Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Advice about a unmanageable pet
Hi, some buddhist advice on a dilemma I'm experiencing would be really great!
You see, my girlfriend and I kind of inherited this little dog (Chihuahua) about ten months ago. Her parents were moving from a house to an apartment where no pets are allowed period. Being two caring people, we didn't want to see the dog go to a pound or a home (or put down), so we offered to take it in to our apartment where the rules are more relaxed about pets.
Going in we knew the dog had behaviour problems; it barks non stop, constantly pees everywhere, attacks anyone other than family who enters the house and torments our very friendly cat. The whole attacking thing isn't as serous as it sounds since the dog is a Chihuahua and is very tiny (four or five pounds). As long as you have shoes on, he poses no real threat.
We've hired a dog trainer for his behaviour issues (and followed through with the training for months); while it has helped, the dog still continues to wreak havoc around the apartment. Though over the last two months, his behaviour is going from bad to worse.
He barks day and night which annoys the neighbours, and pees everywhere causing the apartment to smell no matter how much we clean. While our landlord is a really easy going guy, there's only so much he'll put up with (especially since installed new carpet and flooring only a couple months ago).
So you can see the loss that we're at. We both love the dog (he's a sweetheart to those inside his "circle"), but his behaviour is getting worse and we're constantly apologizing on his behalf and cleaning his pee in every corner of the apartment.
I come here for advice because I'd respect the opinions and direction here more than pretty much anywhere else. My girlfriend and I are far from practicing Buddhists, but we've read books and found improvement since introducing some Buddhist concepts and practices in to our lives.
Any advice I have sought elsewhere pretty has been along the lines of "Just get rid of him. He's just a stupid dog". No one seems to account that he is a living being too who is subjected to his degree of suffering. I've given all this much contemplation and can't come up with anything.
I hate the idea of taking him to a dog rescue (or worse: pound) as the thought of him feeling abandoned is unnerving for me. Since he does attack people, we might be instructed to put him down by a shelter, pound or rescue. As this might be an easy decision for people who don't place much relevance on an animal's life, as a long time Vegan, this idea is a moral dilemma. Also, buddhism teaching not to impose suffering or kill other living things.
From a Karma standpoint, what is the best decision here? I thank everyone for their time.
- Matt
You see, my girlfriend and I kind of inherited this little dog (Chihuahua) about ten months ago. Her parents were moving from a house to an apartment where no pets are allowed period. Being two caring people, we didn't want to see the dog go to a pound or a home (or put down), so we offered to take it in to our apartment where the rules are more relaxed about pets.
Going in we knew the dog had behaviour problems; it barks non stop, constantly pees everywhere, attacks anyone other than family who enters the house and torments our very friendly cat. The whole attacking thing isn't as serous as it sounds since the dog is a Chihuahua and is very tiny (four or five pounds). As long as you have shoes on, he poses no real threat.
We've hired a dog trainer for his behaviour issues (and followed through with the training for months); while it has helped, the dog still continues to wreak havoc around the apartment. Though over the last two months, his behaviour is going from bad to worse.
He barks day and night which annoys the neighbours, and pees everywhere causing the apartment to smell no matter how much we clean. While our landlord is a really easy going guy, there's only so much he'll put up with (especially since installed new carpet and flooring only a couple months ago).
So you can see the loss that we're at. We both love the dog (he's a sweetheart to those inside his "circle"), but his behaviour is getting worse and we're constantly apologizing on his behalf and cleaning his pee in every corner of the apartment.
I come here for advice because I'd respect the opinions and direction here more than pretty much anywhere else. My girlfriend and I are far from practicing Buddhists, but we've read books and found improvement since introducing some Buddhist concepts and practices in to our lives.
Any advice I have sought elsewhere pretty has been along the lines of "Just get rid of him. He's just a stupid dog". No one seems to account that he is a living being too who is subjected to his degree of suffering. I've given all this much contemplation and can't come up with anything.
I hate the idea of taking him to a dog rescue (or worse: pound) as the thought of him feeling abandoned is unnerving for me. Since he does attack people, we might be instructed to put him down by a shelter, pound or rescue. As this might be an easy decision for people who don't place much relevance on an animal's life, as a long time Vegan, this idea is a moral dilemma. Also, buddhism teaching not to impose suffering or kill other living things.
