60% Exercise, 30% Discipline, 10% Affection

mudpuppy

You know, I don't think dogs actually REQUIRE affection as a basic need. I give dogs affection because it's a need of mine. I don't think it's possible to give a dog too much affection, or too little affection. Definitely possible to give too little exercise (the amount required depends on each dog, of course) and too little "discipline" (training).

I don't know about adults so much, but I do know that babies need affection. When I was raising a certain wild hare, I read that the advice given to rehabbers raising baby hares was to limit their contact as much as possible with the baby hare. Meanwhile, all the rehabber's baby hares were dying and mine wouldn't settle at night unless he was in my bed with me, and he would routinely come looking for me, I'd pick him up and he'd snuggle into my arms and practically become comatose with relaxation until my arm got tired and I wanted to move. He grew out of it and he doesn't need affection anymore (although he does like it form time to time), but most domestic animals are neotenised, so maybe it's different for them. I think my rabbit can survive without affection, but I'm not so sure about my dog. I did know a dog starved for affection, once, and she'd just about die of happiness if you said a kind word to her. Even our independent Pyry comes looking for cuddles sometimes. That doesn't mean he needs them, but who am I to say? 

espencer

glenmar

Discipline?  I don't know about that so much.  In our day to day lives, discipline isn't much of a factor in our home.  I don't consider a "leave it" or enh eh to be discipline so much as sharing information, telling them "that's not acceptable" 

 

So you discipline your dogs but thats not discipline, well then i do leash pops that is not discipline either, i'm also (just like you) sharing information only, therefore my dog, or the dog i'm with gets 0% discipline; verbal corrections, body blocks and leash corrections are only sharing information, telling them "thats not acceptable" but is not discipline whatsoever

glenmar

I live with 6 full times gsds and frequent fosters.  I think I'd go nuts trying to insure that everyone got their daily allotment of exercise, discipline and affection!

6 GSDs, frequent fosters, no discipline and no daily allotment of exercise, thats sounds about right, like a good recipe for a very well behaved pack

I'm not causing my dogs discomfort when I say "eh eh" or leave it.  I did not say that my dogs don't get exercise.  I did not say that my dogs don't get discipline.  What I said is that discipline isn't quantified as a percentage and that in the day to day lives with my crew there really isn't much NEED for discipline.  They have long since learned what the basic rules are and for the most part they live within the structure that has been set up for them.  Therefore, no need for "discipline" as it is normally defined.  And most certainly nothing as drastic as a leash pop.  I feel that if dogs are taught correctly how to walk on lead, well then, there is no need to be constantly reminding them that they did something wrong.  But I talk to my dogs.....and the bulk of any walk they are listening so they don't miss what I might have to say.

Had you read the first part of my post, you would know that MY dogs typically get an hour or more of off lead romping through the woods.  In fact I discussed looking at the individual need and ability of the dogs in determining the exercise needs.  I also explained that my fosters can't handle nearly the exercise that my crew can, and the why of that.  In the future, their exercise needs will increase perhaps, as they become more acclimated to normal life, but for now I'm dealing with still growing bodies that have spent 8 months locked in cages.

You also might have noticed that when physical exercise isn't a possibility for whatever reason, we play mental games that are quite effective at tiring them.

No where did I say that exercise and discipline are not needed.  I simply said that you can't slap a % label on those needs and expect that to fit every dog.  And, again, we all have our own definitions of discipline, don't we?

It really strikes me that there's also a "one of these things is not like the others" problem here. "Discipline" is a set of rules, not an activity. Exercise is an activity, giving affection is an activity. You could, if you wanted, keep a running tally of how long you spend each day giving the dog exercise and giving the dog affection. How would you keep a similar tab on how much "discipline" you give, if you've already done your proactive legwork and the dog knows the rules and there's no need for corrections or "disciplining"? 

yup, the %'s thing makes no sense whatsoever and delivers entirely the wrong message to your average dog owner- who will interpret this to mean : "don't pet or praise your dog, punish your dog often, and the only thing a dog really needs is to be marched at heel for twenty minutes twice a day" - a regimen that most dogs won't appreciate at all.

