Hypocrites and "Animal lovers"

Shenshen

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm no expert so perhaps someone can give a little more info on this but from Wiki I gather meat was a substantial part of early human diet. Thats millions of years ago not thousands.

I also find it funny that people would dismiss it as something that we have only done for a few thousand years (possibly wrong) in the same thread arguing that dogs have been domesticated for a few thousands and stating it as proof their natural habitat is living with humans.

I'm not argueing anything with regards to dogs, you must be referring to another poster.

El_Dangeroso

blatantrereg wrote: »

An egg or a glass of milk provides your full RDA for vitamin B12, so supplementation is only needed for vegans.

For non-vegan vegetarians, particular omega 3 fatty acids found in fish are more likely to be a concern (DHA). Normal vegetarian diets dont contain much/any of these. Foods such as hemp and linseed do contain high levels of ALA. This is another omega 3 that humans can convert to some extent into DHA (which is the one with the most benefits). However vegetarians dont need to forego direct consumption of DHA, since it is available through supplementing with algae oil.

That is the sum total of nutrients you mightn't get from a sensible vegetarian diet. That said, a small amount of knowledge is necessary to make sure you get enough of certain nutrients that might generally be sourced from meat, such as iron and a full profile of amino acids. However supplementation is unnecessary.

Human physiology is more similar to herbivores than omnivores in the animal kingdom - which is something that disputes the idea that eating meat is natural for us. The unavailability of vitamin B12 from animal sources doesn't prove we are "supposed to" eat meat either, since eating dirty vegetables would provide plenty of it apparently. [Not suggesting that anyone should eat dirty vegetables today - I'm saying that human ancestors could have had plenty of vitamin B12 from a vegan diet]... The question whether it is natural or not is a bit of a non-sequitor anyway, unless you exclusively eat hunted wild animals, killed with arrows or something.

The increasing level of meat consumption is a serious environmental concern. Vegetarian diets are much more environmentally friendly than omnivorous ones [vegan diets, or non-dairy vegetarian diets are better again]. There is a level of cruelty involved in non-vegetarian diets. The level of cruelty varies massively depending on the conditions in which the animals are kept, but even when livestock are kept in good conditions, the killing of them is cruel. A well balanced vegetarian diet is healthier than one involving meat - vegetarians die early less often, and have reduced susceptibility to various health concerns including heart disease and gout. All in all, there are lots of reasons to follow a vegetarian diet, and no reason to consume meat apart from indulgence. Being vegetarian is just the rational and ethical choice tbh.

Did you know that the egg industry is far more cruel to animals and environmentally unfriendly than the beef industry in this country?

Being vegetarian is no more ethical than being omnivore if you choose your food from an industrially produced source, have you ever seen the environmental damage carried out by crop-monoculture?

Vegetarians live longer only in the first world, as they tend to be of higher socio-economic status (although weirdly they are more susceptible to colon cancer). In the third world, vegetarians die sooner than meat eaters for the same reason.

Bottom line, health conscious rich people tend to live longer, go figure.

No issue with vegetarianism, but hate to see the same old tired refuted arguments reappearing in these debates. Vegetarianism offers no automatic moral highground, enviromental, health or otherwise.

Shenshen

Bajingo wrote: »

I agree completely and for people toting their ideals that vegetarianism is more natural, you still need to farm your vegetables which isn't natural. If you're going to go down that road why not become a hunter gatherer...without the hunter ideals of course.

I don't argue that either diet is natural. After all, it's perfectly natural for us to die aged around 30, and to have produced around 10-12 children by that time.
Natural does not equal good, or even desireable.

I'm simply finding it ridiculous to claim that since we are naturally able to digest meat, it must mean that it's an important and heathly thing for us to do, and to use evolution as an argument in that vein.

Feathers

Zebra3 wrote: »

What I find odd is meat eaters who complain about animal cruelty.

That's bizarre!!!!

