When Is A Punishment Fair And When Is It Not?

[Rom]

Talking to a few of my doggy friends, some who are involved in committees for clubs and the following things were being discussed:

Even though harsh handling of a dog is frowned upon, there are times when punishment is called for.

Some see things that they feel is unfair punishment, but they hesitate to take action basically because there are no guidelines in place at the club. What one thinks is fair another disagrees with.

There are of course the obvious cases like the dog that is taken out behind the club house and flogged because it didn't drop in the ring etc. I think that in an instance like this, apart from the fact that the dog is hardly going to connect the punishment to his crime, if someone felt the need to hide the fact that they were punishing their dog then its highly likely that they knew that if they were seen they would probably get reported anyway.

If you were to devise a set of guidelines that would help someone that was wavering on reporting an incident, what would you include on that list?

[Erny]

There are of course the obvious cases like the dog that is taken out behind the club house and flogged because it didn't drop in the ring etc. I think that in an instance like this, apart from the fact that the dog is hardly going to connect the punishment to his crime ...

I'm not sure how to answer your question Rom .... cruelty is cruelty.

.... if someone felt the need to hide the fact that they were punishing their dog then its highly likely that they knew that if they were seen they would probably get reported anyway.

Taken on the face value of the words written, chances are you're right. But just want to point out that tucking away from view wouldn't necessary follow that the person was guilty. May simply be a matter of a person knowing that because of the beliefs of others his/her methodology would not be appreciated and that person may fear alienation from the group as a result.

If you were to devise a set of guidelines that would help someone that was wavering on reporting an incident, what would you include on that list?

Not sure I can see what you're after here. Are you asking for a list of what things render an action such as you describe (and on the assumption that nothing has been omitted from that description and that descriptive words are written as factual not embellisments) as cruel?

ETA: Re-read your post and realised I'd read some stuff the wrong way around. I am completely exhausted so I think I need to re-address this another time.

I'm still not sure if my answer/response would be any different or helpful.

If the witness believes the incident was uncalled for and cruel, then I guess he/she needs to evaluate what rests most ethically for him/her, and for whose sake. When I'm caught up in a dilemma, I generally push all extra-influences aside and ask myself which decision (in this case, report or don't report) feels the most right in my heart.

Still not sure I'm making sense. Think I need to go fix myself some tea and toast .

Edited August 22, 2007 by Erny

[dogdude]

I think that there is a huge difference between balanced "trainers", and newbys or people with little knowledge about how a dogs mind works. Most of what you see at dog clubs is all about embarrassment, frustration and inclass competition, not training methods.

eg: lady doing mock trial has dog that bolts from trial ring mid trial, to do zoomies, finally, after about 3-4 laps woman catches dog after calling it. Handler then proceeds to rip the dogs head off with the chain (for coming back???)

If I generally do use a check etc, it is done only if I am satisfied (with broad thinking) that dog is not confused, and is choosing to do its own thing.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

If you were to devise a set of guidelines that would help someone that was wavering on reporting an incident, what would you include on that list?

I really think this is a judgment call in a way that is very hard to prove one way or another.

My personal test is mostly about whether the person administering the punishment is doing so calmly and professionally, or whether they are angry/frustrated/disappointed and taking it out on the dog. How can you prove that?

This is somewhat topical for me because I saw something at a show a couple of months ago that people tell me I should have reported - it was a person training their dog to keep their tail down by whacking the tail hard with a leather strap. At the time I was too shocked to do anything much, but like you, I also wondered where the line was. After all, while this was over the line, people train using basically the same technique with less force all the time. What was over the line in the sense of community values was the amount of force and instrument used to administer the punishment, not the correction itself.

[Griffo]

punishment????

What?? There is absolutely no place for punishment or "floggings" in dog training whatsoever.

Aversive training - yes, well timed corrections and praise used together can be very effective.

[SueM]

people punish their dogs

[SkySoaringMagpie]

punishment????

What?? There is absolutely no place for punishment or "floggings" in dog training whatsoever.

Aversive training - yes, well timed corrections and praise used together can be very effective.

I have been wondering if language has been tripping up some of the discussion. When I use the word punishment it's in this context:

Positive reinforcement - the dog gets something good for doing the right thing (treat when dogs sits)

Positive punishment - the dog gets something it dislikes for doing the wrong thing (chain correction for not sitting)

Negative punishment - take away something good from the dog when it does the wrong thing (give the dog a timeout from the pack when he acts out)

Negative reinforcement - take away something bad for doing the right thing (eg, stop ear pinching when dog takes dumb-bell)

[Rom]

eg: lady doing mock trial has dog that bolts from trial ring mid trial, to do zoomies, finally, after about 3-4 laps woman catches dog after calling it. Handler then proceeds to rip the dogs head off with the chain (for coming back???)

Ok, theres one: When the punisher is not related to the behaviour immediately preceding it. I could probably word that better.....

