Do you smack your dog?

First topic message reminder :

Hi all,
Just wanted to know where some of you stand on smacking your dog and your opinion on the matter.
Personally if Gary is naughty i accept that hes young and he will have his tantrums but on occasions i feel i have no choice to smack his bottom with newspaper.
my other half doesnt like hitting the dog and cant bring her self to do it so when hes playing up its always "Dan come sort your dog out" then when hes behaving its her dog haha.

I want to make it clear that i dont strike him too hard, i dont strike him every time he steps out of line and that Gary seems really happy at home, and when i come back on the weekends he gets really excied to see me so its good that i dont scare him and he still knows that i love him.
I usually only smack gary on two occasions and there both reasons that one protects us and others and the second protects himself.

1) if he bites as you have seen in the gallery hes got a good set of nashers on him and i dont want him been an adult dog and using his teeth its something i want to nip in the bud whilst he is young.

2) Chewing electronic cables, again firm no and the news paper because id hate to not be in the room and he chews the cable for the telly or something and hurts him self.

The only reason i smack him is because i love him and i wouldnt want him hurt him self or anbody else and get destroyed. Its not something i enjoy and when he goes to sulk after i feel really guilty but its something i feel needs to do untill he learns that what he is doing is wrong.
In a way its good that my other half wont smack him and she leaves it to me because gary sees me as the leader of the pack and boss of the house and its god that he knows his place.

anbody else smack there dog?

Kev wrote:Im a hypocrite though because i cant bring myself to hit my dog. She looks so innocent but ive paid the price. I cannot get her to stop toiletting on my carpets and shes nearly 3

What have you done to stop her toiletting on your carpets? She obviously doesn't understand that it's unacceptable, therefore you have failed to teach her. That's in no way a criticism, but it is a fact!

Caryll wrote:All smacking does is teach a dog that there will be pain when you raise your hand!

I just don't understand why you would want a pup hurt in that way.

There is nothing quite as heart breaking as a dog that flinches and lies down when it sees your raise your hand

Caryll wrote:

Kev wrote:Im a hypocrite though because i cant bring myself to hit my dog. She looks so innocent but ive paid the price. I cannot get her to stop toiletting on my carpets and shes nearly 3

What have you done to stop her toiletting on your carpets? She obviously doesn't understand that it's unacceptable, therefore you have failed to teach her. That's in no way a criticism, but it is a fact!

I have tried:

Using a firm tone with her.
Putting her head up to it and saying "Bad" (She knows what bad means)
Giving her a lot of praise when she toilets outside so she knows its good
Raising my voice at her.
Using a firm tone and then ignored her for half an hour after (this is apparently a good technique)

They arent things I have tried once and thought "ah well". Ive tried them for weeks at a time, being persistant. Yet she just pees everywhere.

Someone said i deserve to be judged because i think hitting a dog is right. Which i never said, I basically meant that I have seen people who give their dog a tap (not abusing and punching) and the dog turns out to be a very well behaved dog and doesnt live in constant fear of being hit, it just seems to know that a tap means its done something wrong. I dont know whether its true or not, it was just because i feel i have tried everything but that and its not worked, although im not the sort of person who would do that so it wouldnt be an option. I was just making a point...

Kev wrote:I have tried:

Using a firm tone with her.

No good - that will just confuse her - she doesn't know what she's doing wrong; if she did, she wouldn't do it.

Putting her head up to it and saying "Bad" (She knows what bad means)
Raising my voice at her.

Unless you actually catch her doing it, punishment of any sort after the event will mean nothing to her. She just won't associate the punishment with the crime.

Giving her a lot of praise when she toilets outside so she knows its good

That's the best way.

Using a firm tone and then ignored her for half an hour after (this is apparently a good technique)

No, it isn't a good technique. She won't know what she's done wrong, so you're punishing her (in her eys) for nothing.

They arent things I have tried once and thought "ah well". Ive tried them for weeks at a time, being persistant. Yet she just pees everywhere.

You need to keep up with the praising when she goes outside & ignoring 'accident' because that's what they are - accidents. She isn't doing it to annoy you! If you actually catch her doing it you can give a firm "No" and put her outside straight away, but don't shout.