What's contradictory about it? You can kill an animal for food without taking pleasure in suffereing, surely. If it was someone who was pro–fox-hunting, but against animal cruelty I'd agree.

blatantrereg

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Did you know that the egg industry is far more cruel to animals and environmentally unfriendly than the beef industry in this country?

Being vegetarian is no more ethical than being omnivore if you choose your food from an industrially produced source, have you ever seen the environmental damage carried out by crop-monoculture?

Vegetarians live longer only in the first world, as they tend to be of higher socio-economic status (although weirdly they are more susceptible to colon cancer). In the third world, vegetarians die sooner than meat eaters for the same reason.

Bottom line, health conscious rich people tend to live longer, go figure.

No issue with vegetarianism, but hate to see the same old tired refuted arguments reappearing in these debates. Vegetarianism offers no automatic moral highground, enviromental, health or otherwise.

As regards cruelty, I doubt many vegetarians eat battery-farmed eggs tbh. However I'm very curious about your assertion that egg production is more environmentally unfriendly than beef production. Do you have a source for that?

Likewise I doubt many vegetarians consume Monsanto type GM produce. It's actually hard to find GM tofu or soy milk in this country. Meat consumption is worse for the environment in general yes. It's broadly recognised as an issue since the global level of meat consumption is increasing greatly. eg: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment

We're not in the third world. If vegetarians die sooner in third world countries I imagine it's because it includes a lot of people too impoverished to afford meat. I dont think vegetarians are rich or health conscious, taken as a group, in first world countries. I think that's a stereotype. Sure the in-thing in fad diets is to eat more meat, not less. A vegetarian diet is considerably cheaper than an omnivorous one, generally speaking.

Shryke

Shenshen wrote: »

Of course it's an adaption. We evolved from monkeys to primates, not from a carnivorous animal.
And most archaeological evidence points to our ancestors starting to include meat in their diets some 800 000 years ago. Research shows we still ate mostly plants and nuts, with meat being a very occasional addition, very much like chimps today.
Yes, we are omnivores now. That doesn't mean we always were, we've become omnivores only quite recently.
And the fact that we can eat meat says nothing about how natural or healthy it is in our diet. After all, we can and do eat a lot of highly unhealthy things in copious amounts on daily basis.

We ate meat whenever we could get it. There wasn't a Tesco down the road. We have always eaten meat as long as we have been an identifiable species. You've gone from a few thousand to 800,000? You're still just a tiny bit off.
The briefest internet search brought me this.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html

"Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5 million years ago, according to a study of our ancestors' teeth."

"Eating meat requires teeth adapted more to cutting than to grinding.... He has found that the crests of teeth from early Homo skeletons are steeper than those of gorillas, which consume foods as tough as leaves and stems, but not meat."

"Ungar shows that early Homo had teeth adapted to tougher food than A. afarensis or [chimpanzees]. The obvious candidate is meat," says anthropologist Richard Wrangham of Harvard University."

Scioch

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm not argueing anything with regards to dogs, you must be referring to another poster.

Sorry I wasnt implying you were I was just referring to the argument. Someone made the point that dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years and that that means their natural place is with humans.

Then you made the point that humans have only eaten meat for thousands of years which doesnt make it our natural diet.

My OP was about both meat eating and dog domestication. So I'm seeing those two argument as contradictory even though they are not coming from the same person.

I suppose in bringing up vegetarianism/animal cruelty/domestication I have a three pronged argument on my hands. Its a tad complicated.

Vicar in a tutu

I dont understand vegetarians... they love animals, yet they proceed to eat all their food on them :pac:

Bajingo

Shryke wrote: »

We ate meat whenever we could get it. There wasn't a Tesco down the road. We have always eaten meat as long as we have been an identifiable species. You've gone from a few thousand to 800,000? You're still just a tiny bit off.
The briefest internet search brought me this.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html

"Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5 million years ago, according to a study of our ancestors' teeth."

"Eating meat requires teeth adapted more to cutting than to grinding.... He has found that the crests of teeth from early Homo skeletons are steeper than those of gorillas, which consume foods as tough as leaves and stems, but not meat."