If you were to devise a set of guidelines that would help someone that was wavering on reporting an incident, what would you include on that list?

I really think this is a judgment call in a way that is very hard to prove one way or another.

My personal test is mostly about whether the person administering the punishment is doing so calmly and professionally, or whether they are angry/frustrated/disappointed and taking it out on the dog. How can you prove that?

Thats just it. I wonder if this is the very reason why so many incidents go unreported....it is a judgement call and if it came to the pinch, how do you prove it? Do people hold back on reporting because they worry that the handler in question will get off scot free?

Apparently one of the people that I was talking about this to was talking to a committee member from another club about a person that attends both clubs who was seen doing a flogging behind the shed. The committee member from the other club didn't want to give names. Why is it so hard? Is it because there isn't a definitive set of guidelines?

Is it because there is something unworkable about the incident reporting process?

This is somewhat topical for me because I saw something at a show a couple of months ago that people tell me I should have reported - it was a person training their dog to keep their tail down by whacking the tail hard with a leather strap. At the time I was too shocked to do anything much, but like you, I also wondered where the line was. After all, while this was over the line, people train using basically the same technique with less force all the time. What was over the line in the sense of community values was the amount of force and instrument used to administer the punishment, not the correction itself.

If somebody else had witnessed the above with you, do you think you would have been more inclined to report it?

Maybe its like you say though....there is an element of shock at the time?

[Rom]

Most of what you see at dog clubs is all about embarrassment, frustration and inclass competition, not training methods.

I'd add ego to your list too there I think Dogdude.

But I don't think reports would stand on emotive language or descriptions of emotions....so I think it has to be about the correction/punisher

Edited August 22, 2007 by Rom

[Erny]

Something I don't understand ..... ie the witness' reluctance to report something I presume he/she already thinks was an act of cruelty.

Assuming that factual details will be given to an executive committee member to then take to committee level by way of meeting (special or otherwise), isn't it then up to the Club to make the decision on how it shall be dealt with? (And usually I would expect that would be by way of talking with the dog-owner concerned and if found appropriate issuing a warning or, if the actions of the dog-owner were contrived through sheer ignorance, then explanation.)

So what is holding back the witness? He/she doesn't have to make the judgement call ..... the responsible members of the Club do.

Or is it a case that if it does get reported, the dog-owner in question is going to know who reported it? Is that what is preventing him/her from reporting it?

And can you tell me if it is a him or a her so I can stop having to type "him/her" and "his/hers" and "he/she" .

Edited August 22, 2007 by Erny

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Something I don't understand ..... ie the witness' reluctance to report something I presume he/she already thinks was an act of cruelty.

- I think many people are genuine about the fact that while they train a particular way, they don't necessarily expect everyone else to train the same way and they are conscious of trying not to over-react in the moment. That can lead to hesitation out of a desire to give people the benefit of the doubt.

- I think newbies are conscious of their newbie status in all sorts of ways and don't want to make waves.

- In show world you need to have $50 on you to lodge the complaint. I understand why, it's to prevent vexatious political complaints, but not everyone has a free $50 on them at the time. It's true that if the complaint is upheld you get your money back, but that process takes a while.

- In the case of the "behind the shed" incidents, often it is one person's word against another, unless someone has the presence of mind to get their mobile phone out and start recording. Picking a fight with someone without evidence isn't something most people want to try.

[Rom]

They think they have an idea who it may have been and I think they'd be happy with 'IT' in this instance.....

Erny, basically what you have described is the way things are supposed to happen....but they just don't.

But that is a really obvious example (flogging behind the shed that is)......I wonder if people have difficulty with the obvious stuff because less obvious stuff isn't dealt with because it is such a judgement call and open to interpretation?

I mean, if the person in the example above had been pulled up over other not quite so serious stuff, would IT have escalated to such obvious cruelty?.....well at least at clubs anyway.

Or if people were pulled up over the smaller stuff, would it make reporting about the more obvious stuff easier....like Anita's example above?

But the resistance at reporting issues goes all the way to the Judges too it seems.

Maybe its just too hard to know where to draw the line?

[Erny]

I understand what you're saying Anita. But I'm taking words from the OP on face value. IE "flogging" - conjurs pictures for me of someone belting/whipping their dog - not just once. And for something the dog did or didn't do in the ring. I doubt anyone could even imagine that as being remotely connected with "training".

If a person won't report for that, is it possible that the description of the event the witness gave has been exaggerated?

Not intending to cast aspersions upon your witness, Rom. But in that particular instance, if the account is based in fact and not coloured with emotion, I'm not sure why anyone would be hesitant about reporting it.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Erny

[Erny]

Ummmm .... ok - so the "flogging" part was example only? Told you I was exhausted (and I really should, and will, go to bed after this post ).

And it would seem that in the instance that was witnessed, there is every liklihood that the Club committee are not going to persue for whatever reason. Even if this witness reports it? Or inspite of whether "IT" () reports it?

Have I got this right so far?

