New age methods...

[LuvMyAbby&Kaela]

This is bound to be a hot one.
Before I begin I am throwing in the disclaimer that I do infact follow the modern reccommended methods of dog rearing (for the most part)...I use positive reinforcement like "the books" say to do.

But.... (here is the controversial part)

I dont know how much of the new modern methods are actually psychobabble intended to idiot-proof the general public to protect themselves from the dodo's of the world who will do things to an extreme. For example the breastfeeding thing is pushed so hard here. We all know it is baby's ideal food but I also know for a fact from an insider in the Northern Health Authority here that it also tends to help prevent lazy, ignorant, impoverished mothers of questionable class from making formula in an unhygienic way, from substitutuing cows milk, or even kool-aid in the bottle. Also in third world countries where the water source is contaminated the baby always has fresh, healthy breast milk. But a responsible intelligent person of resource nourishing a baby with a good quality formula is just as good. If one chooses to breastfeed, fantastic! But they shouldnt be strong armed into it with propoganda meant to save babies that actually need to be saved. I am not an indigent, transient, impoverished unintelligent person who needs to be pushed by nipple nazi's to breastfeed my baby. I am capable of nourishing him by the method of my own choice. Be it breast or bottle.

Then there is the "spanking debate"....no need to say more.

Now what I am getting at in the long roundabout way is that I dont know if I, truly in my heart, believe this new age method of "the dog doesnt have a memory so you cant reprimand her for peeing/pooping in the house unless you catch them in the act". I tell you ladies a part of me thinks this is baloney! The "old way" was to grab the dog rub his nose in it and out the door they went! I think those dogs got housebroken faster. Personally I am too much of a softie to be that harsh but I tell you it seems they really did get it faster.

And I dont believe the memory is as short as books say. If I come into the room and see pee on the floor all three dogs are looking at me guilty! (Even the old one who hasnt peed in a dozen years - lol) LOL So they know it is not kosher. If I walk towards the puddle of pee saying "who did this????" I will see little butts scurry away. They always know exactly what I am talking about .

I do show it to Kaela (praying I got the right dog - lol) and say "this is Duties! Duties NOT in the house" Then I put her out. I have done this with Abby as well. I dont just ignore it.

So it leads me to wonder how much of it is publicity to stop people from beating the tar out of their pets. To idiot proof the general public. To stop them from abusing their dog. Face it, no authority will ever say it is OK to spank a child for fear that people will take it as a licence to beat the tar out of them. And no public authority will ever say it is OK to reprimand a pet for fear people might take it as their right to abuse the pet.

I think it is OK to give the dog a mild reprimand for "duties" after the fact, and I think they do infact remember doing it.

[LuvMyAbby&Kaela]

Yes diapers make things easier. We just tore out the carpet in our family room because the puppy pee stains kept resurfacing. The new flooring looks fabulous and is waterproof lol. Also hygiene issues. But that being said I am the first to tell people to expect it to take 6 months to housebreak a dog and then expect the odd "oops" til 2 yrs old even. I tell them this because I hate it when people get new puppies that are only like 7 weeks old and they are already complaining.

[Adina P]

To me it's not whether something is 'old' or 'new' that makes it right or good. I don't base my decisions (except perhaps when it comes to fashion) on whether something is 'modern' or not. I do based my decisions on whether something seems logical and makes sense and is based in evidence that leads me to a conclusion of my own.

I think it's a bit presumptuous to think that because 'modern' folks have new ideas their modern ideas are better. Some might be. Some might not be. Each idea and method and recommendation needs to be judged on its own merits...not whether it's old or new. If not then we shouldn't listen to any music that is older than ... say... 20 years ago. And no senior would have anything wise or useful to say...only those my age and younger. I honestly don't think people are superior in 2010--some things might be. But not everything simply by default of being 'new.' You know that old adage "there's nothing new under the sun." Well I think it's generally true.

Breastfeeding is OLD. It's formula that's new, in my opinion. And there are a plethora of studies that do show positive connections between breastfed babies and better results in many areas...not to mention the extra 500 Calories used to help with weight loss! That said, it doesn't mean bottle feeding is evil or wrong...but I think there is enough connection between improved health, cognition, etc in breastfed babies (as a whole) that it's something women should be WELL educated about before making the final decision.