"Ungar shows that early Homo had teeth adapted to tougher food than A. afarensis or [chimpanzees]. The obvious candidate is meat," says anthropologist Richard Wrangham of Harvard University."

Humans as we know them as in us have been in existence for about 200, 000 years and have always been omnivorous. The ancestors that Shenshen and yourself are talking about were not human. Meat eating in the Homo genus did not evolve within the Homo sapiens species.

What is the name of that New Scientist article? Or could you fix the link?

Scioch

Bajingo wrote: »

Humans as we know them as in us have been in existence for about 200, 000 years and have always been omnivorous. The ancestors that Shenshen and yourself are talking about were not human. Meat eating in the Homo genus did not evolve within the Homo sapiens species.

What is the name of that New Scientist article? Or could you fix the link?

Link is fine for me.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html

Meat eating is an old human habit.

Shryke

Bajingo wrote: »

Humans as we know them as in us have been in existence for about 200, 000 years and have always been omnivorous. The ancestors that Shenshen and yourself are talking about were not human. Meat eating in the Homo genus did not evolve within the Homo sapiens species.

What is the name of that New Scientist article? Or could you fix the link?

I didn't mean to imply that we have been an identifiable species for 2.5 million years, only that we always have been meat eaters as far back as we do go. Didn't lick it off a stone as the saying goes.
The link works for me when I click. Try giving a search for "Meat eating is an old human habit".

Scioch

Bajingo wrote: »

Humans as we know them as in us have been in existence for about 200, 000 years and have always been omnivorous. The ancestors that Shenshen and yourself are talking about were not human. Meat eating in the Homo genus did not evolve within the Homo sapiens species.

The fact that it was present from as afar back as the beginning of the homo genus shows that we did evolve to live off meat though. Does it matter that it didnt evolve specifically in homo sapiens ?

Bajingo

LordSmeg wrote: »

The fact that it was present from as afar back as the beginning of the homo genus shows that we did evolve to live off meat though. Does it matter that it didnt evolve specifically in homo sapiens ?

No not in the context of this discussion anyway, though it would seem to make the argument that vegetarianism is more natural than eating meat also pretty redundant.

That link isn't working for me i'll read that article now thanks.

El_Dangeroso

blatantrereg wrote: »

As regards cruelty, I doubt many vegetarians eat battery-farmed eggs tbh. However I'm very curious about your assertion that egg production is more environmentally unfriendly than beef production. Do you have a source for that?

Battery farmed eggs are banned now, but even organic free-range eggs ensure that half the chicks are killed at birth. Do lacto-ovo vegetarians not think about that or don't they care?

All intensive farming (all egg farming is intensive by definition) is less environmentally friendly. How is imported soy more eco-friendly than grass-fed free range beef that I get from a farm 30 miles from where I live?

You have to think of local solutions to local problems, that's what's wrong with the environmental debate at the moment, there are these blanket assertions that meat is not environmentally friendly, like beef from a feedlot in the US is equivalent to Irish pastured beef. Or that organic biodiverse potatoes are just as sustainable as vast swathes of crop monoculture that rely on petrochemical fertilisers.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Likewise I doubt many vegetarians consume Monsanto type GM produce. It's actually hard to find GM tofu or soy milk in this country. Meat consumption is worse for the environment in general yes. It's broadly recognised as an issue since the global level of meat consumption is increasing greatly. eg: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment

Worse for the environment than what? If you lump all livestock rearing in as one and the same then you don't get to ignore that poorly managed crop monoculture has caused some of the largest environmental disasters of the 21st century, see dustbowls in mid-west US and the now all but disappeared Aral sea.

I'm not talking about GM, I'm talking about the inherent problems in crop monoculture, that is always left out of these debates for some reason.

blatantrereg wrote: »

We're not in the third world. If vegetarians die sooner in third world countries I imagine it's because it includes a lot of people too impoverished to afford meat. I dont think vegetarians are rich or health conscious, taken as a group, in first world countries. I think that's a stereotype. Sure the in-thing in fad diets is to eat more meat, not less. A vegetarian diet is considerably cheaper than an omnivorous one, generally speaking.

