Hitting dogs

File: image.jpg (16KB, 299x255px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 299x255px

>>2195885
Don't hit them, that's cruel. I use pic related.

>>2195885
Being aggressive towards an aggressive dog will make the aggression worse. Think about it; a dog gets aggressive when it is uncomfortable (in pain, in fear), so to train the animal, you make it uncomfortable (via fear, pain).

Unfortunately, this method of training is often used on breeds known to have stranger and dog aggression (although it's not good for any breed) and, to make matters worse, is also often used to stop aggressive behavior when it actually makes it worse.

So it's no Hitler of dog training, but it's no helpful and really isn't dog training, when many people are misguided into thinking it's the only way to train.

If you can't out-think a Rottweiler, heaven help you. It's not that difficult to control a dog without having a screeching meltdown and flailing at it.

>>2195895
>It's not that difficult to control a dog without having a screeching meltdown and flailing at it

This, you just need to control your violence and give them a short whack on the snout.

>>2195885

Rotties are perfectly friendly dogs. Get some books about them.

There's no such thing as an 'alpha' wolf fyi. That's outdated.

>>2195885
The whole "alpha" "leader of the pack" thing is complete and utter bullshit and has been disproven to the point where L. David Much, a wolf expert who originally wrote about those things has asked his publisher to stop printing his books where he wrote about it.
The alpha thing is one of those things that has become so widely taught by misinformed trainers to the detriment of domesticated dogs.

Dogs aren't wolves. They may have descended from them but have been selectively bred for so long that even if the bullshit about "alphas" was true dogs would be so far removed from it

>>2195885
>I don't even have a dog yet and I'm already covered in blatant red flags that show I'm a shitty owner, try to convince me to not be one

>>2195885
>I'm considering getting a rotty and I'm sort of thinking a big dog-beast like that isn't going to listen to anything other than violence.

Dont get a dog, dont get any pet, i will make sure you dont touch a animal ever.

kill yourself

>>2195901
This.

All dogs are bred to respond to their owners. If your dog isn't responding to anything other than violence, you may just not be ready for that dog.

It doesn't matter how alpha or whatever you are, if a dog with a backbone sees you as a threat, it WILL attack you and it WILL win. If you plan on beating it until it's afraid of you, then you'll have a dog that's scared all the time.

You don't want a guard that's afraid of humans and you don't want a guard dog that wants to murder you.


If you just want it for companionship you won't get a dog that's been bred to do anything that would require violence to handle. If you get one that's like that, take it back, it's not the dog you want.

>>2195885
>Does hitting a dog make it worse

Usually. There are plenty of other methods with much better results.

>>2195908

Sadly /an/ attracts many ignorant people, thus the frequent threads where people ask for help when their pet clearly needs a vet.

>>2195885
Okay don't listen to the faggots that are basically saying "leader of the pack" is bullshit. You have a potentially aggressive breed and if you let it think it's the leader of the pack so to speak, it is going to defend what it believes is rightfully theirs. It's irresponsible to pretend that dogs are somehow not animals.

In terms of hitting dogs though, don't fucking do that either. You don't want this dog to be scared of you, but you do need to assert yourself as leader of the pack. You do this by setting the rules, as in determining where it will it, when you play with it, being calm but assertive when it misbehaves. I think leash corrections are a much better form of positive punishment than striking an animal.

tl;dr "positive only" "non-dominance" tards have no idea what they're talking about, but you shouldn't beat your dog period.

>>2195885
This is a two part series, and a long watch about 1h40m, but worth every minute of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU-BtaVxQMY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c5EQMPIkaA

If you get more into k9-1's training method, you'll understand they don't advocate beating an animal. They do advocate using the entire spectrum of operant conditioning in a responsible way and shoe examples of it.

Seriously if you're considering getting a Rotty, watch these videos.

>>2195927
You're an idiot. No one is saying OP can't assert himself or should let the dog do whatever it wants. They are trying to redirect him away from outdated and shitty behaviors techniques.

>>2195908
>>2195909
OP is looking for real, educated reasons not to beat a dog. If you just give him emotional responses, it will just reaffirm his idea that people who don't support violence in dog training are just emotional pussies who don't want to hurt their puppies.

He is willing to hear what we have to say. If you want to convince him, this isn't the way.

Even if pack theory were correct ( it's not) what fuckwits like you don't understand is that every member of a pack is constantly jostling for a better position in the pack. Wolves don't just pick a leader and say opp well he's the boss better do what he says the rest of my life, they're constantly probing and challenging the leader, looking for any kind of weakness and seeing what they can get away with. So basically if you raise your dog in the shit way you want to, all your going to do is encourage him to wait for you to let your guard down and then attack you so he can be the leader.