As to dog's memory. I have no doubt they can tell their pee from another dog's and they aren't truly lemon brains and have a memory. But I think there's a difference between having a memory and making the same connection that a human would make. So rubbing a dog's nose in its pee or poo doesn't necessarily mean they understand the full idea of "See this pee that YOU created? NEVER EVER do this in the house again!!! This belongs outside ONLY!" I think their connection is much less complex than that...as that is a lot of information to gain from having one's nose rubbed in pee that I just don't believe dogs make. My guess is they experience an aversive thing connected to you and then, if it works, it works because they don't want to see you angry like that when it comes to pee... They may not fully understand that the punishment is due to peeing IN the house. Same thing if you reprimand a dog for chewing something they shouldn't have. You might form a totally aversive connection for them with regard to having a sock in their mouth...but that doesn't mean they feel guilty or sorry about it. It just means that they had a bad experience with a sock in their mouth so they'd rather avoid having a sock in their mouth again. Slight difference, but still a difference. Doesn't mean they won't try a shoe or a bra or some other item later. I also strongly believe that the modern everything-should-be-positive training ideas are NOT taught due to the potential for crazy people to do things wrong. I truly believe the people who teach this way truly believe it is the best/only good way. I don't agree it's the only good way, but I think they do.

Just my thoughts. Ultimately I'd say "new" does not equate with "better" just like "old" does not mean "worse." Judge each idea on its own merits not merely by their popularity.

[F, Calla & Luca]

I do agree that people should make their own decisions about things like breast feeding. Sometimes best for one person is not best for another. Convenience in scheduling , the need to work and issues like that may lead to using formula for babies but that does not negate all of the studies about human milk being best for babies due to fat content, immunity, etc. Certainly the fact that the results were good, or bad, in individual cases proves nothing either way. In terms of house training dogs or in any kind of training for them I think a combination of methods works best for me. I don't ever want my dogs to be afraid of me, however. I do think they need to know I am not pleased with what they are doing , or sometimes even with what they have done. If my dogs can understand "Lets go to the porch", which they show by running to the porch, why can't they understand when I say "Who's been digging? No digging!" even if they're not digging right then but are with me at the hole they've just dug? I think this is true for discovering "accidents" in the house. Also,with children I think hitting them teaches them to fear the person who hits them. It also teaches them to hit others. The first part is true for dogs, The second part may be true also in that they too may become aggressive.

[Adina P]

I don't know I think a directive is far simpler: Let's go to the porch (they may understand "Go" and "Porch") as they are simple things to do. But "Who's been digging? No digging!" seems far more complex of a statement to me. It also won't necessarily do anything to prevent future digging.

I also don't think that a dog seeing an owner upset will lead to the dog being generally afraid of the owner. Thule is 'afraid' of Clark or I getting near her when we have an ear wash bottle in our hands...but she's not afraid of him in any other circumstance and he's not harsh or mean to her...she just HATES getting ear wash in her ears. The perceived awfulness of the ear wash is pretty high...higher possibly than having her nose rubbed in pee (which we don't do). Dogs sniff pee up close quite often...sometimes so close they may get some on their nose...I don't think it's the humiliating thing it is to us to be up close and personal with urine. But it still seems excessive and I don't think they necessarily get the message we want to give them. But also...like LuvMyAbby&Kaela...it supposedly worked 'back in the day' and I can't imagine all of those dogs lived fearfully, cowering around their owners at every interaction. Then again I didn't live 'back in the day' so I can't even from observation say "wow...yeah...I saw it work on tons of dogs."

[F, Calla & Luca]

I did not mean the dog would be afraid because we're upset but if punitive measures such as hitting were used. I think it's good for dogs to know we're upset with them sometimes and that hopefully they'll avoid certain behaviors to avoid our displeasure. I don't think Thule is afraid of Clark when he has the ear wash but rather that she is afraid of or dislikes what he is about to do. So if directives are clearer isn't ''No digging" a directive albeit a negative and less pleasurable one? They understand no for sure and maybe they understand, or can learn, the meaning of digging. I do keep forgetting that my dogs have Attention Deficit Disorder and so they need simple directions.

[Adina P]

I don't know, really, I'm merely speculating myself. I think, in general, it is much easier to teach a DO than it is to teach a negative (DON'T do!).... I think "NO digging" would be learned if the dog were caught in the moment while it was digging. But "no digging" as a concept after the fact...where digging is an idea (which it is if the dog isn't DOING it at the moment) and NO applies to this abstract idea...then I think it is way too complex for a dog to understand "no digging" outside of the moment he's digging.