Boy, the OP really caused a stir with the numbers, huh? LOL

I REALLY think the title and opening post was to get people talking about these 3 concepts, not so much to nail down the numbers, which is CLEARLY impossible to do! Instead of focusing on getting those numbers right, I much prefer to discuss the importance of each aspect in the dogs' lives.

Discipline can also be an activity. It's a noun or a verb. Far too many people think only in terms of the verb, in fact. As in applying a punishment or correction. But if I didn't have the noun discipline in MY life, it would be a mess. The frig would be empty, dishes would be stacked high on the counter and the house wouldn't be fit to live in. AND getting on that fitness bike everyday is applying that discipline. Notice none of this is a punishment or correction.

But if I didn't have the noun discipline in MY life, it would be a mess. The frig would be empty, dishes would be stacked high on the counter and the house wouldn't be fit to live in. AND getting on that fitness bike everyday is applying that discipline. Notice none of this is a punishment or correction.

really? if you don't do these behaviors, I suspect you "punish" yourself mentally, though. Which is why you think of these things as part of "discipline".

Well, my point was that in noun form, you can't really put a number on it. In my life I can say...okay I get 45 minutes of exercise a day (which is only 3% of my day) and I get, say, 2 hours of family bonding time (8%), but the discipline in my life is just a general attitude--I get up when the alarm goes off, I go to work, I do my job, I maintain a schedule, I do what I have to do....so that's either 100% of my day, or 0% because it's not actually an activity, it's just an attitude. 

The OP chose to use numerical values instead of just saying "Affection isn't as important as exercise"--to stir the pot or whatever but it still doesn't make any sense, even as pot-stirring. If someone says you should "discipline your dog 30% of the time" what on earth does that even mean?  Or take the numbers out, even saying "You should discipline more than give affection", what does that even mean? 

I don't know why it's so hard to just say, "Hey everyone, meet your dog's needs." Why make it so much more complicated than it needs to be? You spend some time training your dog to an appropriate level for your household, you meet his daily exercise, dietary and social needs, you engage him in whatever activities he enjoys, to enrich his life. It's not rocket science.

houndlove

It's not rocket science.

Exactly. Why struggle to make it be a science at all? They're just aspects of a dog's life. It could have been 10% food, 40% water and 50% shelter...

I'm just saying I think people are taking the OP MUCH too LITERALLY. And it's beginning to appear as though some are just giving her a hard time because they think it's "pot-stirring". If you think it's pot-stirring, then I can understand why you're bucking against it. I just thought she was trying to get a discussion started. And I might add, I thought it was creative.

I won't defend the OP or what the purpose of the numbers are because they have stated a couple times now that they weren't meant to be taken literally. If people can't get beyond that, I guess they'll have to struggle with it. LOL

I guess that I personally find it rather preachy to tell others that they need to be doing exactly X to have happy, healthy, well balanced dogs.  Maybe that's just me.  Again, I can't and won't even attempt to quantify our days.....it would be counter productive to having well balanced dogs if I had to do math all day long!

I suppose that I should just bow out of this thread anyway since one particular poster likes to take what I say....no matter what I say....twist it around and spit it back out in a totally aborted fashion.  S/he doesn't seem to be around right now, but has no particular aversion to going back several pages to misinterrupt what I saw......

FourIsCompany

I won't defend the OP or what the purpose of the numbers are because they have stated a couple times now that they weren't meant to be taken literally.

Well, but I said that even if you take the whole numerical aspect out of it, it still does not make any sense. 

Though I wonder, if we'd all just diligently taken notes  and agreed completely with the first post if the OP would have ever clarified that the numbers weren't meant to really be all that meaningful. Why say it if it doesn't really mean what everyone's going to think it means?

glenmar

I guess that I personally find it rather preachy to tell others that they need to be doing exactly X to have happy, healthy, well balanced dogs.

What thread are you reading??? Where was this said or even implied?  

glenmar

I suppose that I should just bow out of this thread anyway since one particular poster likes to take what I say....no matter what I say....twist it around and spit it back out in a totally aborted fashion. 

I'm sorry, but this is exactly what you're doing with the OP's posts. Nowhere have they stated or preached that others need to be doing exactly X to have happy, healthy, well balanced dogs. Not even close! In fact most posts of tssst's begin with "I think". Read their posts, Glenda, as I have just done, and show me this preaching...