>>2195932
Read this post and tell me they're not saying to not assert yourself. That's exactly what they're saying.

>>2195907

>>2195885
>I'm sort of thinking a big dog-beast like
>that isn't going to listen to anything
>other than violence.

if you can't get a simple dog to behave without beating it you shouldn't get a dog at all you fucking retard

>>2195933
I mean I'm telling him not to beat his dog. That's going to cause the dog to have fear aggression.

Positive punishment is okay when applied appropriately, but outright kicking the shit out of a dog will do nothing but make it scared of humans.

>>2195933
http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theotherendoftheleash/confrontational-techniques-elicit-aggression

>The most confrontational, and I would argue, aggressive, behaviors on the part of the owners resulted in the highest levels of aggressive responses from the dogs. 43% of dogs responded with aggression to being hit or kicked, 38% to having an owner grab their mouth and take out an object forcefully, 36% to having a muzzle put on (or attempted?), 29% to a "dominance down," 26% to a jowl or scruff shake.

>Thus, the study is not so much about “reinforcement” and “punishment,” as about what happens when you threaten your dog, or forcefully and physically respond to misbehavior. Please be clear that I am not saying that if one of us occasionally raises our voice to our dog, or has a moment of humanity and loses our temper, we are going to destroy our dogs forever. Neither am I saying that aversives are always bad: aversive events are part and parcel of life, and we all need to know how to handle them, dogs included. However, as many of us have observed for years, using force and confrontation as a primary method of dog training often backfires and creates some of the very problems it is trying to solve.

>>2195885
My hunting mate once said: your dog should listen to you because you are its friend, not because it fears you.

What's the point in having a dog if it doesn't act as a punching bag after a hard day at work?

If it becomes aggressive just hit it harder or keep it in a muzzle all the time

>>2195885
We'll I mean.. don't completely kick it's ass but there's nothing wrong with giving it a smack on the behind with a newspaper or something. Not to intentionally hurt it but just like if it's bad it gets an uncomfortable whack on the ass and no treats or pets, whereas if it's good it gets treats and pets.

>>2195960
What's the point of having a wife*

Fify

>>2195935

Aren't pack leaders literally just the parents of the other wolves?

>>2195961
Please never own an animal

>>2195885

>big dog-beast
>Rottweiler
>big dog-beast

Please let OP be a troll. Rottie's are adorable and not even that big.

>>2195964
Yes, that's why pack theory is wrong.

>>2195935
The reason a wolf will challenge it's leader is because it's needs aren't being met, and it feels it needs to supplant it's leader for it's own survival. You should assert yourself as a leader, but you also need to make sure that all of a dog's needs are been adequately met.

By asserting yourself as "leader of the pack" I do not mean:

-acting like a dog
-beating a dog senselessly in a bad attempt to "assert yourself"
-flipping it on it's belly and yelling

What I do mean is

+controlling the food
+setting appropriate boundaries
+controlling when and what activity you will do

That's basically what an alpha wolf does. An alpha wolf doesn't just go around chewing on other dogs faces or getting aggressive just to flex it's nuts, but an alpha does have control of resources, and what the pack will be doing, when to hunt, scavenge, etc.

Now I know you probably don't want to hear any of this, and your response will be "wolves aren't dogs" which is completely false. Dogs are wolves. What separates modern domesticated dogs and wolves are that human beings have selectively bred wolves with some of their natural instincts as animals suppressed to be useful to us in a human environment.

Most dog owners apparently still think slapping your dog with a rolled up newspaper is okay. It's not abuse but it's improper.

>>2195979
I do all those things for my dog and I don't view myself as being a """pack leader""". I view myself as a dad for my dogs. Anyone can do those points you mentioned without having this weird deluded sense that your dog sees you as some sort of alpha wolf.

Is acting like you are the "leader of the pack" harmful if you aren't a dick to your dog? Not really. Is it deluded, baseless in science, and has nothing to do with operant conditioning: the only real way to train a dog? Probably.

>>2195981
Leader of the pack is just a label. Dads tend to be head of household- same difference.

>>2195983
I think you missed my point. It's not a mindset I am actively in. I don't sit around and consciously feel I MUST be a leader to my dogs. I just don't. I don't make them walk in and out of doors behind me. I don't expect them to walk behind or in a heel on walks. I don't eat before them. I don't do any of the various little "dominance" things you hear people tell you to do with pack leader theory.

Setting boundaries and controlling when you do activities is just being a dog owner. The simple fact of the matter is the only way to shape a dog's behavior is via operant conditioning. Anything else you plop on top of operant conditioning is there for you. Your dog doesn't give two fucks about it. If having that mindset is helpful for you when training a dog (and you aren't being a dick to it), then go for it. But it really isn't needed.

File: 1285614354807.jpg (24KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x450px

>>2195885

There is nothing wrong with physical reinforcement.