Kev wrote:Someone said i deserve to be judged because i think hitting a dog is right. Which i never said, I basically meant that I have seen people who give their dog a tap (not abusing and punching) and the dog turns out to be a very well behaved dog and doesnt live in constant fear of being hit, it just seems to know that a tap means its done something wrong. I dont know whether its true or not, it was just because i feel i have tried everything but that and its not worked, although im not the sort of person who would do that so it wouldnt be an option. I was just making a point...

If you hit a dog (tap or otherwise) it will probably know it's done something wrong, but it won't necessarily know what it's done wrong! For any punishment to work you have to actually catch them in the act - even 2 seconds later is too late! That's why positive reinforcement is far better. You encourage good nehaviour by making the dog aware that 'bad' behaviour gets no reward.

as you've probably seen things on Nat Geo with animals. what about pack leader behaviour? if someone in the pack does something wrong, what does the pack leader do? puts the naughty one in his place, often by agressive behaviour, does the naughty one fear the pack leader? yes they do, do they learn they're in the wrong? yes. do they do it again? highly unlikely. (now that's just an example, i'm not saying your dog should be in fear of you, far from it, but it's funny how things in the wild work, yet work well.)

when i was younger and our alsatian was naughty, he was told on numerous occasions "NO" but that had little effect and he continued to do naughty things so my mum used to give him a clip with her slipper. it didn't do him any harm.

it's the fine line of how hard you hit a dog. the sound of a dog squeeling goes through me. i hate to see any animal in pain.

this website gives a great insight of Staffs and has a number of years' experience, but i also know people who aren't on this website who've had staffs for years and have different views and would disagree with some things? everyone has an opinion and some people shouldn't take it so personally if they don't agree with their thoughts.

The domesticated dog does not form packs as such, in the wild. They have loose family groups. Yes, a group member may be snarled at or grabbed by the scruff, but there's rarely anything nasty done unless there is a scrap over mating or food.

We, however, are not dogs & cannot, therefore, be pack leaders as such, so pack law cannot apply to a human/dog relationship. We require things from our digs that are totally alien to dogs' lives & the best way to get what we want from them is by an unequal partnership. IE the dog does what we want because it wants to please us, not because he is scared of punishment if he doesn't.

Yes, hitting used to be the way to 'train', but we have moved on, nd now know that there are far better ways.

then that brings the question, if hitting used to work why change it? if its not broke don't fix it.

Caryll wrote:The domesticated dog does not form packs as such, in the wild. They have loose family groups. Yes, a group member may be snarled at or grabbed by the scruff, but there's rarely anything nasty done unless there is a scrap over mating or food.

We, however, are not dogs & cannot, therefore, be pack leaders as such, so pack law cannot apply to a human/dog relationship. We require things from our digs that are totally alien to dogs' lives & the best way to get what we want from them is by an unequal partnership. IE the dog does what we want because it wants to please us, not because he is scared of punishment if he doesn't.

Yes, hitting used to be the way to 'train', but we have moved on, nd now know that there are far better ways.

Kev you have just noted every single WRONG way to teach a dog to be toilet trained. You need to go and read a book or take some classes.

As for pack leader, as caryll said, we are not dogs, we vaguely know about dog behaviour, so we can not be a pack leader..

Steviec wrote:then that brings the question, if hitting used to work why change it? if its not broke don't fix it.

if someone was hitting you all the time you may take it in fear but at some point you would snap the same with wild dogs there may be a pack leader but everyday they need to put up with lower members trying for top dog
we now know fear is not the best training method to use .
so really it was never fixed it was just a incerdent waiting to happen fair does not always but there were a lot of dogs that would turn .
may not turn for good but they would strike out when backed into a corner

Steviec wrote:then that brings the question, if hitting used to work why change it? if its not broke don't fix it.

Sorry, that's rather a silly thing to say. When better methods of doing something are discovered we use them. It's that simple.

You might just as well say why do we use anaesthetics for operations instead of getting the patient blind drunk? They both work, but the anaesthetic works better!

everyone has an opinion of what are good and bad methods, but i suppose they are just that, an opinion.

i don't disagree with smacking then again i don't agree with smacking a dog at certain points, i.e toilet training.