No, the reason people are vegetarian in India is for religious reasons. So we even then have a comparable group of poor meat eaters (who wouldn't even eat that much) and the meat eaters get LESS heart disease than the vegetarians.

Back in the first world if you compare vegetarians with health-conscious omnivores (Healthfood shoppers study) there is NO difference in health.

As regards the 'fad' to eat more meat, that would apply to an extreme minority, most government advice is to eat less meat. Most vegetarians are more educated and more likely to live in an affluent area, they outnumber any high protein people by a wide margin.

By all means eat less meat, you don't need a tonne of it and some potatoes are cheaper sure, but don't argue that eating meat is bad for you in some way because the real scientific data do not support that position.

blatantrereg

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Battery farmed eggs are banned now, but even organic free-range eggs ensure that half the chicks are killed at birth. Do lacto-ovo vegetarians not think about that or don't they care?

All intensive farming (all egg farming is intensive by definition) is less environmentally friendly. How is imported soy more eco-friendly than grass-fed free range beef that I get from a farm 30 miles from where I live?

You have to think of local solutions to local problems, that's what's wrong with the environmental debate at the moment, there are these blanket assertions that meat is not environmentally friendly, like beef from a feedlot in the US is equivalent to Irish pastured beef. Or that organic biodiverse potatoes are just as sustainable as vast swathes of crop monoculture that rely on petrochemical fertilisers.




Worse for the environment than what? If you lump all livestock rearing in as one and the same then you don't get to ignore that poorly managed crop monoculture has caused some of the largest environmental disasters of the 21st century, see dustbowls in mid-west US and the now all but disappeared Aral sea.

I'm not talking about GM, I'm talking about the inherent problems in crop monoculture, that is always left out of these debates for some reason.





No, the reason people are vegetarian in India is for religious reasons. So we even then have a comparable group of poor meat eaters (who wouldn't even eat that much) and the meat eaters get LESS heart disease than the vegetarians.

Back in the first world if you compare vegetarians with health-conscious omnivores (Healthfood shoppers study) there is NO difference in health.

As regards the 'fad' to eat more meat, that would apply to an extreme minority, most government advice is to eat less meat. Most vegetarians are more educated and more likely to live in an affluent area, they outnumber any high protein people by a wide margin.

By all means eat less meat, you don't need a tonne of it and some potatoes are cheaper sure, but don't argue that eating meat is bad for you in some way because the real scientific data do not support that position.

I forgot battery farming had been banned. Yes eating eggs does equal chicks being killed at birth. Personally that does bother me, and the thought had occurred to me before [I started a thread about it on this site inquiring about an alternative a while ago]. That said, at least layers [chickens bred to produce lots of eggs] are not as inherently messed up as broilers can be [chickens bred to produce meat]. Some breeds of broilers grow so large so fast that their legs break under their own weight.

Consuming dairy supports killing bullocks too I would think. So unless you have access to people keeping chickens and cattle which they dont kill etc, it's better to go vegan. I dont think that it's hypocritical or inconsistent to be lacto-octo vegetarian though, unless your approach to it involves replacing meat with very high consumption of eggs and dairy: You're still reducing your impact in comparison to eating meat.

Dont know if you're right about eggs being worse than beef. Chickens dont take up much in the way of resources. Neither does a local free range cow. But cows directly produce large amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas.

Local sourcing is good alright. You are right that there is a tendency to use blanket assumptions such as cattle proudction being equated with imported feed. I did a search for a discussion of this point and found this, which is reasonably lengthy, but interesting, and takes crop monoculture problems into account: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/feb/15/ask-leo-tofu-bad-for-environment tl;dr - eating lentils and chickpeas rather than soy and following a vegan diet is probably the ideal. Other articles I found suggest the same thing.