Same with a child. Where controversy rightfully emerges is from people who think its an expression of their own frustration. That is completely wrong. You are not permitted to act out your frustration on innocent creatures.

You do not physically discipline something and express your own frustration at the same time. Anger is inappropriate in interacting with either in the first place.

There is no personal passion to it. The point is not to hurt or even mildly injure either. There doesn't even have to be actual pain, even mildly.

The point is to physically startle their sense of what is happening in a negative way so they associate it with bad behavior. The swift aggressive physical contact is the corrective force, not pain or injury. Its meant to be emotionally disruptive, not physical attack. If done properly, it should only happen once or twice for each improper behavior. A vocal association also should be made so the creature understands the tone or sounds and associates it also so you dont have to do it again and can just use voice, stance and expression to infer the same clues and doesn't need the jarring pat or whatever. There does not need to be actual pain, nor should there be. Its about emotional disruption, which itself is very uncomfortable

Its a far fucking cry from people who actually beat their children or pets in anger. Negative physical re-inforcement is a valuable discipline method. The term doesn't mean you hurt your poor pet or child. Beaters just use it as an excuse to pardon their pathological outbursts. Its not the same thing

Iirc, that Cesar guy has a similar method of physical negative reinforcement in interaction, the pseudo nip at the neck and startling noise. It achieves the same result and there is no need for actual pain. Its the disruption that is useful. By creating uncertainty, you make the creature uncomfortable. They wish to avoid repeating it, thus the association

>>2195981
When did I imply that? And yes your dogs view you as a leader. Just because you don't view yourself as a pack leader, doesn't mean your dogs don't view you as that. You're the one calling the shots and providing for them, and that's really all you need to do to be a "pack leader." Having a pack leader is also what settles disputes over control of food and such.

What I am attempting to convey is that being a pack leader doesn't mean being a prick to your dog. It doesn't mean being aggressive with your dog or looking at your dog saying "I'M THE ALPHA WOLF MOTHER FUCKER YOU AREN'T GOING TO DOMINATE ME"

No that's fucking stupid, and I'm sure that's the misconception you have when people mention "dominance" or "pack leader" when dog training/obedience comes up.

What I do mean by pack leader or dominance, is that the dog simply looks up to you for guidance on what to do.

As far as you telling me it's baseless in science, that's completely false. Give me one study that says domesticated dogs don't have a hierarchy structure.

By telling me that you're doing what I described above though, and then denying that it's what works just shows me you want to deny reality because you feel more comfortable viewing yourself as a "dad" than a leader. It's the same thing. Dogs don't give a shit about that. Go ahead and don't do that stuff and tell me how your dogs behave. Let them do whatever they want and tell you what to do and tell me you don't get behavioral issues.

>>2195990
Who's initiating any training via operating conditioning? Is it you or the dog? If it's you, you are the dominant one calling the shots. That's all a dog is going to notice and care about.

A dog isn't going to read books and say "hey train me using operating conditioning" or "hey train me using these positive only techniques that charlatans have been peddling" nor compel you to train it how to sit. As far as not letting it walk in and out of doors without you, that's all situational and I would agree it's if the owner wants to do that.

I just think you have some awful misconceptions about dominance in a human dog relationship, even though you practice it yourself without consciously accepting or realizing it.

>>2195995
>Give me one study that says domesticated dogs don't have a hierarchy structure.
http://www.kora.ch/malme/05_library/5_1_publications/B/Boitani_&_Ciucci_1995_Comparative_social_ecology_of_feral_dogs_and_wolves.pdf

>Feral dogs social units do not function as wolf packs, namely for the
lack of clear dominant-subordinate relationships throughout and of firm social bonds among all group members.
>lack of clear dominant-subordinate relationships

If feral dogs naturally do not behave similar to wolf packs, then what does that say of companion animals?

Yet further, in the wild, wolves don't really have the social structure you outlined.

http://westernwildlife.org/gray-wolf-outreach-project/biology-behavior-4/
>A pack is an extended family group comprised of a the breeding, or “alpha” male and female pair and some of their subordinate offspring and current pups from one or more years. The alpha wolves decide when the pack will travel and hunt, and normally are the first to eat at a kill. The pair’s offspring normally disperse into adjacent or available territories at 2 to 3 years of age.

It's just a breeding pair and their kids, and the kids fuck off after a while.

>>2196000
Thanks for the reading!

File: 1358794629440.jpg (47KB, 500x498px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x498px

Hitting dogs only works if you do it correctly.

You have to hit them hard enough that the candies and treats hidden inside their bodies are released in a shower of festivity.

>>2195901

Ive been attacked by 2 of them, they have high rank drive.