Regardless - it sounds to me more that the Club has a problem at committee level and rather than a "list" to sway the witness, I think the Club committee needs to meet with a view to developing policy on their protocol for handling "abuse complaint" matters.

The policy is voted on and in. Then it doesn't matter if one committee person thinks one thing or another something else. The protocol must be observed pursuant to constitutional policy.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

If somebody else had witnessed the above with you, do you think you would have been more inclined to report it?

Maybe its like you say though....there is an element of shock at the time?

I would have reported it if someone else had seen it and had been willing to go to the show manager with me. The dog in question was a puppy, which was heartbreaking, and I also saw this person repeatedly and angrily slap an adult dog about the head while the dog was in a car crate.

While there was an element of shock which slowed me down, ultimately I could see this person was not in full possession of themselves and they definitely fell into the criterion of bringing the sport into disrepute. Unfortunately there was no-one else I could see who witnessed it, and there was no way to prove what I saw. I am not in the business of bringing forward allegations I have no hope of proving.

[Rom]

Ummmm .... ok - so the "flogging" part was example only? Told you I was exhausted (and I really should, and will, go to bed after this post ).

And it would seem that in the instance that was witnessed, there is every liklihood that the Club committee are not going to persue for whatever reason. Even if this witness reports it? Or inspite of whether "IT" () reports it?

Have I got this right so far?

Regardless - it sounds to me more that the Club has a problem at committee level and rather than a "list" to sway the witness, I think the Club committee needs to meet with a view to developing policy on their protocol for handling "abuse complaint" matters.

The policy is voted on and in. Then it doesn't matter if one committee person thinks one thing or another something else. The protocol must be observed pursuant to constitutional policy.

Night, night Erny

Its probably not so much that you are tired as it is that I've not been terribly clear.

The witness is not willing to name names. Even if they did, the committee would probably just grumble but not really do anything. You're right. There is an issue with the club at committee level....their protocol is unclear and nobody seems to have confidence in applying it. Maybe its something of an Ostrich approach. They have made mention of improving things though.

That's what got me thinking about a list...as a guideline.

If somebody else had witnessed the above with you, do you think you would have been more inclined to report it?

Maybe its like you say though....there is an element of shock at the time?

I would have reported it if someone else had seen it and had been willing to go to the show manager with me. The dog in question was a puppy, which was heartbreaking, and I also saw this person repeatedly and angrily slap an adult dog about the head while the dog was in a car crate.

While there was an element of shock which slowed me down, ultimately I could see this person was not in full possession of themselves and they definitely fell into the criterion of bringing the sport into disrepute. Unfortunately there was no-one else I could see who witnessed it, and there was no way to prove what I saw. I am not in the business of bringing forward allegations I have no hope of proving.

I totally understand where you are coming from there.

I like the phrase 'bringing the sport into disrepute' is that in the rule book? Maybe thats the approach thats needed instead of trying to define fair and unfair punishment.

[Lablover]

I think if anyone looses their temper while training, is a poor example of the supposed smarter of the dog/human combination. Depending on the situation, at the very least the person should be sensibly but strongly spoken to. If abuse continues..........the discipline criteria shoud be raised. A thug is a thug. Personalities do not really change.

The problem is will the owner return or will be dog be left in a yard, as untrainable, or surrended to the local pound with often, dire consequences.

I agree with others, regarding terminology. Corrections (if the dog knows how to avoid or corrently perform the desired hehaviour ), punishment on the other hand is unnecessary -except for possibly stock chasing, dangerous roads etc. More often than not, it is the human at fault.

[Tonymc]

Lablover,I have to agree the majority of times the Human is at fault. Tony

[julew]

I have been reading this with great interest as I encountered a similar thing recently. IMO correction is acceptable providing the animal understands what it is being asked to do and is given fair opportunity to do it however punishment is something completely dfferent and is something meted out by a third party whose judgement may or may not be skewed by emotion, circumstances, pressure etc.

If you see something questionable I believe you know in your heart when this is the case and we all have a responsibility to act for those that cannot speak for themselves.

When clubs fail to act they let down their members and they increase the likelihood of repetition of such events. In the obedience world for those who are members for example of the VCA the rules clearly state that bringing the VCA into disrepute is contravening the standards of behaviour irrespective of anyhting else.I have found the VCA to be extrememly helpful with their advice in delaing with similar situations. i have no experience in the Showing world.

Regrdless of what kind of training method we use overt cruelty is just that. Using a tool to slap a dogs tail so it holds it down is no less cruel than tying a left handed persons hand behind their back to enforce right handedness (common practice years ago) Allegedly the higher species we are charged with demonstrating this and finding ways to achieve what we wish to with our dogs without resorting to brute force and ignorant behaviour if we cannot rise to this challeng what right do we have to claim the hiogher status... so after much ramblin I arrive at my point which is if YOU see something unacceptable YOU should report it EVERY time. For the sake of all our dogs.