From a Karma standpoint, what is the best decision here? I thank everyone for their time.
- Matt
0
Comments
Sadly, it's human beings who have created these problems in domesticated animals. You get "pure breds" by inbreeding, and then inbreeding more, and inbreeding more until you get what you're after. The problem is, you also get behavior problems, health problems, and often (as you've experienced) animals that are totally unmanageable. That's why I'm a confirmed mutt lover.
I surely wish you the best with your decision...
Mtns
I am not a trainer.
Training is the icing on the cake.
Behaviour - IS the cake!
Look at it this way:
If you make a Christmas or wedding cake, and it sinks in the middle, or the fruit all goes to the bottom, or the cake is too dry, you can always hide the evidence by concealing it with decorative icing.
But the problem’s still there underneath - remove the ‘icing’ (or take the training out of the equation) and the ‘cake’ (or the behaviour) underneath, is still a problem.
Training is all very well, but if the dog's actual 'psychology' is not addressed, it's a waste of time, effort, money and leads to frustration.
if you need my help, even though I am in the UK - tell me.
I can provide references, because I have changed the behaviour of dogs "remotely" (that is, via written communication only!) with great success.
I have two advantages over Cesar Millan
One: I don't cost you a dime.
Two:.....I'm here, aren't I...?
Fancy giving it one more try???
might the dog be yearning for more attention?
does he know you don't like it when he pisses and barks?
that's all i got lol. good luck. hey, at least you can see it as a teacher. that dog can teach many things, even if annoyingly.
Size doesn't mean much of anything. A chihuahua can cause much more damage than you realize. Take precautions as you would with a large breed.
He doesn't give a damn about what people like/dislike.
Dogs can't reason and work things out like this. They have no concept of right or wrong.
All he sees is two pack members "in distress".
get this:
He does not connect his behaviour to their distress.
He does not know that their attitude is as a result of his behaviour. All he knows is that they're upset, and he's trying to fix it by being dominant and trying to establish balance. But he's attempting to exert control in a world he cannot understand.
Right now, all this is teaching anyone that when you consider what a chequered history the dog with the human has endured for nigh on a quarter of a million years, it's remarkable the animal has survived for this long!
What the dog is teaching depends on what you manage to learn from it. I meant that it teaches patience, compassion, humility (having to apologize for it), etc. Anything bad is an opportunity for learning, it's a common teaching among buddhists, i hear monks talking about what can be learned from annoying things all the time on youtube. I myself am learning to see my own behavior differently because of this dog!
I have a mix chihuahua and dachshund named Theo (I call him my stretched chihuahua) and the yapping was a major problem.
Mine also likes to get aggressive when someone new comes around.
I have found he needs to be led or he will take things into his own hands. That may be difficult for a Buddhist who equates a chihuahua to a human because kindness and patience is a way of dealing with people but dogs need firmness and determination when they are being trained.
A real kindness to the animal is to teach them even if it requires a different way of looking at him. If you don't, he may have a very difficult time ahead where he is rejected over and over or worse yet, euthanized. Don't give up. You would do him a great service if you stuck with him until he is trained. Then he could go elsewhere with a much better chance of survival.
Just thinking out loud here but if you do decide not to keep him, the kindest thing you could do in his present state is to find someone who trains dogs to take him.
Namaste
When you scold a dog for his bad behaviour, like defacating in the sitting room, or chewing the furniture, he doesn't get it, because all he is doing is establishing dominance and marking his territory, and exercising his jaws and keeping himself fit and in good condition.
Then one of his subordinates begins 'barking' at him, and he in turn becomes stressed and confused, because he doesn't understand why a subordinate would become agitated at the Pack leader acting normally!
The reason he views "human owners" as pack subordinates is because they talk too much, and do not demonstrate consistent, calm leadership qualities, all the time. Humans tend to give mixed messages to their dogs, all the time.
So a confused message is not one that can effectively be respected.
The only way to demonstrate that leadership has been removed form his shoulders, is to follow a calm, consistent, persistent and patient pattern of behaviour ALL THE TIME, without fail.
Once a dog sees that a human can take control, keep it, maintain it and exercise it with calm control - then it will let go. but if a human cannot demonstrate these skills, then the dog will take no notice.