I grew up on Cesar Milan's BS but in hindsight all that stuff is stupid. I don't think my dog even notices if I eat before her. Neither does she understand why I used to turn her on her back randomly.

I wish Nat Geo Wild would stop airing his stuff already. It's incorrect and giving people faulty ideas. I know people who swear by him just because he has a tv show.

>>2196000
>lack of clear dominant-subordinate relationships throughout and of firm social bonds among all group members.
There's also the problem of neoteny, and the fact that feral dogs mostly recruit instead of giving birth to more members of the pack. Now it does say there is not a clear relationship dominant-subordinate relationship, but doesn't dispute if there is one or that a hierarchy doesn't exist. This dominant-subordinate has been observed clearly in feral packs clearly with what are considered to be less aggressive breeds, meaning they have less of their wolf instincts suppressed.

>A pack is an extended family group comprised of a the breeding, or “alpha” male and female pair and some of their subordinate offspring and current pups from one or more years. The alpha wolves decide when the pack will travel and hunt, and normally are the first to eat at a kill. The pair’s offspring normally disperse into adjacent or available territories at 2 to 3 years of age.

Are you fucking dense? The fucking quote that you put says exactly what I said, albeit in more detail. This is also another point where neoteny comes into the picture, since most dogs upon reaching adulthood don't try to move onto their own territory. However, this is when a lot of behavior issue do arise in some domesticated dogs.

>>2196019
>less aggressive breeds
more aggressive breeds

oops

>>2195993

Smacking your kid is not good either. Child psychologists don't agree with it. I grew up with parents who believed in corporal punishment and it didn't do much.

Milan is a tool. He's been recognized as abusive and his techniques are outdated.

Hitting your dog does nothing positive. It's a thing of the past, there are better techniques now.

>>2196015

People get attacked by Chihuahuas all the time. Blame the owners, not the breed. Rottweilers aren't that aggressive.

Fuck you u animal abusber emo twg

>>2196033
>abusber

nice dubs

>>2196023
>Hitting your dog does nothing positive. It's a thing of the past, there are better techniques now.
t. liberal hippie cuntbag

>>2196040
Why is that the only "argument" you people can use anyway? What's so liberal about not hurting animals for no good reason?

>>2196044
>for no good reason
you hit it when it does something wrong, so it's not without a reason

A bap on the snout is fine if their behavior warrants it.

I only do so when I get bit during play, as it stops the playtime and I can take the toy away.

My dog and I play fight hard, but she has learned to go nowhere near my face as a result of it. All she's allowed to grab are hands, feet, and my pant legs until I say "all done" or she gets a dry mouth. Whatever comes first.

Generally, hitting a dog makes it only worse in the long run.

>>2195885
>I'm considering getting a rotty and I'm sort of thinking a big dog-beast like that isn't going to listen to anything other than violence.

this is pretty much the opposite of what you want to do, because once that dog realizes it's bigger and stronger than you, you're fucked.

>>2196023

It case I wasn't clear to others, I just want to specify:

I think maybe its the term 'hit' that may confuse people because we are talking about degrees.

I can use the term 'hit' and mean different things. If a leaf falls from a tree and 'hits' you, it simply means collision contact. It doesn't mean you were hurt by leaf.

So if someone 'hits' their dog, it can either mean a jarring pat, or it can mean they deliberately impacted with enough force to cause pain. I am not advocating the latter whatsoever.

I can't be convinced that giving a disruptive pat meant to jar the creature somehow hurts it. Its a basic physical conditioning method, since I cant give an animal and order to drop and give me twenty push-ups. Its the same disruptive negative physical enforcement idea, to associate discomfort with improper behavior.

I dont know much about Milan, so I cant speak to any rumors. I am not, however, inclined to lend a lot of weight to the field of child psychology because they have never not once been held accountable for any of their horrible theories before, and I dont expect they will start now. One doesn't need a degree to know that shocking your child with negative emotional disruption corrects behavior, and that that fact does not permit child abuse or excuse violent anger or sadism.

The point is to create discomfort through shock and uncertainty precisely because you can create certainty again immediately by positive association, and return comfort and reward.

That is, you are trying to create a very narrow moment to remember of shock and discomfort. You are *not* trying to instill terror and an ongoing sense of helpless suffering, which is counter-effective in the long run.

Your dominance is already established. Neither a pet nor child need to be bullied with abuse to re-establish what they already know...

