Hitting dogs: is it OK?

 I didn't consider Schutzhund, though most of us don't train our dogs in Schutzhund. 

Very true, and I did want to throw it out there.  But schutzhund "hitting" has it's place and purpose.  Some of the dogs can really take a "beating", where other dogs, you have to really work to keep them on the sleeve.  I've been smacking Strauss in the sides and swinging him on a tug since he was 6 months old.  He's just become desensitized to being hit and "beat on" while playing tug.

You should see the dogs that do French Ring.  In some ways it's more intense, as the dog must learn to guard from between the decoy's legs, and the decoys try to do any and everything they can to "steal" points from the dog, and I'm sure that many times a dog is accidentally kicked or stepped on (you simulate a threat, you shouldn't actually connect with the dog unless you're doing stick hits).

So for Schutzhund, Mondio Ring, French Ring, and Personal Protection, hitting is an important part of training.  Smacking your dog because he took a leak on your brand new berber carpet?  Totally unacceptable.
 

 
Blaming the dog's personality or breed for the bad things that happen is and easy way out, is an easy way to get rid of the guilt for not fufilling the dog's needs

 
That's just not true.  Sometimes dogs do things because it IS in the nature of their breed, and it has nothing to do with taking the easy way out.  Ed has Pharoah hounds, a breed with one of the biggest prey drives I have ever seen...they make Strauss look like nothin'.
 
Could Ed walk his dogs without a lead in public?  I'm sure he could.  The "problem" with Ed is, he is a smart and responsible dog owner, and will not put his dogs at risk and set them up to fail on the chance that little Robby Rabbit decides to zoom across their path and "Oop!  Bye bye Xerxes and Gaia!"
 
My own dog is on high alert when it comes to Rabbits (Though we think very very carefully now about pursuing), and I've worked very hard to keep him under control with them involved.  My dog has a CD, is working on his CDX, and we've just started training utility work.  I'm still not taking my dog to an open field and tempting fate by heeling him offlead.

While I agree that hitting a dog as a disciplinary measure is not only morally wrong but completely ineffective. I also believe that placing all the blame for the dog's mistakes on the owner/handler is a HUGE mistake. Dogs are intelligent THINKING beings, as such, they make mistakes, as simple as that. At some point or another, they have to make a desicion, and eventually; regardless of leadership, training, need fullfilment; they will make the wrong one.

I don't know you guys, but one of the things I enjoy the most about my dog is watching what choices he makes, and what he does if he makes the wrong one. I have a DOG not a robot, on the latter one yes, any errors commited are at the owner's fault.
But again, dogs have minds of their own, and while dogs are parts of a pack, first and foremost they are individuals.

Blaming the dog's personality or breed for the bad things that happen is and easy way out, is an easy way to get rid of the guilt for not fufilling the dog's needs

 
So is not realizing that certain breeds have certain tendencies.  Or thinking that a dog will learn something with only one repetition.  Or thinking that a dog is reactive because the owner is "bad."
 
I still stick to my guns, and I think we're in agreement here-hitting dogs as a source of discipline is barbaric and does not accomplish anything.

May I offer that in protection training and protection sport training, the hitting is not to stop a behavior per se.  The idea is the dog has drive and character enough to continue a behavior at the introducation of an "aversive".  In many cases, the confidence building that starts at a very young age, winning at tug games,  getting a tap or a pull on the tug and the game continues, is designed to develop a dog who has confidence and character.

The idea of striking a dog as training or as a knee jerk reaction to the dog jumping, biting, etc. (been there, done that), is very different than building a strong dog who will stand up to aggression from a human decoy.

The use of physical punishment to interupt a behavior is rarely successful for getting a behavior that will be used reliability with different people and in different situations.  The second compoent, punishment rarely results in  new behaviors being learned, just behavior stopping.  In some cases, punishment impedes the relationship significantly.  The dog begins to disregard you and stay out of reach or shuts down.  Neither is very good outcome in my opinion.

  oops  got posts confused,  the part below was actually in response to the "strange behavior when playing" thread.  
 
One thing that I have not seen mentioned, is the behavior deficits that developed due to the lack of socialization.  This dog does not have a the expereince to know how to interact. She will need to be taught.  Many of the behaviors that the OP stated as problematic are instinctive behaviors that have no behavior "filter" in place.  The dog has not learned alternative things to do when an instinct is triggered.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

So is not realizing that certain breeds have certain tendencies.  Or thinking that a dog will learn something with only one repetition.  Or thinking that a dog is reactive because the owner is "bad."

