Nailing Cesar Millan With Tough, Truthful, Appropriate Questions - It's About Time
- Thread starter AdrianneIsabel
- Start date
It's a kick. 
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2012
- Messages
- 886
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
Excellent! So why are we arguing?
I enrolled my dog in a class that taught me how to jerk him around on a chain. At the time, it seemed to be working but new problems kept popping up in response. Now we use treat/praise/clicker training, as you are doing, and we're all having a lot more fun.
See? Isn't it nice when we all agree?
I enrolled my dog in a class that taught me how to jerk him around on a chain. At the time, it seemed to be working but new problems kept popping up in response. Now we use treat/praise/clicker training, as you are doing, and we're all having a lot more fun.
See? Isn't it nice when we all agree?
I have a question for which I'd love to hear the answer. I've read the entire thread, including the complete sentences (as much as possible - I promise, punctuation and capitalization will only help you get your point across).
Obviously Bubba is a very happy dog, and adores you and gets a lot out of his life. I certainly can't argue that based on what you've written here, and I doubt I'd see differently if I could see you in person. "Spanking" him worked to achieve what you wanted.
But, knowing what we know today - as science and learning theory and the experience of countless people can confirm - that you could teach him all those same skills without ever having to poke/smack/spank/touch/stomp at/do whatever to him...would you still do it? If you knew (and I admit I don't understand how people can still argue this fact) that using praise, treats, toys and life rewards could give you a dog that still behaved as well as one who was trained physically, would you still choose to smack him on the bottom?
It's a concept I always find difficult to understand when having this discussion with various people. We *know* animals can be trained using positive methods. Of course, we all have moments where we lose our temper, we react quickly out of fear, or we just plain fail. But with those all-too-human mistakes notwithstanding, why would anyone who loves their dog make a conscious decision to hit them rather than reward them? I love my dogs so much that my eyes water and my chest feels full whenever I talk about them. I make mistakes just like everyone, but I'd far rather give them a cookie, or tell them they are a genius, or drop to the ground to play and cuddle than hit them, however lightly. I don't doubt that those who train using physical corrections love their dogs as much as I do (or nearly, because of course nobody could love their dogs as much as I love Meg and Gusto) - so I can't figure out why they would want to hit them.
Obviously Bubba is a very happy dog, and adores you and gets a lot out of his life. I certainly can't argue that based on what you've written here, and I doubt I'd see differently if I could see you in person. "Spanking" him worked to achieve what you wanted.
But, knowing what we know today - as science and learning theory and the experience of countless people can confirm - that you could teach him all those same skills without ever having to poke/smack/spank/touch/stomp at/do whatever to him...would you still do it? If you knew (and I admit I don't understand how people can still argue this fact) that using praise, treats, toys and life rewards could give you a dog that still behaved as well as one who was trained physically, would you still choose to smack him on the bottom?
It's a concept I always find difficult to understand when having this discussion with various people. We *know* animals can be trained using positive methods. Of course, we all have moments where we lose our temper, we react quickly out of fear, or we just plain fail. But with those all-too-human mistakes notwithstanding, why would anyone who loves their dog make a conscious decision to hit them rather than reward them? I love my dogs so much that my eyes water and my chest feels full whenever I talk about them. I make mistakes just like everyone, but I'd far rather give them a cookie, or tell them they are a genius, or drop to the ground to play and cuddle than hit them, however lightly. I don't doubt that those who train using physical corrections love their dogs as much as I do (or nearly, because of course nobody could love their dogs as much as I love Meg and Gusto
) - so I can't figure out why they would want to hit them.
Now that I'm done laughing out loud... the "well you wouldn't treat your children like that" was valid in context because CM kept saying "it's a family" (or words of that nature), and the interviewer was trying to point out that this isn't how we treat family. If our dogs are family, then we should try to treat them with respect and kindness, as we hopefully treat our other family members. (if you aren't treating your family that way, you have other issues which are beyond the scope of this forum).
Since they are dogs, and not humans, treating them with respect and kindness should mean respecting their canine ways. Which don't involve hitting. Healthy dog communication involves an enormous amount of posturing, and little if any physical contact. We can't replicate dog communication, because we aren't dogs, but we can honor the idea of it by giving our dogs lots of clear information about what we want, and respecting their cues about how our behavior affects them.
Since they are dogs, and not humans, treating them with respect and kindness should mean respecting their canine ways. Which don't involve hitting. Healthy dog communication involves an enormous amount of posturing, and little if any physical contact. We can't replicate dog communication, because we aren't dogs, but we can honor the idea of it by giving our dogs lots of clear information about what we want, and respecting their cues about how our behavior affects them.