>>2195993
There will always be people that want/need to hit/beat their pet/kid/whomever as training/child rearing/working out their relationship. Hey, sometimes it works.
So I propose that if OP is set on using positive punishment (punishing bad behavior) to train his dog instead of positive reinforcement (rewarding good behavior), then he should read up on clicker training.
Using the clicker will be easier for the dog to distinguish rather than trying to say the same word/phrase in the exact same tone (or giving out the exact same hit/beating) for each behavior.
The technique will also help with timing. In clicker training, if you don't click within 3 to 4 seconds of the behavior, the dog will not be able to connect his behavior with the reward/punishment. You don't want to confuse your dog/make it think you're some psycho that doles out random smack downs. It will just become fearful and/or unpredictable (since he sees you as unpredictable).
Finally, the dog will learn that the click means something bad. So after a while, you can click the dog and he will know that he did something wrong without having to beat/hit him every single time.
You can even use clicker training with both positive reinforcement AND positive punishment. Just make sure that the "click"/signal for the reward is different from the punishment one.

Also if you just want to startle a dog, use a whistle or a pop can full of coins. It will make a loud noise that animals hate without having to have your hands near its face. Best of all, no pain for the dog.

File: 1330351185943991.gif (1020KB, 400x229px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 400x229px

>>2196071
If there is an argument against conditioning with physical negative reinforcement, its that we have to have these discussions because too many people want to cite it to excuse sadistic and childishly violent conduct towards helpless beings.

File: nJ5UX3F4V49bgFvWatoG.gif (1MB, 300x201px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x201px

>>2196074

That sounds good. I cant speak to it because I know nothing about clicker conditioning. It sounds legit though.

I am a bit confused how such a neutral sound that could sound like any number of unrelated phenomenon stays effective, or how the clicker is always present during bad behavior.

As long as physical correction is indeed harmless, both physically and psychologically (hard enough to actually hurt but not hard enough to injure or create sustained pain) I don't see an issue. As I said, pain is not necessary, although some might suggest magnitude vary depending on the excited mood of the animal or its size. You wont, for example, notice a pat when you are excited as much as when you are at rest. Nonetheless, I dont see a situation where it has to be hard enough to cause actual pain.

So I like the clicker idea for its audio component and lack of potential for abuse, but am unclear on using a common click that could sound like anything, or how the clicker is supposed to be available fast enough for every misconduct within association time.

>>2196076
>towards helpless beings.
that's what you get for not winning the evolution game

>>2196085
It doesn't have to be one of those clickers that you buy. I snap my fingers.

>>2196085
It doesn't have to be a clicker but it will not work as well if you just use your voice. Your voice varies too much from too many different things.

Also, when using a clicker, you can get multiple clickers (as long as it's the same type so that the noise isn't different) and attach one on the leash, your key chain and your phone. They also make some that you wear around your wrist.

Hopefully, after a year or two, the dog will be well behaved enough that you don't need to have it strapped to you 24/7.

>>2196085
>r how the clicker is supposed to be available fast enough for every misconduct within association time.
Well, when you use a clicker for positive reinforcement, one of the big pluses is how much faster it is marking good behavior than using your voice. So the entire purpose of a clicker is it is fast enough for every positive action you want to capture.

Can't help but to imagine the same could be said if you were using it for corrective purposes. Never tried it myself. I just use em for positive reinforcement.

>>2196091
Also also, the distinctive sound of a clicker is ANOTHER huge reason you use one. A clicker doesn't really sound like anything but a clicker, so it is really easy for the dog to associate that very specific noise with a reward (or punishment in this case).

So pretty much the two doubts you gave are massive reasons you actually DO use a clicker for positive reinforcement. I know it's not quite what we are talking about here, but I imagine the benefits are portable.

File: catnip-hell-of-a-drug.gif (2MB, 312x235px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 312x235px

>>2196089

I see. I suppose clapping would work too, however I dont understand how either has the variety of customizable audio cues for feedback as ones voice.

With ones voice, people often warn pets when it appears they are about to misbehave, like the difference between a dog giving a mischievous gaze at an unguarded sandwich ('nooooooooooo......') and actually trying to take it ("NO!") .

>>2195885
I hit my dog, but she likes it. it makes her nuts and she runs around the house as fast as she can.

she's a hunting beagle.

>>2196097
Clicker training is strictly positive reinforcement. Or you could use it strictly for negative, I guess. I use it as "hey I want you to do something, pay attention".

Course, I have a kitten, not a dog. Negative reinforcement doesn't work well with cats.

File: 1324409454001.gif (1MB, 320x198px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x198px

>>2196091
>>2196094

I see. The only other issue I'd see is one of logistics; one cant reward good behavior all the time since the point is to always have good behavior. For example, there is no 'opposite' of all bad behavior to reward. Instead, one has to wait for the bad behavior to happen to recognize it. I can't, for example, always reward a dog for *not* jumping on people or *not* pilfering treats from the dinner table. I have to wait for them to happen so poochy understands that specific behavior is not acceptable. I cant correct him if I am just generally rewarding him for all the bad things he is not doing by watching the dinner table or not jumping on people.

I dont know if I am explaining myself correctly.

