teach a "leave it" command. As above, you don't plonk a pile of poo in front of the dog and ask for a "leave it", you start off with other (non-poo) items at home, get the command well established, then gradually start to use the command for items the dog is more tempted by. Eventually, you graduate on to poo. I am more than happy to PM you more specific instructions on how to teach this extremely useful command, if you'd like.

gud4u wrote: »

But, I would never approach someone hitting or kicking an animal, for 2 reasons.
1. Someone intentionally causing pain to a defenseless animal has something wrong in their brain and aren't too far from inflicting pain on a human. Just look in Tuesdays Independant Country section, a farm in Tipp had to phychos torture 2 lambs to death and scare a heifer so bad she aborted her calf.

This is what is walking around in a part of todays society, I hope you're never the person to bare the brunt of them having a bad day.

2.Unlike my Jack Russell, I know I'm not 8 foot tall, I don't stretch much over 5 foot, so, if I am going to intervene in something, I need to know I can handle myself, and right now, if I saw some scumbag hitting a dog, well...abort mission and get out of there would be my reaction. I have seen people get the sh"t kicked out of them for intervening in couples fighting, let alone, someone smacking an animal.

Is my post rediculous, probably, maybe, but it's my opinion. Anyway, I'm off to report the local farmer to the ISPCA for tapping his cows on the arse to get them across the road:D

I don't think your post is ridiculous at all, and I think your concerns are absolutely valid! And I don't want to leave you, or anyone, with the impression that I make a career out of intervening with people who treat their dogs in ways I don't agree with! If it is safe to do so, I will always intervene... and I made a choice to do so some time ago when I realised that NOT intervening haunted me for hours/days afterwards. But in my non-dog training work, the work in which I've received the conflict resolution training (and self-defence, as it happens ), I meet some pretty rough characters, and I have been in some really hairy situations, and I've learned when it is safer to walk away, even if I'm fuming inside. So, in short, if there is a danger that intervening would cause me or mine injury or harm, I would let things sit, and if possible get the guards to intervene instead:)

Valmont

DBB wrote: »

I am more than happy to PM you more specific instructions on how to teach this extremely useful command, if you'd like.

He was doing it again yesterday so it's getting serious now, only because he's around a few kids (relatives, not mine) who grab, kiss (I tell them not to but what can you do), and wrestle with him. I would be afraid of them catching something. On this occasion, when I shouted at him, he stopped and came over to me but I really need to get him to stop eating it to begin with; while I keep a close eye on him at all times, I can't regulate everything he does unfortunately.

He rolled in a cow pat too, that wasn't nice either:pac:

Discodog

DBB wrote: »

I am more than happy to PM you more specific instructions on how to teach this extremely useful command, if you'd like.

I think that we should give DBB a training sticky - maybe "DBB's training tip of the week ". I personally find that the "leave it" instruction can be a tricky one especially if it's something that they really desire & are intelligent enough to suss when you aren't looking .