The study you linked comparing mortality rates may be flawed. It adjusts the results according to bmi. As the paper acknowledges, vegetarians have a lower average bmi. This could be seen as direct result of vegetarianism, so treating it in the same way as smoking etc might skew the results. Glancing at similar recent papers making the same conclusion, it could also be noted that part of the definition of health conscious omnivores being used is that they consume low amounts of meat and fish. There are other papers concluding that vegetarianism is beneficial also, so I'm not sure there is consensus one way or another on this issue.

CodyJarrett

Shryke wrote: »

I was speaking of B12.

Fine but don't reply to my post and give me a little lecture on B12 when it neither agreed nor contradicted with anything that I had said. Amino acids are what I spoke of in the post and so your reply wasn't relative.

All you were doing was trying to score points (which again is fine) but just do it with someone else's post, yeah. Maybe someone who has said something regarding B12 perhaps - just a thought.

El_Dangeroso

blatantrereg wrote: »

I forgot battery farming had been banned. Yes eating eggs does equal chicks being killed at birth. Personally that does bother me, and the thought had occurred to me before [I started a thread about it on this site inquiring about an alternative a while ago]. That said, at least layers [chickens bred to produce lots of eggs] are not as inherently messed up as broilers can be [chickens bred to produce meat]. Some breeds of broilers grow so large so fast that their legs break under their own weight.

I think that's fair enough, as long as you are OK with realising that egg consumption kills far more animals per calorie than beef. Chicken is not a great example anyway as it is almost impossible to produce sustainable chicken meat, guinea fowl would be better.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Consuming dairy supports killing bullocks too I would think. So unless you have access to people keeping chickens and cattle which they dont kill etc, it's better to go vegan. I dont think that it's hypocritical or inconsistent to be lacto-octo vegetarian though, unless your approach to it involves replacing meat with very high consumption of eggs and dairy: You're still reducing your impact in comparison to eating meat.

I don't see how eating a steak from locally sourced animals has more impact per calorie than eggs. Perhaps you could elaborate.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Dont know if you're right about eggs being worse than beef. Chickens dont take up much in the way of resources. Neither does a local free range cow. But cows directly produce large amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas.

Chickens eat little else but grain normally, they cannot be exclusively fed on pasture like cows can. The biggest man-made source of methane comes from plants, namely rice paddy fields, why don't people advise anyone to eat less rice? That, to me anyway, smacks of hypocrisy.

blatantrereg wrote: »

The study you linked comparing mortality rates may be flawed. It adjusts the results according to bmi. As the paper acknowledges, vegetarians have a lower average bmi. This could be seen as direct result of vegetarianism, so treating it in the same way as smoking etc might skew the results. Glancing at similar recent papers making the same conclusion, it could also be noted that part of the definition of health conscious omnivores being used is that they consume low amounts of meat and fish. There are other papers concluding that vegetarianism is beneficial also, so I'm not sure there is consensus one way or another on this issue.

Adjusting for BMI is a pre-requisite when isolating a single outcome from many confounding variables. The difference in BMI would be more likely due to sampling error. For indian studies vegetarians tend to be fatter for example. In any case, the researchers did not state that even made a difference. There isn't a consensus because there's no good evidence out there that becoming vegetarian really does anything to prevent any illness whatsoever.

--LOS--

This thread couldn't be more ridiculous, as someone else pointed out it is the meat-eaters who go on about animal welfare who are the hypocrites. I've seen countless threads on after hours started by people with a misguided concern for animals that are being mistreated, a bag of puppies being flung into a river, someone swinging a dog around by its leg etc etc etc. My usual response 'wow that's awful, some people even eat them'.

Shryke

whiplashed wrote: »

Fine but don't reply to my post and give me a little lecture on B12 when it neither agreed nor contradicted with anything that I had said. Amino acids are what I spoke of in the post and so your reply wasn't relative.