I have to go; thanks to all for a nice and informative discussion.

>>2196097
You can do that (and I think most people do this instead of using a clicker). It just means that the dog will have to learn the difference from when you say "nooo..." and "NO!" and "notebook" and "No." and "noooOOOoooOO..."

If you use a clicker then there's no confusion that you meant to say "NO!" and not "nope?..."

>>2196107
>always reward a dog for *not* jumping on people or *not* pilfering treats from the dinner table
Uhuh, you can, m8.

>>2196107
The doggo needs to learn good behavior is what's expected. Bad behavior should be deterred but through positive means: for example, feed the dog at the same time that people are eating. Treats are cheap: I use kibble as a treat.

File: 1369424425922.gif (2MB, 334x252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 334x252px

>>2196105

lel

>>2196106

>Negative reinforcement doesn't work well with cats.

True, I will think about that. It works, but only in a very broad context. Cats seem to have a harder time making specific associations towards their own behavior, but can learn (somewhat) broader things like 'dont go here' or 'this isnt your toy'.

It may in fact be more accurate to suppose that a cat *understands* what it isn't supposed to do but doesn't possess any concept of social hierarchy to give a crap whether the owner likes it or not.

>>2196117
Cats aren't as antisocial as most people think. They aren't completely solitary but definitely don't have the kind of social structures dogs or rats do.

Clicker training is based on Skinner's work on shaping. You can read more about it here if you want to understand it better: http://www.thecrossovertrainer.com/skinners-quadrants-series-part-i/

>>2196111

Alright, let me put it this way. If I am constantly rewarding any creature for *not* misbehaving, then the corollary desired outcome would be rewarding it constantly.

That's as far as I am going down that road or else this will turn into an argument about whether I should give Timmy a trophy just for showing up or lead him to believe he deserves special praise for not turning into a delinquent thug, while everyone else managed to do it without have a party in their honor every weekend.

There's a point, and we've reached it. Good evening.

File: 1319559747847.jpg (103KB, 1000x647px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1000x647px

>>2196123


Will read, ty. Have a great night and week ahead.

>>2195885
As long as the dog did something wrong when you hit it and you don't just get drunk and smash bottles of beer next to him the dog will understand and learn

>>2196124
>Alright, let me put it this way. If I am constantly rewarding any creature for *not* misbehaving, then the corollary desired outcome would be rewarding it constantly.

you're supposed to wean your dog off the treat, the same as if you were teaching it a trick.
>>2196124
>an argument about whether I should give Timmy a trophy just for showing up or lead him to believe he deserves special praise for not turning into a delinquent thug, while everyone else managed to do it without have a party in their honor every weekend.

you're really anthropomorphizing dogs here. They don't think like people, and you're atributing human logic to them.


Unless this is an analogy. in which case, you're still wrong, because if you get nothing for doing good and getting punished for doing wrong, what the fuck is the point of doing good? You just get good at not getting caught doing bad.

>>2196017
I found out recently that my sister has always followed Cesar Milan's teachings with her pets.
I've always followed Zak George and his positive reinforcement training

>>2196017
It's not so much that his ideas are bad. The thing is that his stuff works because he is so so good at reading dog body language and so perfected his technique that I doubt many owners are able to keep up with what he showed them. I mean it doesn't change the fact his technique is like 20 years out of day, but it works.

I would be really interested to see how the dogs and owners on his show are doing 6 months to a year in.

>>2196147
>so so good at reading dog body language
Is this sarcasm.
He's worse at it than me.

>>2196150
good sarcasm there, fag.

>>2195885

it depends on the dog and/or the situation

if it's chewing the leg off a small crying child, you can kick and hit and shoot it and rape the dead dog corpse while waiting for 911... if it pooped on the floor because it's a little puppy who isn't housebroken, that's really not a situation that needs to turn violent

>>2195901
>There's no such thing as an 'alpha' wolf fyi. That's outdated.

lol cool, how are your dogs' behavioural problems going? still treating them like equals i guess?

>>2196174
So is this the new meme dominance posters are going with now on this board?

>You are using pack leader theory, all of you! You just dont know it!

>>2196206
Are you fucking retarded?

Dominance isn't holding your fucking dog and humping the shit out of it to show it who's boss. It's simply being in control of what you're dog is doing.

If you fail to take the lead of a dog just wait and see the wonderful behavioral issues arise.

The guy earlier that said "Yeah I'm not the pack leader I'm the dad" is a fucking idiot. He did everything that establishing dominance would entail, but because fuck heads like you think dominance means randomly beating your dog or doing weird shit like making it watch you eat before you feed it or humping it on it's back or something he doesn't even realize he's being dominant in the relationship.

I mean seriously define what you think dominance is and then we can have a discussion on why you're wrong.