A dog does not comprehend "humility".
Dogs do not manifest the same emotions we do, to the same intensity, or the same way.
Neither do they carry baggage.
They remember, but they don't bear a grudge, or resent.
To deprive a dog - that believes it is a pack leader - of food, is entirely counter-productive.
Teach with the use of food, not the absence of it.
It's all very well seeing a dog - or this situation - as your teacher, but to have a dysfunctional relationship with the dog ultimately keeps the dog miserable.
Far better to learn lessons of loyalty, faithfulness, devotion and unconditional love from an animal that is well-balanced, content, and free of stress.
Otherwise this wonderful lesson we are learning, is actually teaching the dog the wrong thing, keeping it in a highly stressful state, and encouraging us to act selfishly.
We learn to our benefit - but to the dog's cost.
That is not effective learning, in my view.
Nobody here is doing anything deliberately wrong to inflict confusion and stress upon their pets.
This is not a "your fault" scenario.
But with the best will in the world, and with the kindest of intentions at heart - humans do gedt it wrong.
And as a dedicated dog behaviourist, I'm only trrying to demonstrate how and why these things happen.
So:
What people forget is that we have actively bred dogs to behave in certain ways by breeding specific types of dogs to perform certain functions.
Daschunds were bred to hunt. Chihuahuas were originally bred as lap pets but were also bred to be protective and insistent.
So the combination of these breeds is going to give a dog that is upfront, and not timid.
Establishing dominance is the only way to control and channel these tendencies, in order to make the dog comply with what we would like it to do.
If we tolerate a dog's behaviour, and we cannot engineer a co-operative behaviour, but it ignores aspects of our leadership - then we're not leading effectively.
Any time a dog does something of its own volition, without our primary direction - then the dog is controlling. We are not.
Aggression is not the privilege of a pack member. Aggression is the action of a nervous stressed dog, thast has been unwittingly given leadership.
If a dog is aggressive, it is because it is attempting to protect and claim 'ownership' over whatever he's aggressive about.
A dog should never 'be led'. A dog should voluntarily follow. there's the difference. The latter is compliance. the former is appeasement. This is possibly the greatest and worst mistake anybody could ever make about their dog.
A dog should never be 'anthropomorphised'. A dog cannot be likened to being 'human'. Quite the opposite. It is we who need to behave in a more canine manner.
I never train dogs.
To quote Mr. Millan.
I actually train people, to become dogs.
It's the only way to establish an harmonious and workable relationship with the animal.
true kindness, patience and compassion does not entail our being giood human companions to our dogs.
True kindness, patience and compassion entails acting, behaving, thinking and responding - like a dog.
In actual fact, the ideal way to teach them, is to look at ourselves in a different way. we need to become canine. Once they esablish and implement the right behaviour pattern - they won't want him to go elsewhere!
At least, that would be my aim!
A trainer would be good.
A behaviourist would be preferable.
But if they manage to get this right, his home is where he is right now....
Many thanks for giving me the opportunity to expand.
I'm here with the true, genuine and sincere intention of making people happy, by helping them make their dogs happy.
Although a detailed understanding of a behavior's underlying psychology may be useful, behavior can be changed without this, using a simple system of rewards and punishments. It is necessary to determine what the animal likes and dislikes, though. Many behaviors which make sense as punishments for a human, such as admonition, can be rewarding for a dog. (They love the attention, and don't necessarily get the associated emotional/semantic content.)
For instance, we used to train dogs not to bark by rewarding them when they were silent. Some dogs we rewarded with food, some we rewarded with attention. It depends on what the dog likes more. This leads to increased frequency in periods of silence. Then we would extend the duration of the silence we required before rewarding the dog. This led to longer and longer silent intervals. I did this with dozens of dogs, and it works. I did similar things with teaching a dog not to get anxious when left alone in a room.
For more information on this, I recommend the book Don't Shoot the Dog! or the author's website, which has lots of specific, actionable advice regarding the problem behaviors you mentioned. (Here is an example of how to use google to search within the website for those behaviors.)
I hope he finds the best solution all round, and manages to come to a conclusion that would benefit every dynamic, to the greatest advantage.
But I've seen some examples of training without the application of psychology, and it's my conviction that combining the two ultimately achieves the most favourable results for a dog.