 
Well i never said that you should not realize what kind of dog you are getting, of course some breeds have tendencies but with the right way to fufill the breed needs those tendencies dont have to be negative
 
Sheprano's sig has the link to a video that i showed him once, that shows really well that with the right methods the breed wont have to bring problems to the owner

Ok...everyone
SIT!
STAY!!
 
Do not move towards the key board until you can be nice to each other...
 
ok so that last ramble was more then a dog would comprehend but I'm sure you all know by now, play nice!
Insults are not considered nice

mrv and Xeph, thanks for your posts.  I've learned alot from them.  Let me see if I got it right, with reference to the OP:

In Schutzhund and other protection training techniques hitting, or smacking the dog is permissable.  That hitting serves the purpose of trying to distract or confuse the dog and thus the dog loses focus, and loses points.

The hitting in these particular training regimes would not be designed to hurt the dog-only to distract.  And the contact made would be by an experienced handler.

There is also a process of desensitizing the dog to the strike, which starts out very minimal and soft and only in a manner in which the dog "wins".  The "hitting" is part of developing a dog who will continue a behavior: in police work  such as taking down a criminal that is striking the dog with something or in protection sport not loosing points by breaking off the behavior when struck by the decoy.

Have I hit my dog before? Yes. Have I regretted it? Of course. I did belt him a good one once during agility because he bit me in the stomach...rather hard, and it was just a knee jerk reaction. Would I hit him for "discipline" on purpose? No.

 
I can also say I have done this in the past once and regretted it immediately.  I was not in control of my emotions and in a moment of rage, hit Kato across the snout. [&o]  I am human and it happened.  But, like you said, I would never do this on purpose for "disciplinary" reasons.  I hope I never do it again!!
 
FYI...exactly in what episode did CM sit on a puppy???????

There is also a process of desensitizing the dog to the strike, which starts out very minimal and soft and only in a manner in which the dog "wins".

Exactly.  And the way I've seen this done is that the dog is set on the sleeve, the helper hits the dog on the side lightly, and if the dog holds on, the helper releases the sleeve and the dog gets to parade around with it (confidence builder...I won I won, I beat the bad guy that was smacking on me!).

If the dog does NOT hold on, the dog is regripped, and hit in a spot that isn't as "sensitive" (closer to the flank is what I've seen), and rather than fighting with the dog, the helper holds relatively still (aside from tugging every now and then to keep the dog on).
 

In Schutzhund and other protection training techniques hitting, or smacking the dog is permissable.  That hitting serves the purpose of trying to distract or confuse the dog and thus the dog loses focus, and loses points

 
It's actually not even about being permissable.  Stick hits (3) are a required element in schutzhund.  Schutzhund, when used as a breed test, is testing the fortitude of the dog.  How determined is he? How much heart does he have?  Courage?  Fight?  A dog that lets go when he is  hit is useless to a police department, because a criminal (especially one hopped up on drugs) isn't going to hold back with the dog like some helpers do.
 
He will have no qualms about stabbing a dog, beating him in the head with the butt of a gun, BITING him, kicking him, slamming him into fences or on the ground.  It is the dog's job to NEVER let go.  The best dogs are the ones that return, even if they for some reason lose their grip.  Dogs that out the moment the slightest bit of pressure is applied are not dogs that belong on a police force.  They endanger everybody.  Themselves, their handlers, the criminal, innocent people...everybody.
 
I've seen videos of dogs, and heard stories from K9 handler friends who have lost their dogs taking down a bad guy, that even in the throes of death, the dog didn't let go.  One handler told of his dog who had been ripped open at the belly by a bowie knife.  He bled out, but he never let go of the bad guy.  Bad guy went to prison for the murder of an officer, and the dog was buried with full honors.

And all this starts, ironically, with hitting a dog in the side with a stick, and moving upwards.  And some of the thing these dogs go through can appear brutal, but really isn't.  Some of the things ARE brutal, but the dog is made better through them (dogs that can take a really HARSH correction, but don't become handler aggressive).

ORIGINAL: Xeph

I've seen videos of dogs, and heard stories from K9 handler friends who have lost their dogs taking down a bad guy, that even in the throes of death, the dog didn't let go.  One handler told of his dog who had been ripped open at the belly by a bowie knife.  He bled out, but he never let go of the bad guy.  Bad guy went to prison for the murder of an officer, and the dog was buried with full honors.

While I see the need to keep hanging on, it seems that there is a profit/loss pivot point here. Also not knowing the full circumstances makes it difficult, but I can certainly see where letting the bad guy go so that he can be caught by human officers, or shot, and living to work another day seems preferable to losing an expensive officer, not to mention the whole issue of it's being a living thing. Sorry if this doesn't make a lot of sense, I'm quite ill and typing through a fevered fog, hope my point is getting across!