File: 1368334766183.jpg (196KB, 500x586px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 500x586px

>>2196209
>Dominance isn't holding your fucking dog and humping the shit out of it to show it who's boss

That still isn't a solid argument not to do it though. Just because something doesn't establish dominance doesn't mean it doesn't have other value.

Feeding your kittens doesn't establish dominance with your dog. Are you saying we should starve little kittens because it doesn't live up to your standards of canine domination? What other atrocities would you endorse? Its a pretty short move from starving kittens and gassing Jews? Should I just assume your a Hitler apologist also?

Think before you post. If you're going to come here to pontificate what people should and shouldn't do, maybe you need to look in the mirror and do a moral inventory on yourself.

The defense rests, your Honor. I move that we adjourn to the sauna while I remove the duct tape from this bat before it claws my head again. In other news, I've never been a cherry danish. Thank you and good night.

>>2196174

It's literally outdated. As said, 'alpha wolves' are simply the parents. Of course the parents are dominant over their pups.

>>2196061
Bap on the snout is fine. It doesn't hurt as long as you aren't using force, but it's jarring and distracting enough to get their attention.

Dogs are literally retarded. They have been bred to be retarded and look up to you. They want your attention and approval. Beating them and yelling at them more than half the time just confuses the fuck out of them. If you come home and they had shit on the floor, disciplining them when they are happy to see means fucking nothing. If they are upset because you have someone over? You need to let them know its OK. They are not barking for themselves. They think this person is a real threat and they want to let people know that they are not ok with it. That is an alert and a warning. And people need to realize that this are animals and you need to make comprises. Even with dogs they will not be 100% on your side all the time. Every new person, someone she knows NEEDS to let her they are ok. She won't Attack bit she will flip out and back away from then every time unless legit someone says "it's ok". After that she will suddenly love them. It's annoying but fuck it. Dogs are not robots. You have to make comprises.

It's true, physically admonishing any animal is just outright wrong in 100% of cases.

This is why if I see a cat bowl over one of its kittens for being naughty or a dog nip one of its pups I immediately separate the youngling from the parent permanently. They obviously weren't ready for children anyway.

Raise your animals the way nature intended, with kind words and treats from a packet, just like in the wild!

Remember, you must be submissive and subservient to your animal in all ways at all times, that dog you bought is now your boss, keep it happy by literally pandering to its whims at all times and if it acts out, that's your fault! Give it more treats and love and cuddles and shit.

>>2196227
So you agree with being the leader to your dog, as long as the semantics suit you?

Your dog doesn't care about semantics, but okay.

>my dog barks at me to get me to do things for it and controls my life but at least i showed those randoms on the internet that i'm new-age

>Two dogs, Dog A and Dog B
>Dog A does something which Dog B dislikes
>Dog B growls at Dog A
>Dog A continues to do thing after a short pause
>Dog B bites Dog A
>Dog A stops doing thing

Checkmate fucksticks.

>>2196232

>They obviously weren't ready for children anyway.

You have no idea how terrified I was till I read to the end and got it. You had me going, thinking it was one of those people that get their dog vegan dog chow.

I had a dog in the past, I really liked it and it liked me too, but it was fucked up mentally because of previous abusobe owners. One day it was eating, noticed that he was almost out of food so I filled some more, suddenly out of nowhere it attacked me. I was so pissed that I raised my fist and punched it right in the skull from under my fist.

First and only time I've ever beaten an animal, and I never had to do it ever again.

Dog was a mix of schaefer and some pitbull

>>2195898
Fuck that. They are getting a full on booty smacking beat down with a punch to the nose at 80% power

>>2196411

Well, I think one can be excused for reflexes when attacked. I'm sure if you had had a few seconds to think first, it wouldn't have made sense.

In truth, yes, some animals have an aggressive disposition for any number of reasons. Its not a reason to hurt them, of course, but a very aggressive or poorly conditioned animal is going to take more to convince it that its not acceptable to resort to violence as its first response. Angry strikes mean they are already emotionally disturbed, and have to sense equal or greater changes of emotional intensity.

Often, this simply can't be helped at all, and you have a socially incompatible animal either way. Abused animals are not so unlike humans. If they are taught early on that pain and violence is what to expect from the world, they naturally get proleptically defensive and assume anything can lead to an attack they must prevent any way possible.

The pain and worry stay with them forever, and one has to expect various erratic behavior. One can choose to accept it and let the poor thing simply tire of violence and worry over time, or not accept it. But the animal is not likely to change quickly, and violence towards it may cow behavior, but it only makes the state of the animal worse. True mercy and compassion cannot always expect kindness in return, and that is something the individual has to decide for themselves.