Heyyy.... sounds exactly like my teacher training!
Back to the canine context... what sorts of things do you be calm, consistent and persistent about? For example, in the classroom no matter what a student does or says to you, you stay calm and perhaps ask them to talk about it privately outside the classroom where a scene can't be made for attention's sake. Consistent in the classroom is that you always have consequences for your chosen behaviors- for example, a child repeatedly yells out, so they must move their seat. So what sorts of things do you do with dogs, then? From OP, what should they do when the dog pees on the carpet? What is the calm and consistent thing to do here?
I was under the impression you felt it unnecessary...
If I misread you, I apologise.
However, I know people have varying opinions on this, which of course, is absolutely their right.
I have encountered anything from resistance to downright hostility, in my 'travels' as a behaviourist.
And I'm not suggesting that this is how you have come across, to me, but I had gained the impression that it was something you didn't hold great store in.
Which is fine....
Humans are actually a lot more complex, and different, more convoluted parameters apply.
Humans are more calculating: That is, you can apply reasoning, logic and explanations, and give clarification. You can expound matters verbally to elaborate your point.
Although we place great store in verbal communication, because we are under the impression that this is our primary method, while of course, such communication is the main one we use, in actual fact, Body Language (among humans) is actually the greater portion of communication.
With dogs - it is (in my opinion and experience) the only way to communicate.
Fivebells absolutely rightly points out that a reward system involving food (to gain co-operation and compliance) is extremely effective. He's right. I use food a lot, in the form of titbits.
But first of all, I communicate, through subtle use of body language, that I am the one distributing the food, because that's my right.
I am in a position to give food as a reward, the dog is in no position to demand it. S/he has to earn it.
Everything. If you wish to bring your dog to a level of interaction with you, that is serene, calm, stress-free and not agitated - you have to lead by example. You have to show the dog that you will be fully open to the dog's presence while it is in a gentle, non-excitable state, but that you will not tolerate any excessive, hyper attention-seeking, or attempts to dominate or intrude.
Because with people, this works.
This is appealing to their logic and reason. You have offered an explanation for your decision, and you are treating the student as an intelligent human being with the ability to compromise and co-operate.
Canine communication involves a lot less talking, and a lot more communication through body language and gesture.
If you consider the mentality behind Pack dynamics, there is the classic "safety in numbers". A pack member relies on the cohesion of the pack to provide what it needs - and as a member of this pack, has to work in harmony with the others, to also provide this for other members. A non-compliant member faces being ostracised. A member going against the grain and upsetting the stability and balance of the Pack dynamic, is unwelcome, and will be ousted, in order to re-stabilise the harmony of the pack.
Isolation is a threat to the animal's survival. To be pushed out and left to fend for itself, is extremely hazardous, and potentially life-threatening. The pack member that is excluded form pack activity, very soon has to communicate its submission to the pack authority, in order to regain entry and gain shelter, food and safety.
This isn't cruel, or unjust. This isn't unkind and mean.
These are labels we attach to such a method, because ignoring somebody is considered rude, and excluding someone from our circle is considered ill-mannered.
But we do these things automatically, when we admonish a child and tell it to "go to your room!"
How many times have we ever been told in the past, when somebody is unsettling our existence in any way, "Oh, just ignore him/her!"....?
So to an extent, we adopt these methods, because we too, are pack animals.
We live in 'packs', (families, mum and dad as the top dogs,) we work in packs (Manager, supervisor, workers) and we have community packs (judge, police officers, president, whatever). There's always someone in charge.....
Implementation of an entire behavioural method will prevent this from happening in the future.
The OP has still not returned to comment.
Until they do, I don't intend to impose myself upon their thread, or elaborate in any greater detail, until I know from them what they feel they'd most like to do.
And if it means they still feel it would be preferable to pass the dog on to someone else, then that is their choice, and the right option for them.
This would render anything I add here, largely pointless and redundant, so there's currently little point in going into greater detail.
You're correct, the detailed socio-psychological explanations you've given for the dogs' behaviors seem highly speculative to me. With humans, we can cut through this speculation to some extent by verbal communication, but with dogs, there is no way (that I can see) to test your assertions, no matter how much they may seem to "make sense" or seem consistent with behavior of wild animals. If the specific training schemes based on these theories works, then it doesn't really matter on a practical level, I suppose, but I am not aware of any careful assessment of their efficacy. (If you know of any, I would be interested to learn of them.) Whereas the principle that rewarding/punishing a behavior leads to an increase/decrease in that behavior is a testable and strongly validated hypothesis.
