Canine advice

[Nienna]

What I see here is a following of one point of view. There are a lot of behavioral trainers out there and each one seems to have a different idea of what is the right way of training and what is the wrong way of training. There are some who are very critical of Cesar Milan's way of training and this could be for various reasons, one of which could be that they see "their way" threatened.

But if we approach the training of our 2d friends in the same way that we go about gaining any other kind of knowledge - via many different approaches, it would seem to me that this would be a very balanced approach.

There is almost nothing "simply wrong". There is right, there is wrong, and there is the specific situation that determines which is which. A well-trained dog can sleep on your head if you train him to do that, and he'll never for a second think he's in charge. The devil is in the details.

I think this says it all. As, always, there is the right, the wrong and the specific situation. Thank you SAO. :)

Sure this is not about who has more experience and who is more knowledgeable. I would never want to force my opinion on anyone.

But this, indeed, seems to be what you are doing, or so it seems to me. To get everyone to acknowledge that you are the authority and you are right. The "right man syndrome." Are you able to see this?

You seem to be emotionally attached to the fact that their is no other way than your way.

My point was simply that many people dare to own a dog when they did very little to inform themselves on what this dog really need. Instead they project themselves into this relationship. I see this over and over again.

There are people out there who get an animal and do not understand what it entails to keep one in a healthy fashion. But I tend to think that letting one sleep in the bed is much less lethal than starving it to death, or not knowing what is needed to keep it healthy.

Also, there are those who do like to be so dominant that they beat the animal, chain it with no food or water just to show it who is the dominant one. And then those who get a dog only for the fact of dog fighting, which is to show who is more macho with the most macho dog.

For me, these psychopathic people are more of a problem to animals than someone who lets the dog sleep on their bed, or who let's the dog express itself once in a while.

There are very many ways of doing things, it doesn't mean that one is right or wrong, simply it is different. And as long as it is not endangering the animal physically or mentally then all the better.

 

[PepperFritz]

I'm sincerely curious about whether you have any idea how you come across with these statements you've made? Can you see that these statements could come across as not only judgmental and confrontational but actually a bit venomous - if not abusive?

Stormy Knight:

For what it is worth, I also observed that your statements on this issue come across as very judgmental and confrontational, as well as quite emotional in nature. Perhaps you should take a moment to observe where those emotions are coming from and consider whether they are appropriate to the situation. It's not a question of being "right" or "wrong" in your views, it's more a question of External Consideration. As Gurdjieff counseled:

If a man sees his fault but continues to justify himself, a small offense may destroy the result of whole years of work and effort. In the work, therefore, it is often better to admit one's guilt even when one is not guilty.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Also a small point,

But you are not a dog. Arent you?

natural question after Freya uses the fact that dogs "sleep wrapped up in each other" as an argument that its ok for humans to share their bed with dogs

But you use the argument of how dogs behave in packs to support your theory of how humans should interact with them. Your argument is that the pack is hierarchical and they see us as members of their pack and behave accordingly, and this is why we should not sleep with them because it sends the wrong "signal" about who is in charge. So if you can use dogs' pack behavior to justify your opinion on human-dog interaction, why can't Freya do the same? Otherwise the same question can be asked of you - who cares if dogs behave in a hierarchical way with other dogs in packs, we are not dogs are we?

But you are right, we're not dogs. If a pack leader has to sleep in an "elevated" or separate position from the rest of the pack (I don't know this as I haven't studied dog pack behavior), does that necessarily mean a human has to? Maybe humans are smarter and more "flexible" than dog pack leaders in their interaction with dogs? I mean, you don't see too many dogs running circuses where other dogs ride bikes do you lol. (Unless they do when nobody is looking)

Or maybe some dogs are more flexible? What is necessary in dog packs may not be necessary with humans, and dogs, perhaps some dogs, may be able to learn this kind of stuff and "adapt" to a different type of environment, different type of relationships?