FourIsCompany

glenmar

I guess that I personally find it rather preachy to tell others that they need to be doing exactly X to have happy, healthy, well balanced dogs.

 

What thread are you reading??? Where was this said or even implied?  

glenmar

I suppose that I should just bow out of this thread anyway since one particular poster likes to take what I say....no matter what I say....twist it around and spit it back out in a totally aborted fashion. 

 

I'm sorry, but this is exactly what you're doing with the OP's posts. Nowhere have they stated or preached that others need to be doing exactly X to have happy, healthy, well balanced dogs. Not even close! In fact most posts of tssst's begin with "I think". Read their posts, Glenda, as I have just done, and show me this preaching...

The original post was

60% Exercise, 30% Discipline, 10% Affection

Yes!

That's the recipe for a well balanced and happy dog.

Most dog owners would not think that exercise means affection to a dog. They tend to think in terms of human-to-human interactions and equate affection to things like petting or giving a dog a good belly rub. But to a dog, a good hard walk is as satisfying as a good belly rub and the walk gives the dog time to burn it's energy reserves.

Most American dog owners typically have jobs and their dogs are sedentary for most of the day while they work. With this kind of schedule, these dogs typically see 20% exercise, 10% discipline, and 70% affection. With the proportions being completely off balance, it's no wonder why so many American dogs are neurotic, destructive, or aggressive.

So what is the solution here?

That sounds like preaching an exact solution to me!

tssst

Hi Golden,

I am just making a quick stop and go here. I saw you ask this:

"How do you know how much affection a dog needs? "

I don't know. I never stated that I did.

I did state that I think... which means it's just a feeling.... and feelings are wrong lots of times, aren't they?

For example, when you stated this:

"And I have ALWAYS hated it when a person passes a judgement about a dog-owner using a dog as a substitute since they have an "unfullfilled" life. It is like saying that people who want a calm-submissive dog are making up for a perceived lack of control in the rest of their life.

I did not say this at all. I said that it might, not that it is

Here is what I said exactly:

" I do tend to think that humans think that dogs need much more affection than dogs really need and sometimes, this stems from a something deeper or even an unfullfilled part of the humans life."

There's that word, sometimes.

You can qualify your statements if you want to, but by saying that sometimes something might happen, you are making a cause and effect statement.

GoldenAC

tssst

So what is the solution here?

That sounds like preaching an exact solution to me!

Okie-dokey! You've never been to a Southern Baptist church, have you? They don't ask for solutions at the end of the sermon! LOL  

FourIsCompany

Jewlieee

You don't need discipline in the traditional sense if you have a well trained dog.

 

Ack! Just jumping in here to say that discipline (in this context) is just rules, boundaries and limitations. Not punishment. Peeing outside is discipline. A walk every day is discipline. Mealtime at a certain hour is discipline.

Carry on.  

 Well, I wish they'd just call it "boundaries" then.  Boundaries is a pretty good term that describes peeing outside, regular mealtimes, etc.  Discipline implies punishment.  I know that discipline also means to be instructed but the implication is still there for the vast majority of people.  I think that is where CM and those that follow him get misunderstood and many people who try to emulate take the discipline to mean punishment.

From Wikipedia:

To discipline thus means to instruct a person or animal to follow a particular code of conduct, or to adhere to a certain "order," or to adopt a particular pattern of behaviour. So for example, to discipline a child to wash its hands before meals. Here, 'washing hands before meals' is a particular pattern of behaviour, and the child is being disciplined to adopt that pattern. 'To disciple' also gives rise to the word disciplinarian, which denotes a person who enforces order. An ideal disciplinarian is one who can enforce order without coercion. Usually however, the phrase 'to discipline' carries a negative connotation. This is because enforcement of order - that is, ensuring instructions are carried out - is often regulated through punishment.

To be disciplined is then, subject to context, either a virtue (the ability to follow instructions well) or a euphemism for punishment (which may also be referred to as disciplinary procedure). As a concrete noun, the discipline refers to an instrument of punishment, for example in mortification of the flesh (see also: flagellation). Such an instrument may also be applied to oneself, for example in penitence for not being sufficiently self-disciplined.