Caryll wrote:

Steviec wrote:then that brings the question, if hitting used to work why change it? if its not broke don't fix it.

Sorry, that's rather a silly thing to say. When better methods of doing something are discovered we use them. It's that simple.

You might just as well say why do we use anaesthetics for operations instead of getting the patient blind drunk? They both work, but the anaesthetic works better!

better methods developed by who? and proved by who?

the second comment is a silly thing to say and a million miles away from a similar scenario for numerous reasons. no comparison.

Then I'm glad I'm not your dog, because you obviously are not open to new, more humane training methods.

Steviec wrote:

Caryll wrote:

Steviec wrote:then that brings the question, if hitting used to work why change it? if its not broke don't fix it.

Sorry, that's rather a silly thing to say. When better methods of doing something are discovered we use them. It's that simple.

You might just as well say why do we use anaesthetics for operations instead of getting the patient blind drunk? They both work, but the anaesthetic works better!

better methods developed by who? and proved by who?

the second comment is a silly thing to say and a million miles away from a similar scenario for numerous reasons. no comparison.

Better methods devised by competent behviourists & proved through training!

Caryll wrote:Then I'm glad I'm not your dog, because you obviously are not open to new, more humane training methods.

how have you come to that assumption?

that also sounds like i beat my dog to an inch of his life. relax.

Hitting has never worked, people years ago did not have as many dogs as pets and if they did they were not as home kept as they are today.

Just because torturing people for information works doesn't make it an okay thing to do.

Steviec wrote:

Caryll wrote:Then I'm glad I'm not your dog, because you obviously are not open to new, more humane training methods.

how have you come to that assumption?

that also sounds like i beat my dog to an inch of his life. relax.

CALM IT DOWN GUYS
Cant see the point of being a member on a forum were every post is rubbished if you dont like posts keep out of that thread .
if you cant find any info you agree with move on find a forum that better suits your views simples

Steviec wrote:

Caryll wrote:Then I'm glad I'm not your dog, because you obviously are not open to new, more humane training methods.

how have you come to that assumption?

that also sounds like i beat my dog to an inch of his life. relax.

Where did I say that you beat your dog? All I'm saying is that I wouldn't want to be your dog as you seem to think that hitting is acceptable.

Hayley wrote:Hitting has never worked, people years ago did not have as many dogs as pets and if they did they were not as home kept as they are today.

Just because torturing people for information works doesn't make it an okay thing to do.

sorry but i disagree, our alsatian turned out to be a great dog and he got the odd clip when he did wrong, so it worked on him?

slight exaggeration to use the torturing of humans when talking about clipping a dog for naughty behaviour.

bigwazza wrote:

Steviec wrote:

Caryll wrote:Then I'm glad I'm not your dog, because you obviously are not open to new, more humane training methods.

how have you come to that assumption?

that also sounds like i beat my dog to an inch of his life. relax.

CALM IT DOWN GUYS
Cant see the point of being a member on a forum were every post is rubbished if you dont like posts keep out of that thread .
if you cant find any info you agree with move on find a forum that better suits your views simples

Don't worry, Wazza, I'm perfectly calm & relaxed!

yes i know you are lol
44 posts from a certain member and i don't think iv seen a un argumentative one anywhere in them

Caryll wrote:

Steviec wrote:

Caryll wrote:Then I'm glad I'm not your dog, because you obviously are not open to new, more humane training methods.

how have you come to that assumption?

that also sounds like i beat my dog to an inch of his life. relax.

Where did I say that you beat your dog? All I'm saying is that I wouldn't want to be your dog as you seem to think that hitting is acceptable.

i meant how have you come to the assumption im obviously not open to more humane training methods?

i don't think smacking is wrong, hitting and beating for absolutley no reason is totally out of order. all this a firm No nonsense is garbage, thats my opinion, you don't have to agree, you have your views and i respect that, i don't question or assume anything based on a few posts.

good job you're not my dog, you'd be in your cage tonight for giving me cheek. just kidding

i am calm by the way

bigwazza wrote:yes i know you are lol
44 posts from a certain member and i don't think iv seen a un argumentative one anywhere in them

Steviec wrote:sorry but i disagree, our alsatian turned out to be a great dog and he got the odd clip when he did wrong, so it worked on him?