 

[Z...]

Indeed... on your part. I know nothing about dogs, I just notice that your views about it seem really rigid. You refer a lot to authorities on the subject, but what about people's experience? As others said, not all dogs are the same, maybe those who are ready to graduate to the 3rd level (just taking this as a hypothesis) are the ones that would tend to sleep on the beds, to seek more interactions with humans. They'd have a different behaviour than the typical/pack dog. Why refusing to take this as a possibility?

I have lived with the dogs, and I also work daily with people who live with the dogs. All my experiences point out that conclusions of people who devoted their life to canine research are pretty much correct. Any dog will tend to sleep on the bed if encouraged, that is part of their normal behaviour as they will try to rest together with equal members of the pack. Never with the leader of the pack.
If human being chooses to live with the dog it can only be as the pack leader as anything less then that would create unsafe environment both for the dog and for humans. That is why I think that having a dog is a big responsibility.

But that's what you do. You keep repeating that it's Wrong to sleep with pets, making it a rigid and unmovable Truth, and not taking into account anyone's personal experience.

Point taken. If you have learned yourself with trial and errors and witnessed the effect of such errors in numerous other examples then for you it does become pretty unmovable truth. So far the only contra arguments offered were based on emotional attachment and attributing the dogs human characteristics.

That is true, we all have this dream of a perfect relationship, and realising it's not possible until we are whole and clean psychically speaking is painful. Even more painful when you think that even if you're "ready", that doesn't mean there's One for you here. You bring this issue here, which is interesting. Are you sure you didn't project onto others what you feel yourself on this particular issue? Just my impression.

The reason I brought it here is because I witness too often situations where the animal is taken in as a surrogate for inter human relationships.
This varies from being very subtle to being very obvious. Again I say, IMO there is nothing wrong with it as long as it is done consciously and with taking animal's needs firstly into account.

here is what Charles Danten (The Angry Vet) has to say on the subject and I find there is a lot of truth in it:

50 to 60% of the population of rich, industrialized countries owns one or more pets. And this trend is rising. 70% of the people, according to a recent survey, consider their animals as family members to the point of refusing to call them “pets,” preferring the word “children.” 63 % of pet owners consider themselves as parents of a child.

This trend is thought to reflect great human qualities of compassion, love, and friendship and a deep urge to get closer to animals and nature in general.There is a persistent belief that pets are well treated in our society, as well if not better than our own children.

Fine, but what if this impression is as wrong as the idea that the earth is flat?

....

The persistence of this carefully nurtured dependence will eventually trigger a permanent state of anxiety that will lead to various psychological and psychosomatic problems. All species are affected in various degrees. Gregarious animals like dogs and certain birds like those of the parrot family (budgies, cockatiels, large parrots) are especially prone but so are cats, reptiles and even fish. All those that spend time in our company, that share our beds, our meals, that we constantly pet or talk to affectionately, that we give treats to are unconsciously conditioned to become affection junkies. The anxiety they feel following an absence or a lack of attention is equal to what a newly born feels when he is separated from his mother. Their happiness being dependent on this attention, they try their best in whatever ways possible to maximize their satisfaction: They will scratch or lick to attract their Masters attention who by responding will unconsciously perpetuate this behavior to the point where a medical intervention is necessary. For this reason, seasonal allergies will often last well beyond the normal time. They will fake a sore paw or cough to provoke sympathy and an interaction. They will constantly ask for the door, make objects fall, vocalize continually. Some will soil their home in order to get a punishment that will paradoxically stimulate some well-being. In short, anything but being ignored. Like a drug addict weaned of his drug, the dependant animal goes cold turkey in the absence of his master. This will often manifest in various strange behaviors. Commonly dogs for example when left alone will literally go crazy, destroying and soiling their environment. We have all heard the neighbor’s dog howling to death while his Masters are gone for the day. What he’s actually trying to do is to call back to his side his surrogate mother. Cats will urinate on their Masters cloths or bed. Parrots will start screaming and pulling out their feathers in some cases to the bone. Some will start drinking more others will become bulimic or chronic lickers. A few will become chronic masturbaters. All these behaviors are exaggerated manifestations of natural functions like eating, drinking, preening, walking or reproducing.
.....
What has just been briefly described is vitally important to understand the real meaning of the human pet bond. In fact, what is taken for a loving and noble relationship of the kind that demonstrates the best in humanity, what is mistaken for a healthy and productive relationship vehemently condoned by the pet industry and society in general is nothing in fact but infantilism, emotional dependence and a reciprocal servitude for in order to enjoy and seek this kind of unhealthy relationship you have to be yourself quite infantile and dependent. The extent of this inclination will vary considerably according to the importance the subject of your «love» has in your emotional life. In other words, the more dependent and infantile, the more empty and lonely you feel, the more identified you are to the object of your affection, the more you «love» and become attached. An anticipated separation will often lead, like for the animals described above, to various expressions of anxiety. In certain cases the loss of a pet will literally be felt like an amputation. Veterinarians are frequent witnesses of these dramatic shows of bereavement.
....

