The Assumption of Imagined Harm

In the war over ethical training techniques there is a boogeyman – imagined harm. Trainers that pander to exclusively “positive” methods use this boogeyman to suppress logical and open discussion of the topic. That is because their perspective has no rational basis and cannot become paramount unless they suppress logical criticism. Their primary tool is to propose that any use of aversive control is dangerous and will lead to some imagined harm. That is obviously an irrational statement. A leash and collar inhibits free movement and compels the dog to hold an arbitrary distance from the handler. Not only is this not automatically harmful, all trainers, vets, shelter workers and pet owners use leashes and collars – even the anti-punishment ideologues. This begs the question of why someone would propose a wide-sweeping claim that the most casual observation contradicts. The answer may surprise you. They do this because it allows them to create the fantasy that they are ethically superior while silencing anyone who would question their statements. i.e. The anti-punishers promote imagined harm in order to win the argument. Continue reading

What is Real Clicker Training?

Featured

Note: I have noticed from the enthusiastic response to this article something rather interesting. The objections presented in the comments run to several basic themes. One type of objection picks a tiny point and emphasizes it well beyond the main theme of the article.That is called a “straw-dog” argument – where contradicting a lesser point is supposed to neutralize the bigger issues. The rest of my blog has the equivalent of a 300 page book on topics that all relate to the real world. Some of those articles may answer your questions in the broader context. As you read this I would suggest that this is about real animals – straw dogs need not apply. Continue reading

Would you slap a little girl if she pinched you?

There is an ethical test used by many dog trainers and behaviorists. It can be roughly stated that it you wouldn’t do it to a child it’s not right to do it to a dog. This is said to accomplish two things – to suggest that the speaker is more ethical than those who do not follow this rule and to elevate their status as more caring and sensitive than others. So, let’s take up the challenge. If we would not slap a little girl we would therefore consider it unethical to slap a dog. What do you think? It sounds good, but to truly believe this you’d have to limit your reality to a thin slice. In essence, it suggests that there is never a time when causing pain or fear is an appropriate behavioral therapy regardless of context or outcome. Is that true? If I can suggest a context and outcome that justifies slapping a little girl does that mean it’s OK to slap a dog? We have now stepped out onto thin ice. How could anyone justify slapping a little girl? What if she was pinching you? Would that do it? Continue reading

A Study in Ethics: Pica

A well known dog behavior expert was quoted in a magazine column by another well known dog behavior expert as saying that if you are going to own a puppy you can expect to have at least one very expensive pair of shoes destroyed. The quoting expert agreed with the quoted expert and the rest of the column was a list of reasons why dog owners should lower their expectations, not of behavior modification, but of dog experts. If an expert says it can’t be done, then they can’t be held accountable if you lose a $3,000 hearing aid, right? Wrong. It’s not about shoes. It’s about socks. The sort of socks that lodge in a dog’s belly and block the intestines. ER vets cut things like socks out of dogs and puppies all the time. It’s called pica and it’s often fatal. Continue reading

Half-dead vs. All-Dead vs. Discomforted but Alive

AuthorAu

Author’s Caution: This article is not for the faint of heart or part-time animal lover. It is rated R for adult situations, illusions to graphic violence, personal sorrow and the meaningless but avoidable death of healthy, normal animals.

In the movie, “Training Day”, Denzel Washington plays a very rough, bad cop who has a signature question for the various thugs and lowlifes he meets in the course of his day. “Do you want to go home or do you want to go to jail?” This simple dichotomy cuts through all the nonsense and the street-people know exactly what he means. I was once given a similar dichotomy to choose in an unexpected setting. “Would you rather half-kill a dog or kill it all the way? ” Continue reading