But he could maybe have been an even better dog (and much happier) if you hadn't hit clipped him?

Steviec wrote:slight exaggeration to use the torturing of humans when talking about clipping a dog for naughty behaviour.

It was just an example to show that just because things were done a certain way for years, that doesn't make it the best way!

bigwazza wrote:yes i know you are lol
44 posts from a certain member and i don't think iv seen a un argumentative one anywhere in them

so if i disagree or give my opinion and its opposing someone elses views it's seen an argumentative?

Steviec wrote:then that brings the question, if hitting used to work why change it? if its not broke don't fix it.

But if it's been improved, then let's make the old way obsolete, no? Here's the pack leader theorist saying himself that his theories are not accurate any more - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNtFgdwTsbU
Now that we've got that out of the way, let's consider that dogs are promiscuous and will try to mate whenever possible with no regard to mate's alphaness. Also, dogs with no owners will not form stable packs, so they roam the city or village usually alone and will occasionally get together to eat or mate. In those situations there will be a rough hierarchy formed on the spot regarding eating or mating privileges, but by no means a constant hierarchy, e.g. dogs steal food from 'more important' dogs all the time, and bitches won't be exclusive to a particular dog. How does all of this fit with your theories?

Steviec wrote:i meant how have you come to the assumption im obviously not open to more humane training methods?

i don't think smacking is wrong, hitting and beating for absolutley no reason is totally out of order. all this a firm No nonsense is garbage, thats my opinion, you don't have to agree, you have your views and i respect that, i don't question or assume anything based on a few posts.

The first part - if you smack a dog then you're not open to more humane methods of training - quite simple, really.

The second part - Why do you say that a firm 'no' is garbage? where is your proof of that? You are ridiculing a training method that succeeds far better than smacking.

Caryll wrote:

bigwazza wrote:yes i know you are lol
44 posts from a certain member and i don't think iv seen a un argumentative one anywhere in them

Steviec wrote:sorry but i disagree, our alsatian turned out to be a great dog and he got the odd clip when he did wrong, so it worked on him?

But he could maybe have been an even better dog (and much happier) if you hadn't hit clipped him?

Steviec wrote:slight exaggeration to use the torturing of humans when talking about clipping a dog for naughty behaviour.

It was just an example to show that just because things were done a certain way for years, that doesn't make it the best way!

he seemed happy enough to me and how would you know?

quite mature writing a word and crossing it out.

wait we're compairing torturing humans to smacking a dog. hardly a relevant example.

but yes you're right, they aren't always the best ways, but if they do still work, it's not wrong to use them. you're giving your personal view that you disagree with smacking, ok then. thats your view and you're entitled to it i don't have to agree with it.

Steviec wrote:

Hayley wrote:Hitting has never worked, people years ago did not have as many dogs as pets and if they did they were not as home kept as they are today.

Just because torturing people for information works doesn't make it an okay thing to do.

sorry but i disagree, our alsatian turned out to be a great dog and he got the odd clip when he did wrong, so it worked on him?

slight exaggeration to use the torturing of humans when talking about clipping a dog for naughty behaviour.

Perhaps he was just a good dog. if you had not clipped him, he would have been the same.

Why is it not the same?

Are dogs below us? Are we better than them and more important than them? Why is it okay to hit a dog not a human?

Caryll wrote:

bigwazza wrote:yes i know you are lol
44 posts from a certain member and i don't think iv seen a un argumentative one anywhere in them

Steviec wrote:sorry but i disagree, our alsatian turned out to be a great dog and he got the odd clip when he did wrong, so it worked on him?

But he could maybe have been an even better dog (and much happier) if you hadn't hit clipped him?
quote]

You seem proud that everything people say you scrutinise and argue with them. There are a lot of different ways of catching peoples attention with points.