And if you are of the dominating type, even sadistic, you find your pleasure in the control and servitude of a weaker being: « Love is not what makes the world go around. There remains affection. […] Affection mitigates domination, making it softer and more acceptable, but affection itself is possible only in relationships of inequality. It is the warm and superior feeling one has toward things that one can care for and patronize. The word care so exudes humaneness that we tend to forget its almost inevitable tainting by patronage and condescension. '', writes Yale professor Yi-Fu Tuan in his book Dominance and affection: the making of pets.

 

[anart]

I would say that taking my words out of context and labeling them as venomous and abusive could indicate such emotional investment but I may also be wrong.

One last question - if someone spoke to you in the manner in which you have spoken to others in this thread, what would be your reaction? If you can answer that honestly - objectively even - then you may get the point that several people are trying to make. If you cannot, then that is ok too.

 

[Z...]

And as long as it is not endangering the animal physically or mentally then all the better.

Well this is how the whole debate has started

But you are right, we're not dogs. If a pack leader has to sleep in an "elevated" or separate position from the rest of the pack (I don't know this as I haven't studied dog pack behavior), does that necessarily mean a human has to?

yes if they want to be perceived as pack leaders. They also have to eat first. These are the basics.
This is not about the dominance. The dog can be relaxed only if he knows that he has a capable leader which will provide for him.
If he doesn't have such leader the balance is disturbed and this will lead to all sorts of abnormal behaviros depending on nature and individual characteristics of the dog.

Maybe humans are smarter and more "flexible" than dog pack leaders in their interaction with dogs?

unfortunately great majority of dog owners is clueless

Or maybe some dogs are more flexible? What is necessary in dog packs may not be necessary with humans, and dogs, perhaps some dogs, may be able to learn this kind of stuff and "adapt" to a different type of environment, different type of relationships?

Definitely.
as I said in my reply to anart on other thread I certainly don't think there is one rule that fits all, but we are talking about pure basics here.

 

[FireShadow]

"If a pack leader has to sleep in an "elevated" or separate position from the rest of the pack... does that necessarily mean a human has to? Maybe humans are smarter and more "flexible" than dog pack leaders in their interaction with dogs?"

The theory that one needs to be the pack leader (and assert leadership) may well be valid. However, a canine pack leader is limited in the forms available to assert his leadership. Eating first and sleeping in an elevated spot are available to him. Those are forms. Humans have many other forms to assert leadership. So, I think that if humans find other forms to assert leadership, then the forms of eating first and sleeping in an elevated spot are not necessary. It seems to me that the process of asserting leadership is the important consideration, not the forms. I don't have to be a dog and use dog forms to be a pack leader and assert my leadership.