On the other hand, I'm not talking about throwing psychological insight out altogether. Determining what behaviors are rewarding/punishing is in itself an effort at psychology.
This is going to be long, so please bear with me.
I appreciate that they seem highly speculative, and can also appreciate that there is much cynicism and doubt as to whether the practice works.
All I will say is that, in spite of the many and varied appearances of dogs, genetically speaking, they are still virtually all wolf. Wolves in wild parks and zoos needing operations and also blood transfusions are transfused using blood donated from domestic dogs.
It's easier to draw blood from dogs as they tend to be better trained, more compliant, and more used to exposure to humans, therefore it's not stressful.
There is absolutely no difference between the blood of a dog, and that of a wolf.
There has, contrary to popular belief, been a vast array of studies conducted in lupine behaviour, and this behaviour has been much in evidence in dogs, too.
The more a dog looks like a wolf, (huskies, and the like) the more the similarity in their behaviours is apparent. There are 15 extremely distinct and evident body language postures used by wolves as well as around 20 less obvious and more subtle ones. These gestures and postures have been seen, to a greater or lesser extent in most dogs.
The only reason they are not as obvious in some dogs, is due to the sheer physical disparity. Take for example, the pug, or bulldog.
These dogs both use the majority of signals wolves use. They're just not obvious, because a pug looks about as much like a wolf as I do....!
(Ok, bear with me, I'm getting to the point....!)
The other factor to consider is that we have seriously hampered their abilities to communicate by not only producing so many different breeds of dogs in varied and assorted shapes and sizes - but we have drastically altered their appearances through surgical intervention. For example, in docking tails, and clipping ears, you are severely hampering the dog's ability to communicate with other dogs, and give an accurate picture of its mood and attitude....
Now: A behaviourist has learnt what a dog is communicating by learning the signals used in wolf packs, and copying them and using them with dogs.
Monty Roberts is world-renowned as The "Horse whisperer". His methods were also greeted with much cynicism and derision, and scorn was poured on his system of equine communication. Yet he has consistently and persistently shown, time and time again, that his method absolutely, completely works, because it's working With the Horse, on its level and manner of communication. He has a well-deserved reputation.
If you know anything about our Monarch Queen Elizabeth II, you may know that she is a keen and accomplished horsewoman, a racehorse owner, and an expert and experienced equestrian. Her son Prince Charles is a champion Horse Polo player, and Princess Anne has competed in Equestrianism in the Olympic games.
The Royal Family as a whole, is a keen and enthusiastic user of the Monty Roberts system of horse communication.
Wolves - and dogs, therefore - also use a solid system of communication, that is consistent and wholly effective.
And as a Dog behaviourist, I have seen time and time again, that applying this communication system, and using similar gestures and body language, we can communicate with dogs, far more quickly and effectively than the use of training alone.
As I have said earlier, training, in conjunction with behaviourism, will give a double-whammy of excellent results. Cake and icing....yes...?
I will tell you what I tell all my clients.
There are many qualifications on different levels, for dog therapists, veterinarians and trainers. There are some dogs that are specifically trained to perform tasks such as drug and explosives detection, Police dogs, assistance dogs (for the blind, the deaf, and those suffering from epilepsy, for example) and dogs used for mountain rescue and hauling.
All these different trainers have certificates and qualifications as long as your arm.
There is no single, accredited, recognised or authoritative qualification that entitles or enables anybody to call themselves SOLELY an official, trained Canine Psychologist. Nothing. nada. Zilch. Zero. I admit this, right up front.
However:
Every official, bona fide, educational veterinary training establishment in the UK now teaches canine behaviour as part of their accredited veterinary training course, or canine training course. And as part of a course in how to become a veterinarian or trainer, Dog behaviour is a essential component of the course.
Have a look at this link page, and see for yourself....
I completely agree, but in my view, this is more 'training', which as I have said, is one side of the coin.
