FOAK: Dog training and 'shock' collars

I do that all the time anyway.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

Shock collars would be under training so I'll address that by stating
that in the case of general commands and behaviour it is usually in the
interests of family and dog welfare rather than something which is
intended to enhance the companionship of the animal.

For example - I don't teach my dog to recall at her name simply because
I think she would be more receptive to my affection. I condition her in
order I can prevent her from running out into a busy road or so I can
have her off-lead when we are out walking. Training is not for my
benefit - it is for her benefit.

Incidentally I don't de-sex my dogs. I don't belive dogs should really
need it since they should be under control with training. Cats OTOH, if
their owner wishes them to be able to go outside, should be de-sexed
since cats are much less controlled. Unwanted litters of kittens leads
to far worse suffering than a single op.

Having said that I'm not sure how you envision the de-sexing of a pet to
be any way beneficial to the owner's relationship to the animal.

 

Ben Blaney left a note on my windscreen which said:

They are man induced forms of entertainment which I presumed is what you
meant by human construct.

 

It's a little convenient that we can file shock collars under training,
don't you think?

NONE of these things enhance the companionship of the animal. They're all
things that are used to control the animal either for its own safety of the
benefit of the owner and the family. This is because an urban environment
not a natural one for dogs, even domesticated ones. And why does it need to
be controlled? Because the owner wants it there. Because the owner for some
god-forsaken reason can't live without an animal to cuggle, hwug and love
and neuter and smack. And after all this gassing we're still no closer to
knowing why that is (other than "I want" and "I desire")

I'm not sure I can imagine how you could envision I would.

 

Stoneskin wrote

Wrong fucking attitude.

I trained my dogs for my benefit. The spin off of them having an easier
life if they did exactly what they were told was an issue they had to
come to terms with themselves imho.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

No. The use of shock collars would be purely for training purposes.

So you do agree that training is primarily about animal welfare rather
than purely for the owners enjoyment or entertainment?

 

No doubt as is the odd kick in the ribs that some owners like to employ.

To a degree, I imagine it's for both. I can quite imagine that owners enjoy
training their pets. The reasons that they enjoy it are still eluding us
though.

 

I don't really think so. Most dog owners want the dog to do what they
tell it, when they tell it.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

As I've said earlier in this thread. Very little use of punishment
should be considered excessive. But that is very much an animal welfare
issue.

For me, I don't really know. Perhaps it's because I've always been
around animals it's a sense of the familiar perhaps. Maybe it's just an
excuse to get off my lazy arse.

But for whatever the reason it still doesn't necessarily follow it's a
'bad' thing only on the basis we are talking about an animal life here.

 

"Whatever the reason" is what we've been hammering out for the past few
days.

 

Champ left a note on my windscreen which said:

That's a part of what training is. But fails to take into account
conditioning animals into or out of behaviour patterns and doesn't
address why people train their dogs.

 

"To get them to do what they're told"

I suggest that a dog that didn't do what it was told wouldn't stay a
"loved member of the family" for long.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

Are you asking me directly or do you mean the pet-keeping world in
general?

 

I think you mean 'not at all'

You've seen how much petrolcan charges for his trips to the canal
then? And I bet he gets his half bricks at cost from one of his paddy
builder mates.

 

Champ left a note on my windscreen which said:

Not necessarily. My parents had a very headstrong Collie who wouldn't
do anything you told him. Unfortuantly this meant he was always on-lead
when walked but he was still loved regardless.

 

Did he shit in the house? Did he bite visitors and small children? I
doubt they'd have loved him if he had.

 

Asking you what?

 

But their only The I-RS shurely?

 

Ah - so we are doing personal now are we? So then (Mr Rationality 2004)
- lets analyse *your* belief structure shall we?

I have nothing against moderate use of alcohol. But using it in an
"I'll go out and have 20 pints then start a fight" is (IMO) destructive
to both society and the individual.

"That's just wrong" == "Mr Authority Porl disagrees with it".

Are we back to subjective judgements presented as fact again? I thought
you despised that?

I beg to differ. You obviously believe that people who have pets are
somehow damamged. And as such you show contempt towards them. Hence you
could be said to "despise" them..

OK - so do you analyse all your likes and dislikes in this manner?

Besides which a lie implies an intent to deceive - if there is no such
intent and the person honestly believes what they say they might be
misled or foolish but its pretty harsh (and a lie in itself!) to claim
they are lying..

Phil

 

You seem to be taking the stance that others are irrational in their
like of pets. Which has the obvious consequence that you must see
yourself as rational..

Ah. You so you't want debate - you want us to be awe of your skills as
a logician and an intellect.

Ah. So now we are on to arrogance. I am perfectly capable of
understanding your point - but I disagree strongly with it. And have my
own sequence of logic as to why.

But *only* if they proceed in the same logic-steps as you did.
Amazingly - they don't! And equally amazingly they seem to be happy not
to analyse their lives in tiny little detail! How shocking! Maybe they
are just not as intelligent and wise as you.

Fancy that - people making up their own minds. Whatever next! They'll
be making the assumption that they have free will next!

Phil.