Note that not all arguments that sleeping with animals were based on emotional attachment, see my comment (http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=10040.msg73253#msg73253) given as anecdotal evidence that so long as leadership is asserted, the forms matter less.

 

[Pierre]

The theory that one needs to be the pack leader (and assert leadership) may well be valid. However, a canine pack leader is limited in the forms available to assert his leadership.

That very true "dog owners" as lack of better term provide food, shelter, protection, medicine, walk, games,... far enough tools to build a healthy and mutually respectful relationship.

Behind this leadership forms there are two other parameters that allow to balance the interaction. First is timing, there are time when it's necessary to state leadership, to show limits, to apply rules and there other times to share, play, love each other. By the way those two times are not mutually exclusive.

Second there is the "teaching philosophy" between the authoritative master who only acts through beating, cutting food, locking, screaming, leaching and the lenient one who consider his pet as more than a human being there's an infinite variation of balanced approaches.

 

[Lirpa]

But you are not a dog. Arent you?

You are not a dog yet you are making assertations that you know what being a dog is like and what dogs need. It is puzzling that you state that you know what dogs need but that others do not when you are not a dog either.

The gist of it is... I do not treat dogs as humans I treat them as beings. I don't have the Tarzan jealousy program running and feel the need to re-enact the "law of the jungle" in my house to make up for my insecurities or needs. I just am and they just are. I just let them be who they want to be while providing a safe, healthy environment. I certainly don't feel the need to follow society's norm on how "humans" should act or be so why would I force that on them...for them to follow how "dogs" should act or be. This is my direct experience not biologists', not Cesar's, not other people, etc.

Rather than focus on the use of terminology "dogs" and "humans"...for me what it all boils down to is that we are all "beings" here. Broad generalizations that all dogs need this or that is like saying all white people are uneducated and stupid.

Who am I to determine another being's needs on this planet? Why do I need to have dominion over anything? In my case, choosing to co-exist with them is not misplaced surrogacy for absent human relations. I actually prefer their company by choice.

And this is not true. Pack leader always sleeps on elevated ground and separate from others. At least this is what biologists tell us. I personally never had opportunity to observe the pack of wild dogs.

Are the biologists dogs? How do they know? Did they specifically ask one of the dogs or was it mere observation? Observation is often subjective perception and assumption no matter how clinical and scientifically it is arranged.

Also, we are talking about domesticated dogs not a pack of wild dogs.

I do not have wish to perpetuate this debate about sleeping either, apart from obvious hygienic reasons there is ample evidence that this is simply wrong. Anyone interested in the subject should reach their own informed decision. Seems there is a lot of emotional attachment to this issue of sleeping with pets.

This seems a bit dismissive.

 

[bedower]

PepperFritz, thanks for reminding me...

The cats are another story. They must be physically removed from the bed. They view me as staff....

Although, in fact, I encouraged all my cats to sleep on my bed - for a purely selfish reason; they make a wonderful hot-water bottle on a cold night... ;D

 

[JonnyRadar]

fwiw, my dog sleeps in my bed, when she doesn't have fleas (!), and yet she still sits when i say sit, waits until i begin eating to eat, and so on... actually, i carried her around like a sheep on my shoulders when she was a pup, and from what i can tell she still considers me the "pack leader." she's a little excitable, but in my own experience, not all dogs are naturally calm as a rule.

have to agree with PepperFritz and bedower though, my cat is the overseer of his realm, the indisputable pharaoh of his domain.

 

[spyraal]

Hello to all,

I can only attest my own personal experience on dogs. For the past 8 years I have 5 dogs in my house (most times are in the garden), and i also help as much as i can some local animal rights association to give medical care, food and lots of caressing to stray dogs living in packs inside the city and the city's dump, since there is nothing done by the state other than throwing poisoned feed every once in a while to "practice some control on the growing herd".