I would personally be very offended if you said that second thing about me. Who the f**k are you to determine who's dog could and could not be better considering it couldve gone the other way and had it not been CLIPPED, not hit like you slipped in, then it could have turned out to be aggressive. You cant come out with what if's because there are 100 different things you could say for and against clipping an animal.

Caryll wrote:

Steviec wrote:i meant how have you come to the assumption im obviously not open to more humane training methods?

i don't think smacking is wrong, hitting and beating for absolutley no reason is totally out of order. all this a firm No nonsense is garbage, thats my opinion, you don't have to agree, you have your views and i respect that, i don't question or assume anything based on a few posts.

The first part - if you smack a dog then you're not open to more humane methods of training - quite simple, really.

The second part - Why do you say that a firm 'no' is garbage? where is your proof of that? You are ridiculing a training method that succeeds far better than smacking.

how am i not open, just because i 've give him the odd clip? does that mean i'm not open to different methods? it's worked up to now.

i tried a firm no, he basically sat there wagged his tail and did it again......and again....and again. you're taking this way too personal, you disagree with me, fine. i'm really not bothered.

Hayley wrote:Why is it not the same?

Are dogs below us? Are we better than them and more important than them? Why is it okay to hit a dog not a human?

come on this is ridiculous.........

Hunting foxes has worked up until now. Do you think we should still hunt foxes?

Steviec wrote:

Hayley wrote:Why is it not the same?

Are dogs below us? Are we better than them and more important than them? Why is it okay to hit a dog not a human?

come on this is ridiculous.........

Why? It is a genuine question.

Hayley wrote:

Steviec wrote:

Hayley wrote:Hitting has never worked, people years ago did not have as many dogs as pets and if they did they were not as home kept as they are today.

Just because torturing people for information works doesn't make it an okay thing to do.

sorry but i disagree, our alsatian turned out to be a great dog and he got the odd clip when he did wrong, so it worked on him?

slight exaggeration to use the torturing of humans when talking about clipping a dog for naughty behaviour.

Perhaps he was just a good dog. if you had not clipped him, he would have been the same.

this proves my point, i've not digged at anybody or been disrespectful i've merely said i don't disgree with smacking, which is what the topic is about, next minute im an argumentative poster? it's a forum and it's my opinion. if people don't agree, then fine, as said, im not bothered.

Hayley wrote:Hunting foxes has worked up until now. Do you think we should still hunt foxes?

Pathetic. Think before you post...

Hunting and killing an animal for sport is inhumane. Giving one a tap on the rear to teach it to behave is far from the same. This is anothering "it was ok to torture humans, should we still be doing that now?" Ridiculous..

Hayley wrote:Hunting foxes has worked up until now. Do you think we should still hunt foxes?

i do actually, yes. why? i have family members who own farms and have had thousands of pounds in livestock killed by foxes. I'm sure a certain someone will think i'm being argumentative. i'm really not.

Kev wrote:
Pathetic. Think before you post...

Kev , please do not use these tones whilst replying , arguments and debates are fine but not some of your comments

Steviec wrote:
quite mature writing a word and crossing it out.

Never said I was mature.

Steviec wrote:but yes you're right, they aren't always the best ways, but if they do still work, it's not wrong to use them.

But if there are better ways, then the old ways should not be used.

Kev wrote: Who the f**k are you to determine who's dog could and could not be better considering it couldve gone the other way and had it not been CLIPPED, not hit like you slipped in, then it could have turned out to be aggressive. You cant come out with what if's because there are 100 different things you could say for and against clipping an animal.

And who the hell do you think you are to swear at me? Steviec has been handling the subject well enough without you jumping in and making things worse. If you can't be polite & answer posts without swearing then don't answer at all.

Dave wrote:

Kev wrote:
Pathetic. Think before you post...

Kev , please do not use these tones whilst replying , arguments and debates are fine but not some of your comments

and neither are childishly crossing words out and putting smiley faces against other peoples comments, insinuating im an argumentaive poster. please dont try and claim the moral high ground now.

Steviec wrote:

Dave wrote:

Kev wrote:
Pathetic. Think before you post...