While I find the Schutzhund discussion very informational and quite fascinating, it doesn't seem like the type of training helpful for an ordinary family pet.

To get back to the OP:

In my communities, hitting a dog is "normal", to "discipline" dogs and teach them to obey the owners.

I think the OP was referring to typical "community" dogs. Pets, not police dogs. So to redirect the thread slightly... outside of the special situations discussed here, is it acceptable to hit your dog?

The thing is, if the dog lets go (and we're talking about before the handler yells "AUS!") the aggression turns on the people, rather than the dog, and a big point of having a police service dog, is keeping the attention OFF the human officers until they can get in safely and cuff the bad dude.

Is it preferable that the dog lives to fight another day?  You bet it is.  But the people who look at these dogs as money pits are usually the commissioner and the tax payers.  All the handler knows is that he has one of the best partners in the world, and, like a human officer being gunned down, it is no less noble, and no less a sacrifice for a dog to give his life so that his handler and others can live.

Dogs are most often called off once the perp has hit the ground, because as much as they'll fight when standing (they think very little of bitten limbs), when they're down on the ground, most people are terrified of being bitten in the face or neck, and the dog WILL go for what's available to him.

And while most people don't train their dogs in schutzhund,  even before I was involved in dog sports, I'd smack on my dogs sides and toss them around and play with them in such a manner.  I did so because #1 they love to play that way and #2 it desensitized them to such actions from humans (thus making them safer for small, dog illiterate children).  So for the average pet owner, I do think a good bit of thumping is useful.  Not beating, and not disciplinary hitting, but just general play thumping.

I see nothing wrong with 'play-thumping.'  If I stop what I'm doing to lean over and drum my hands on my mutt's side the tail starts wagging and the happy, open-mouthed smile pops up, immediately.  Especially with bigger dogs that fall in the large or 'giant' breed scale--they appreciate the stimulation and the play.  I would never playfully paddle my mom's toy poodles the way I drum on my giant mutt.

Out of curiousity, may I pose a question to this general topic?  I want it to be understood that the human involved is NOT ME, and the animal involved has been dead for 13 years, so nobody is personally involved or in need of protection or any of that.  []

Situation:  Family adopts mutt from local shelter.  Dog has blue eyes and appears to be some kind of husky-mix, is rather young, and happens to be pregnant.  She is on the hot-list for being destroyed, since nobody wants to adopt a pregnant bitch.  Once she throws the pups and is able to do more than waddle, it quickly becomes apparent that what they have adopted is a wolf-dog. 

That she is a hybrid is not immediately an issue; the adopting family live in a log cabin out in the forest, miles from anything but the occasional farm house.  They have three young children, one an infant, and the dog is gentle as a lamb with them, watches them closely, follows them everywhere they go.  She also loves the mother.

The problem is the father, who the dog hates.  (It deserves the bold.)  The dog rapidly becomes more and more aggressive with the father.  She clearly feels that this is HER family and he is a threat to it.  The children must be protected at all costs.  The mother is not to be touched!  It begins with growling and escalates to physical attacks within a couple of months.  She leaps on the father and throws him into a lake for hugging his wife, then dives in the water and tries to hold his head under.  She leaps up and bites into his arm or hands, and aggressively herds him away from his children.  The children are the only ones who can touch her when she is like this.

Eventually enough is enough.  All attempts to train the dog to stop this aggressive behavior have failed.  (And believe me, an endless parade of attempts were made.)  One day she puts a long gash in the father's arm and refuses to allow him in the house.  He wraps his arms up in towels and oven mitts covered with duct tape, takes her to the garage, and the two of them hash it out.  Literally.  By the end of it the towels are just rags hanging from the tape and the dog limps for a week.  After that week, she is respectful, polite, and as protective of the father as she is of the rest of the family.

My question is:  Was this necessary?  We see all kinds of media (I'm not talking about CM here) about the pack mentality.  We know that hybrids are generally expected to challenge, sometimes quite literally, their owners for dominance.  The only place for this animal to go would have been back to the shelter, back to the high-kill list.  She was invaluable when it came to watching the children--I should know, I was the oldest one!  But does anyone have experience with the issues that surround hybrids?  Do the same rules always apply?  Was my dad wrong to throw down the gauntlet and take on her challenge?  What would you have done?

hybrids are different, plain and simple.  In most cases, hybrids dont belong in family situations.  Physical challenges are more common (among adolescent members) and more likely to end in more obvious aggression that can escalate to fighting.  One of the sites that offers some insights is the wolf park site in Indiana.  I think it has a behavior section.
 
I think your dad got lucky.