All you were doing was trying to score points (which again is fine) but just do it with someone else's post, yeah. Maybe someone who has said something regarding B12 perhaps - just a thought.

It's perfectly relative in relation to what you were saying and I'll quote you all day long if I like. Don't be so tetchy.

blatantrereg

I don't see how eating a steak from locally sourced animals has more impact per calorie than eggs. Perhaps you could elaborate.

I'm not comparing the two with that statement. I mean if the steak is replaced with vegetables, not eggs, for example. If the steak eater and the vegetarian eat the same amount of eggs etc.

Adjusting for BMI is a pre-requisite when isolating a single outcome from many confounding variables. The difference in BMI would be more likely due to sampling error. For indian studies vegetarians tend to be fatter for example

Vegetarians, and especially vegans, usually have a markedly lower bmi than omnivores in studies. Hadn't heard that about Indian vegetarians - maybe they eat a lot of paneer and ghee and stuff like that. India is a different context anyway though.

There isn't a consensus because there's no good evidence out there that becoming vegetarian really does anything to prevent any illness whatsoever.

Well the very paper you linked before showed that a marked decrease in heart disease compared to non vegetarians.

The biggest man-made source of methane comes from plants, namely rice paddy fields, why don't people advise anyone to eat less rice? That, to me anyway, smacks of hypocrisy.

Dont know. Wonder that myself. Maybe rice is produced in much greater quantities worldwide than beef - and a portion of beef equates with more methane than a portion of rice etc. [This is speculation]

validusername1

LordSmeg wrote: »

Why is it fine to own another animal, lock them up, force them to obey commands and use them whenever we are in the mood ?

you have just taken its life away and made it a slave to you for its entire existence. Do ya really care all that much ?

How is teaching a dog to do tricks like 'sit' forcing them to a life of obeying commands and making it a slave to that guy's existence? That's just stupid to imply something like that.. They're simple tricks, it's not a harsh dictatorship between him and the dog.

El_Dangeroso

blatantrereg wrote: »

I'm not comparing the two with that statement. I mean if the steak is replaced with vegetables, not eggs, for example. If the steak eater and the vegetarian eat the same amount of eggs etc.

That's a sort of specious point. If you replaced the eggs with fresh air it's even more sustainable!

blatantrereg wrote: »

Vegetarians, and especially vegans, usually have a markedly lower bmi than omnivores in studies. Hadn't heard that about Indian vegetarians - maybe they eat a lot of paneer and ghee and stuff like that. India is a different context anyway though.

And yet vegans have higher mortality than vegetarians, as in they die younger.

What are they controlling for in those studies though? BMI says nothing of lean mass, which vegetarians have much less of on average, this becomes even more important as you age.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Dont know. Wonder that myself. Maybe rice is produced in much greater quantities worldwide than beef - and a portion of beef equates with more methane than a portion of rice etc. [This is speculation]

Perhaps, but beef and rice aren't really interchangeable are they? One is primarily an energy source with a couple b vitamins along for the ride and the other is protein with a few vitamins and minerals.

I just really object to the idea that vegetarianism is like this panacea to environmental issues. If everyone turned veggie this morning then it wouldn't make a jot of difference as most people would just eat crappy veggie burgers instead of crappy beef burgers which would be a neglible difference in terms of energy usage. And THAT is the crux of the issue, rather than the raw materials so to speak.

Scioch

validusername1 wrote: »

How is teaching a dog to do tricks like 'sit' forcing them to a life of obeying commands and making it a slave to that guy's existence? That's just stupid to imply something like that.. They're simple tricks, it's not a harsh dictatorship between him and the dog.

Whats stupid is thinking you are teaching a dog tricks as if the dog is going to use them to impress his mates at a party. The purpose of those is to control the dog and if you are of the opinion they are tricks then you really are using the dog for entertainment seeing as the only one impressed by the tricks are humans.