Kev , please do not use these tones whilst replying , arguments and debates are fine but not some of your comments

and neither are chidishly crossing words out and putting smiley faces against other peoples comments, insinuating im an argumentaive poster. please dont try and claim the moral high ground now.

Get it right - it wasn't Dave that crossed a word out & put a smiley after a comment, it was me.

Caryll wrote:

Steviec wrote:

Dave wrote:

Kev wrote:
Pathetic. Think before you post...

Kev , please do not use these tones whilst replying , arguments and debates are fine but not some of your comments

and neither are chidishly crossing words out and putting smiley faces against other peoples comments, insinuating im an argumentaive poster. please dont try and claim the moral high ground now.

Get it right - it wasn't Dave that crossed a word out & put a smiley after a comment, it was me.

serioulsy, have you heard yourself? thats something my 10 year old niece would come out with.

Steviec wrote:

Caryll wrote:

Steviec wrote:i meant how have you come to the assumption im obviously not open to more humane training methods?

i don't think smacking is wrong, hitting and beating for absolutley no reason is totally out of order. all this a firm No nonsense is garbage, thats my opinion, you don't have to agree, you have your views and i respect that, i don't question or assume anything based on a few posts.

The first part - if you smack a dog then you're not open to more humane methods of training - quite simple, really.

The second part - Why do you say that a firm 'no' is garbage? where is your proof of that? You are ridiculing a training method that succeeds far better than smacking.

how am i not open, just because i 've give him the odd clip? does that mean i'm not open to different methods? it's worked up to now.

i tried a firm no, he basically sat there wagged his tail and did it again......and again....and again. you're taking this way too personal, you disagree with me, fine. i'm really not bothered.

i had this years ago with one of my jrt (when it was used as a training technique)i would give him a tap and give him the NO speech but he would carry on doing the thing(snapping)turned out it was relied dogs don't see the tap as punishment but actually see it as a reaction so don't see as a bad thing. so this is the reason i feel it is now outdated

Steviec wrote:

Caryll wrote:

Steviec wrote:

Dave wrote:

Kev wrote:
Pathetic. Think before you post...

Kev , please do not use these tones whilst replying , arguments and debates are fine but not some of your comments

and neither are chidishly crossing words out and putting smiley faces against other peoples comments, insinuating im an argumentaive poster. please dont try and claim the moral high ground now.

Get it right - it wasn't Dave that crossed a word out & put a smiley after a comment, it was me.

serioulsy, have you heard yourself? thats something my 10 year old niece would come out with.

Sorry? You accused Dave of something he didn't do - I was putting you right. That last comment is, in itself, childish because you got caught out & don't want to admit you were wrong.

Enough, now. You like smacking dogs, many others don't. We obviously won't agree, so let's agree to disagree before it gets totally out of hand.

bigwazza wrote:

Steviec wrote:

Caryll wrote:

Steviec wrote:i meant how have you come to the assumption im obviously not open to more humane training methods?

i don't think smacking is wrong, hitting and beating for absolutley no reason is totally out of order. all this a firm No nonsense is garbage, thats my opinion, you don't have to agree, you have your views and i respect that, i don't question or assume anything based on a few posts.

The first part - if you smack a dog then you're not open to more humane methods of training - quite simple, really.

The second part - Why do you say that a firm 'no' is garbage? where is your proof of that? You are ridiculing a training method that succeeds far better than smacking.

how am i not open, just because i 've give him the odd clip? does that mean i'm not open to different methods? it's worked up to now.

i tried a firm no, he basically sat there wagged his tail and did it again......and again....and again. you're taking this way too personal, you disagree with me, fine. i'm really not bothered.

i had this years ago with one of my jrt (when it was used as a training technique)i would give him a tap and give him the NO speech but he would carry on doing the thing(snapping)turned out it was relied dogs don't see the tap as punishment but actually see it as a reaction so don't see as a bad thing. so this is the reason i feel it is now outdated

wazza, i appreciate your view and respect that, you've tried smacking and it didn't work on that occasion, so thats a cons against smacking.

Stokester, I'm sorry, but your thread is now going to be locked. I'm glad you brought it up & I appreciate that your views (and others) are different to some others on the forum.

I think we'll all have to agree to disagree.