Good morning everyone.
sillysally
I don't think that anyone is denying
that dogs are physical, I just think that the issue here is one of
"good touch, bad touch."
And is that something that you
(and others here who wish to make me out to be an abuser) can measure
objectively, considering you know practically nothing about me, my
dogs, our environment, etc.? Sure, many of you are willing to
make that judgment against me, that I touch my dogs in a "bad" way. But
from my position, it's a seriously subjective judgment from a fairly
righteous pedestal.
sillysally
I have seen numerous examples of dogs that I know
were not pinned as young puppies who have all turned out to be
respectable members of the canine community. Wouldn't that suggest
that a puppy pin might not be necessary for the proper raising of good
puppies?
Yes. I have never said that pinning a puppy is
necessary. I have never suggested that the only dogs who are respected
members of society are those who have been pinned. I have also seen
plenty of dogs (pinned or not) who were hellions and menaces to
society. I have never suggested that pinning a puppy is the single most
important determining factor in raising a dog. It's simply a choice
each doggy parent makes for themselves.
sillysally
I really wonder how you can discount the comparison
to another species as "irrelevant" if you know nothing about said
species.
They may apply, but we have no way of
measuring or even knowing that for sure. It's irrelevant because it
hasn't been shown. I do know that people and dogs and horses are very
different species. And if you say that dogs and horses will respond the
same way to a certain stimuli, then it's either simply an opinion or
something that needs to be shown or proven for ME to believe it. I'm
not saying you're wrong. And I'm not saying there aren't some
similarities. I'm just saying that because you know the way a
particular horse responds, it doesn't necessarily follow that a dog
will respond the same way. That's why I say the comparison is
irrelevant. I didn't say it's not true, I said it's irrelevant, because
we don't know if it's true or not.
sillysally
I believe you stated in your post " A quick forceful gesture that causes immediate distress, but changes his view on the world." This statement clearly suggests...
I'm sorry. I wonder if you really don't understand what I've said, or if you are arguing just to argue... In any case, let me say again (the third time, I believe) "It's only one brick in the foundation of our relationship." It's not a quick fix for anything.
Secondly, go back and read the post in which I said that. It's on page 11. It was in response to Ron talking about rescues. Pinning a dog is not in itself an answer to anything. It's not a quick fix. It CAN be part of a quicker fix than years of "gentle guidance" - if one knows what they're doing. When we're talking about an adult dog with issues, I doubt it actually does much good unless it's accompanied by follow up and a change of attitude on the part of the owner and the environment.
corvus
I would like to hear everyone's thoughts
I'm going to answer, simply because you said this. 
I absolutely think you did the right thing. I think it was the only option at the time and I don't think anyone would question that (although I could be wrong). I think it was a case where it proved to let the puppy know that aggressing toward you was not an option. I suspect it also let the puppy know that you were in charge and that he didn't NEED to aggress because you had the situation under control. You and your mother, the only 2 people who ever gave him this clear communication in a way he could understand, became his protectors and providers... of safety, security, guidance, etc.
I'm sure others will "excuse" you as you had no other option and say that you did the right thing. But because I didn't have to, because my dogs weren't aggressing at the time, nor did they need medical care at the moment, that I have abused my dogs. I find it interesting and amazing that a person who holds down their dog until it stops resisting for protection of the owner or for medical care, and one who does it to make a necessary communication to the dog (neither of which are hurting the dog) are judged as 2 totally different scenarios, one whose intent is completely altruistic and the other abuse.
Notice that I said the communication is necessary. We all make that communication to our dogs, regardless the method we use.
spiritdogs
Well, for one thing, your dogs may be fine,
but that could be largely a result of their own stable
temperament.
It could be. It could be that I got really
lucky and regardless how I've abused my dogs, they have come out
perfectly balanced, with no issues, willing to give their lives for me,
adoring me, feeling safe and secure in their lives and always looking
to me in any different or difficult situation. It could be that they
can eat (even raw, meaty bones) side-by-side, can be left alone
together perfectly safely for hours, never destroy anything of mine and
will give up anything they have in their mouth (even a live animal) to
me because they were just born with a stable temperament. It could be.
spiritdogs
Some people seem to function in pretty normal
fashion, despite horrific abuse. But, the memory of that, and even
some of the effects of that. might be invisible to the world, but they
linger in the mind of the victim. Others, who perhaps were not blessed
with the same constitution, suffer abuse and end up in psychiatric
hospitals, or suffer from addictions, or perpetrate the same violence
on their own children.
And still others who never suffered abuse end up addicted or violent.
I'm
not attributing my dogs' balanced state to the single fact that I
pinned them. I'm saying it was a part of an overall protocol AND it
certainly didn't unbalance them.
spiritdogs
Secondly, while you may read your dogs well, there are others who don't [...] So, I find that argument to be less than helpful when it comes to dogs in general.
True.
I totally agree with this point. I am not defending "the method" for
every JQP. I'm not arguing about "dogs in general". I'm defending myself and my own actions, if you hadn't noticed. 
And my dogs are not "damaged". Has anyone here seen any indication that my dogs are "damaged" or even have "issues"? No? Then this is in your own mind. I wonder why people are so quick to want my dogs to be "damaged". Could it be that your own dogs have issues and you don't like the fact that mine are so damn well-behaved and well-balanced?
mudpuppy, do you even have dogs? I don't think I've ever heard you talk about them.
spiritdogs
The comparison to other species is not completely
valid, but on the points of how mammals learn, and the fact that you
cannot physically manipulate whales, I'm willing to concede the
similarities.
I'm not arguing about how mammals learn. Bringing horses and whales into this discussion is simply off topic. Since when did you have a whale living under your roof? Since when has anyone had to keep a horse off the bed?
ron2
But the act may condition the puppy to accept
such physical holds and control from the human if nothing else bad
happened, it would get associated with a good thing. Which is then, not
a punishment but a cue. If the human holds me, and I be calm, other
good things happen.
Thank God! And when I need my dogs to lie still, they do! Mia got into a cholla yesterday. I had to get the pliers to pull them from her lips! I didn't have to take her to the vet to be sedated, because she TOTALLY trusts me, even when I come at her face with pliers.
I believe that answers everyone since my last post.