I have seen "well-trained" dogs still behave badly. I know that sounds bizarre, but out of the training/learning process, once the scenario is over and done with, the dog reverts or adopts poor behaviour that can be affected positively by use of behavioural influence.
I'm grateful you see it that way.
Isn't that the way we affect behaviour in children, for example?
we reward good responses, but we can, with the right application of behavioural instruction, also correct unwanted behaviour.
I wish I could be more positive and constructive, with regard to proving to you, that this works.
The only way I can illustrate how effective this is, is by telling you what I explain to my clients:
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
See for yourself, what I do, and see if it works or not.
("Ehi Passeiko!")
I'm always asking people to never take what I say at face value, but let me show you - and prove to you - that it's effective.
Most recently, I have successfully helped a 'client' (living in the USA, who has mild OCD) to change the behaviour of her two dogs.
What she perceived as extreme affection, I suggested to her was actually Alpha behaviour from her 2 dogs, (brother and sister) particularly the dominant sister.
The brother had chewed his paw down to the raw and bleeding skin, and had also damaged his lip and gums in doing so. His stress levels were through the roof. Her vet had prescribed cortisone, antibiotics, antihistamines, tranquillisers and skin products. They had taken blood tests, and performed all manner of other tests to see what physically ailed him. The vets agreed that he was definitely also suffering from stress, but could offer no clue or solution for that factor.
This had gone on for a year or more, and cost her a fortune. She was at her wits' end and had no idea what else she could do to help her dog.
In a little under 2 weeks of pure e-mail communication, I managed to help her change the behaviour of both her dogs, and her dog stopped chewing his paw completely, for the first time in a year.
And I never charged her a single cent.
I will have to seek her permission to forward you her e-mails, to prove this to you, and if you'd like me to, I'd be more than willing to approach her.
She has willingly offered to write a testimonial for my website - as and when I finally get it up and running - but I can get in touch with her to confirm what I have told you.
I can't prove it works. But I know it does.
But if its demonstrably effective, why should that be necessary?
is the proof of seeing something happening not adequate proof?
You know for example that Meditation works for you.
It 'works' on many different levels, in many different ways. It works variably from session to session, and you know that its a practice that enhances your day-to-day living, improves your personal overall condition and adds to the quality of your life.
When scientists then apply scientific methods and study subjects during meditation, and conclude that there are enormous benefits by examining cerebral activity, waves and patterns of processes, and neural reactions to momentary distractions - is this necessary to you, to confirm what you already know?
Don't you read such reported findings and think, "well, I could have told you that.....!"
Simply because something can - or cannot - be proved through scientific experimentation and research, it doesn't make it more credible to those already cynical and doubtful.
The only way to prove something works - consistently and genuinely - is to see it in action for yourself.
Something which to my disappointment, I am unable to effctively engineer.
Firstly, a method may work for reasons unrelated to the theories it's based on. For instance, there are all these diets based on competing, contradictory theories, but they all work for some people, possibly because they all involve paying attention to what you eat.
Secondly, that you think it works in your hands is not convincing to me. You seem like a very honest person to me, but obviously there are strong personal incentives for believing that the methods one is employing are effective, and more effective than alternative approaches. I know I have fooled myself this way, many times. (It's actually an example of Skinnerian behavior modification in action.) For instance, here is an example of a doctor who is extremely attached to the notion that she is helping people by prescribing anti-depressants, rather than some cheaper placebo, despite the fact that there is no theoretical basis or empirical evidence for the belief that anti-depressants are more effective than placebo in treating depression in the broader population.
For these reasons, I would be very interested to read a careful scientific study comparing the extent to which your and others' methods reduce the frequency of problem behaviors in dogs. This would address my second concern, if not my first. But the second concern, what method has the most practical effect, is, as you say, the most important thing.
Well, if I hear of anything, I'll let you know.
In the meantime, I can only continue doing what I know works for me, my clients and their dogs.
Consistently positive and favourable results are adequate evidence for me, that it works.
And that's all the incentive I need.
Or get, for that matter.
I have a dog and from my experience dogs like to have an alpha male, that is a pack leader or someone to lead them. If there is not one then, they take on the role themself.
So I guess you have to show your dog that you are the alpha male.
There are many publications on this matter, which teach you how to do this without causing distress or harm to the dog. If all else fails then give it a try.
Good luck
metta to all