>/an/ - New age hippies & cavemen arguing all the time

File: ss+(2016-08-22+at+11.35.36).jpg (46KB, 622x300px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 622x300px

>>2196147
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ihXq_WwiWM
1. food guarding is an advantage in the wild.
2. Giving food and then stealing it makes you an asshole
3. She's really not a fan of this human.
4. He punches her and she reacts. The ears back, whale eyes, licking her mouth repeatedly, her grimace, they're all signs of fear.
5. Rather than distracting her with a higher value thing (a really good treat, for example), he makes her feel far unsafer when she eats.
6. as soon as he punches her, she's backing away to avoid confrontation, but he closes in on her, giving her nowhere to go.
(tbc)

File: ss+(2016-08-22+at+11.38.20).jpg (31KB, 347x244px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 347x244px

>>2197037
7. This (whale eyes, ears back, generally looking very uncomfortable) is relaxation??? I just see a scared and intimidated dog looking for reassurance from her owner. All she wanted to do was eat, man.
8. He touches her after this. She doesn't like this human. This human hurt her and got in her space. She was still worked up and reacted in the only way she knew would get him to leave her alone: biting him. First she snaps at him and he bent down and got close to her again. Leave her ALONE man.

Tl;dr: he fucked with a dog who already was bad for food guarding and then misread signals all over the place. He got, quite rightly, bitten.

>>2197041
You do realize he owns this particular dog now right?

>>2197060
As in that exact fucking dog. The same one that bit him.

>>2196209
>>2196224
>pick out one or two lines in a post you disagree with
>zero in on it! over-exaggerate to compensate in your post!
>ignore everything else and start splitting hairs
>end up with a long, verbose shitpost where you try and sound as witty and clever as possible while ignoring that the poster actually is in agreement with you because you'd both rather sling insults than attempt to read

aah, my favorite meme

>>2197062
last I heard, it was that she got put down.

>>2197103
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlN6NsbWAQg

>>2196174
You don't have to pretend to be the "alpha" to have a well behaved dog, nor do you need to treat them like your children or equal.

>>2197107
man
it still doesnt change that he ignored every warning sign she gave him.
I'm glad she has a home though.

>>2197151
So what people make mistakes. I'm not even saying that he's the best dog trainer that ever existed.

What's more important is that he took full responsibility for the dog, and saw it through to the end to make sure she was well adjusted instead of dumping her at a shelter or euthanized her or something.

>>2197151
Everyone makes mistakes.

I am not condoning his methods. They are super out of date. But he is good with dogs, and has perfected his little methodology. As I said, I would be really interested to see how the owners are fairing with their dogs 6 months to a year in after working with him.

Sometimes i throw up

>>2195957
Isn't it near impossible to train a dog to hunt without use of a shock collar?

>>2197199
That's how electricity was invented 400 years ago, it was because people needed e-stim collars.

>>2195885
>listen to nothing but violence
Violence 100% of the time makes dogs worse. Military and police trainers don't hit their dogs during training and they have the most disciplined dogs period. That said if you bought a leash already hang yourself with it. I wouldn't trust you with a dead rat much less a dog. You're obviously in no fit shape to take care of anything.

>>2195885
Dogs have been trained for thousands of years to respond to verbal commands including tone of voice and facial expression, and rots are no exception. Only a retard hits their dog.

File: cane_benedizione_chiesa_animalvibe.jpg (10KB, 299x203px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 299x203px

don't hit me!

>tfw trolls keep creating these "if you don't beat up your dog with baseball bats ever day, you're probably a retarded woman" threads
>tfw /an/ keeps biting these low-quality baits

>>2195885
Spanking them on there ass or jumping on top of them and biting there ears works for me

>>2197037
>>2197041

1.Only the strongest one keep the food in the wild, this dog should be weak in a family.
2.Only the strongest get all the rights on the food.
3.The situation was uncomfortable for her, whoever did it would get the same result.
4.All the signs were related to someone between her food and her, she's just new to the feeling of being uncomfortable, there's not much fear in her it's more confusion.
5.Food to resolve a food issue doesn't sound good, You only give food to a dog to encourage a good behavior.
6.As in wild life, Cesar is trying to impersonate the Alpha role who is taking back its rights on the food.
7+8.Cesar was just too confident and made the mistake to touch her too early.

File: 1431036904286.jpg (56KB, 604x392px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 604x392px

>>2199439

>>2199439
Dogs in the wild share food, water and anything of interest to them all the time.
They also change all the time who gets dibs, depending on who wants it the most. A dog might well show his teeth to this mates one day to get dibs on some carcass but not do it the next day because he found something else to eat before and is less hungry and worried about not having enough. All the while another will show his teeth and gets dibs because he hasn't eaten in days and will fight for his food if needed, the other dogs usually back off when they see he means business, even the previous day's '''''alpha'''''.