I have seen extreme cases of animal abuse, observed the behaviour of packs of stray dogs as well as my own "pack", and listened to various people claiming expertise in dog training.

IMO, it is all about what kind of relationship one wants with his dog, or to be more accurate, what relationship he wishes to have, since not everyone has the knowledge or experience to sustain a healthy relationship by default. So during this building up of experience, the concepts of what is "right" and "wrong" go through a lot of natural change while we grow in our knowledge. I think that this realization alone is enough reason for us to be more understanding with what others might don't know and/or to be more reserved in our estimations on the current extend of our knowledge. So, in that context i also believe that Stormy Knight's response to Freya came across too "monolithic" so to say, because Freya cannot be asked to disregard his/her personal experience -as anyone for that reason- over any "expert's" opinion no matter how valid it appears when that seemingly expert opinion somewhere contradicts with what our own personal observation has suggested. In my opinion, what comes validated from the personal experience of each is behind a thin line that ought to be respected and which can only be crossed in a discussion by showing some mutual openness and willingness to ponder further without having very firm views, together with some gentleness as a gesture that indicates that we want to find the truth of the subject more than we want to find ourselves correct in our opinion. Maybe this could be something SK missed, and he did not fully realize that a certain "tone" that was present in his expressions when phrasing:

But you are not a dog. Arent you?
...
This statement shows further emotional involvement and definitely tells me that you know very little about dogs or wolfs.
...
Anyone stating that canine society is benevolent social structure without hierarchy displays emotionally clouded or wishful thinking and severe lack of knowledge of canine world.
...
Unfortunately great majority of dog owners is clueless
...

I agree with SAO when he said:

There is almost nothing "simply wrong". There is right, there is wrong, and there is the specific situation that determines which is which. A well-trained dog can sleep on your head if you train him to do that, and he'll never for a second think he's in charge. The devil is in the details.

Personally, i got my dogs originally to save them from the bitter fate of the streets and utterly to keep me company. Therefore, i treat them like a "person" in terms that i understand that they will only behave and respect the house rules willingly only when they are happy which in dog terms i think is having company, having some fun, food, being treated nice and cared for etc. I think that some dogs DO understand enough so as to allow one to have such a smooth and two-way relationship with them, which is pretty different than the mainstream dog training practice because it is also based on an understanding of each other and not only the understanding of some rule. I consider my dogs beings that we share and live together, and so i want for them in order to function without problems to have as much balance of character as i would like an actual human to have. And from my experience this approach does work with some dogs characters.

Also, i gave some thought of the hierarchy inside a canine pack trying to form an opinion on how usefull or necessary it is and how it came to be. My guess is that it exists because it is more efficient for the survival of the group for one mind to "call the shots" in critical times so as the group will not waste energy and efficiency with internal self-conflict but instead it will invest the greater sum of its energy to secure survival and the benefit of the whole pack. And that educative guess of mine is backed up by my observations on packs of stray dogs. So if i am in any way accurate in this, since the domesticated animals live in a somehow different set of rules than the ones in the wild where true resource competition exists, that might leave the door open for another kind of relationship with them provided that we spent the time and effort to build it.


As it concerns Stormy Knight's reference to various expert opinions and publications, in my opinion, these do of course have some value as i suppose they must be based on a great number of observations and the behavioural patters that emerged from them. But on other hand a friend of mine is a herdsman with 200 sheep, which because they are bred for their milk, they are not "recycled" by slaughter every year but live almost to their natural deaths. From there i can tell you that most of them respond to their respective names (!) and even one of them called "Beethoven" always acts in separate, like grazes alone on the directly opposite side of the field all the others are grazing, walks alone on the opposite side of the road of the rest when moving around, drinks water alone long after all others are gone etc.! And this is "just" a sheep that we are talking about which is generally supposed to be even "less developed" than a dog. Well, give that to a behavioural scientist to feed his databases! :)

P.S. Here is a picture of the sheep called "Beethoven" ;D