You could probably teach "no digging" as a term they here coupled with an aversive...but beyond that I just don't think they 'get' it the way it might appear.

[Nancy, Ned, Clancy, and Charlie]

I find this interesting because I am on the old side. I don't think there is anything wrong with a swat = kid or dog. My kids didn't hit as a result of the occasional swat (actually only one of them needed those swats) and my dogs don't cower or bite because they got an occasional swat, AND I felt much better afterward. It is said don't swat your kid (or dog) in anger = heck if I wasn't very, very angry I wouldn't have considered the swat in the first place!
Seriously, one of my children was very kinesthetic and required a physical reminder once in a while - running into the street, sticking things in the light socket, for example. These "lessons" precede teaching of the Look. Works for kids and dogs. I am the boss not their friend; I don't need to be nice.
Two of three breastfed, two of three have asthma - not the same two. I do admit the one not breastfed has the more serious asthma and allergies though.

[Jennifer Tramell]

I think a lot of stuff is psycho-babble, it is used for people and animals. I don't like "rubbing" a dogs nose it it's mess but I'm all about taking the dog to the mess and holding his head where he can smell the pile.
If my children do something wrong, I take them to "the scene of the crime" and correct them using sight and sound. A dog is a scent animal, he doesn't care if I wax eloquently about the virtues of going potty outside. He's not going to neccessarily associate the pile he sees with the unhappy 'energy' I'm exuding. I want him to know what I'm correcting him for, I want the no! to be associated with the pile.
This said, each situation needs to be handled differently. If I am gone all day and my dog is stuck in the house, can't hold it any longer, and makes a mess, I take the dog into the room where the mess is and say in a disappointed tone "no, no, outside". It doesn't matter if the dog remembers making the mess, I'm not blaming him (it was my fault) but he needs to be reminded that we don't do this in the house. If the dog is ill and makes a mess - hey, I clean it up and give the poor guy a pat hoping he'll feel better soon. If I am sitting in one room and the dog decides to sneak in the other room to go potty, instead of asking to go outside, I will take him to the pile, reprimand him in a very unhappy and forboding tone and take the mess and the dog outside saying "Outside! Potty outside!".
That said, I think it is always important to know the dog's personality before disciplining (as opposed to punishing). Some dogs need a little swat to show you are serious (a mama dog does some pretty strong disciplining when needed) while others are compliant and sensitive and need little more then a sharp tone of voice.

[Sandy]

Toby definitely needs more than a "No, No'. He seems to use that as a starting point, and go from there. He needs a firm grasp of his collar, or a time out in his crate, or being tethered to me....mostly for acting out (being too boisterous in the house, for instance). I need to remember that he is a dog, not a person. I know I am guilty of treating him too humanly.

[Roxanne Ochs]

I agree. If a dog can remember the name of their favorite toy, they certainly can remember, if they've been disciplined before for doing bad things they know they shouldn't do ~ poop and pee in the house, chew up a shoe, etc.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

You know, the thing is that these ideas of not disciplining or correcting the dog unless you catch him in the act are not new; I was just looking through an old Matthew Margolis training book from 1973, and he says "Never correct a dog unless you catch him in the act. A few minutes after the deed has been done, the dog has no mental capacity to connect your wrath to whatever he did wrong." And goes on to say that negative housebreaking methods are wrong, the dog acts shameful when you come home because he associates your arrival with punishment, etc.
Now, this is a guy who made millions teaching people the "corrective jerk" method of training. Today's "positive methods only" trainers are horrified by some of his advice. He is definitely NOT "new age". So, I am at a loss as to what to think about all this. I think it must be very hard for new puppy owners to decide who to listen to these days.

[Adina P]

I agree. I think the ONLY way 'after the fact' discipline/punishment works is the same way 'before the act' aversive training would work. The owner creates a very unpleasant event connected to an act (having a sock in mouth, sifting through trashcan) so the dog associates that act with unpleasantness and thus avoids repeating it. BUT it's not because he realizes "ooooh I did bad."

But one thing that I always wonder is: why rub a dog's nose in pee or poop when that means you then have to CLEAN their nose of pee/poop?....ICKY!