FueledByAisling

I know a vegan who goes on like the typical vegan and their headrecking ****e, she horse rides too so people point out the fact how a lot of the equiptment and shoes she uses is made from leather. She thought it was perfectly acceptable because the leather boots were on sale...:eek:

blatantrereg

FueledByAisling wrote: »

I know a vegan who goes on like the typical vegan and their headrecking ****e, she horse rides too so people point out the fact how a lot of the equiptment and shoes she uses is made from leather. She thought it was perfectly acceptable because the leather boots were on sale...:eek:

Well she's not a vegan then. While the term vegetarian only applies to diet, vegans by definition dont use animal products at all. No wool or leather.

Discodog

LordSmeg wrote: »

Whats stupid is thinking you are teaching a dog tricks as if the dog is going to use them to impress his mates at a party. The purpose of those is to control the dog and if you are of the opinion they are tricks then you really are using the dog for entertainment seeing as the only one impressed by the tricks are humans.

Not true. Today two of my three, the other one is a bit too old, spent time chasing after & retrieving balls. That has nothing to do with control. It's about play & interaction of which the interaction is the most important part for the dog.

Some critical "tricks" like recall are about control & are done for the safety of the dog. Believe it or not dogs love learning tricks because it means that they get lots of human time.

All of my neighbours dogs, cats & even horses will rush over to greet me. None of them get food - they do it because they love the interaction. One of the reasons why keeping a dog outside is frowned upon is because the dog tends to get forgotten. When you own several dogs you see their interaction with each other & their total emotional dependence on humans.

Scioch

Discodog wrote: »

Not true. Today two of my three, the other one is a bit too old, spent time chasing after & retrieving balls. That has nothing to do with control. It's about play & interaction of which the interaction is the most important part for the dog.

Some critical "tricks" like recall are about control & are done for the safety of the dog. Believe it or not dogs love learning tricks because it means that they get lots of human time.

Commands such as sit, stay, beg are all about control and the dog plays along only because they are coerced into doing it. The treat is the most important part for the dog. Without treats you have to use stern tones to illicit fear to make them comply. They dont sit because the understand what your saying to them they sit because its beneficial for them to do so.

Stuff like chasing and fetching they do enjoy because its similar to what they would instinctively do. And they interact with humans so well because they have been brought up with humans. They see humans as other dogs, they know their place in the hierarchy but your are just a higher ranked dog than them not a human they love. So its erroneous to say they love human interaction, they like interaction from higher ranked members of their pack.

In the wild they wouldnt miss human interaction because they have no notion of what a human is. A human owner is nothing more than an alpha male to them.

Discodog

LordSmeg wrote: »

In the wild they wouldnt miss human interaction because they have no notion of what a human is. A human owner is nothing more than an alpha male to them.

Again you are so wrong. Alpha males belong in Wolf packs. If you read "In Defence of Dogs - John Bradshaw" (yes I know I mentioned it before) all will be explained. My dogs don't see me as an alpha. They see me as an equal & totally different to the way they see themselves & other dogs.

All this alpha, dominance, pack rubbish has been dismissed & no reputable trainer uses such methods. Yes dogs do exhibit some Wolf pack behaviour. The problem is that we have totally misinterpreted the Wolves in the first place.

peasant

LordSmeg wrote: »

The treat is the most important part for the dog. Without treats you have to use stern tones to illicit fear to make them comply.

The treat is a new invention by incompetent trainers who like to "buy" their dogs rather than earn their respect and co-operation. (backfires of course as soon as you run out of treats )

Inducing fear on the other hand is a step back to the old days of brutal and outdated "alpha dog" kind of training.

Believe or not, you can train your dog with simple praise and correction. Let it know when it's doing things right and tell it when it's doing them wrong and it will learn a lot quicker and a lot more effectively than with bribery and threats.

And why is that?
It's because through millenia of domestication the dog has developed a unique understanding of human behaviour. They can read our facial expressions, our body language and our tone of voice just as well or sometimes even better than we can ourselves.

It's just us who are incapable or unwilling to understand dogs, not vice versa.
They are bilingual, we're the monoglots.