|Tiller- (Skansen's- Ira in the M|
I DO Exist...To- Drive You Batty
|Barked: Fri Nov 30, '12 11:27am PST |
|I do agree. There can be a defensiveness, which is not meant to be provoked. Some people believe quite sincerely that a dog enjoying a full belly is a just a right dogs ought have. Being able to experience their food. In terms of you, Lupi, you have a Dachshund, where weight is ultra critical. Literally life saving, or ensuring your dog doesn't spend their latter years a cripple. So of course if food is the strong motivator, this is something you need to do. I would not think anyone would be judging you. I think they would be judging you a lot MORE if your pictures of Lupi showed a fat dog. As they should. You are being a good dog owner in this context.
That said, it is not as if things we post aren't meant more generally. And with that, when we talk about how happy dogs are to work for food, this is ironically something protection dog trainers are quite familiar with, in that it is tension-release. Positive frustration. Dogs are inherently more vivacious and excited when they get to work towards a target with all that anticipation. That arousal morphs into the dog's enthusiasm to work. Your dog is in a state of drive. It links, remotely, to the prey response. So it only makes sense that they'd be drawn to "work for the food" over the kibble that is in the bowl. Not because they do not enjoy the bowl, but there is no drive response to the bowl. Drive trumps.....fill in the blank It trumps anything. That's why it's a drive. Dogs "working for food" are in a state of drive. This gets lost on some people. I don't look and see them as "happy" anymore than I see a Schutzhund dog on the field as "happy." That doesn't mean they are UNHAPPY. I am sure dogs are happy to be in a state of drive. I am also sure dogs are happy to have a full bowl. My only challenge is how content they might be.
That's not a dig at you, so please don't flip out. What I know, as nature is my thing far more than dogs are, there is a keen relationship between an animal and its environment. Dogs are nomadic. When things are lean, they move on. And to live a nibbling existence, I do wonder. That's my right...to wonder. As certainly in the wild, if all an animal can do is nibble here and there, it is time to go. It is time to migrate. And I do wonder about that.
My husband is diabetic, and he is on meds. He doesn't have to be. He could be off them if he followed the diet plan, but this requires dividing one's typical meals of three into six or eight. Just small meals throughout the day. And he just can't deal with that. He needs the feeling of a full meal. It leaves him agitated....never quite full, never quite hungry. Somewhere in between. And in the end, that thing that people seek....to enjoy one's meal and feel full....becomes akin to what people on a diet suffer. You just want to feel full. Cain is the headshrinker, maybe she can comment on this, but certainly a lot of over-eating disorders relate to security issues. Dealing with feelings of threat, insecurity, loneliness by feeling full. I think in that is some nature's link, that when we full, we feel safe. We feel nurtured and sustained. So when you have these people who doubt these things for other reasons, taking us to that point of natural programming, where we are meant to feel content due to the ample sustenance, can make us feel less restless, more grounded to where we are as a place that will sustain us, just makes it feel better.
This doesn't cast judgment on those who operate outside that ethic. They have their own ethic. Cain and I, I believe, mirror each other in a lot of ways. Part of which is a dog living as close to his natural being as he can. That's why we like workers, there is a joy in that to us. That is why there is raw. Things like that. That this is our ethic doesn't mandate everyone who does not have that ethic is corrupt. Of course not! That whoever does not share that ethic is thereby doing something "wrong." Of course not! But nor should it silence us from expressing our ethic, which we feel in a bottom-of-the-heart sort of way. The same to you. You love how your dog is, acts, lives, and I have no reason ***on earth*** to believe your dog is anything but happy.
*****!!!!!*****Any/all statements I have made comes solely from a base of "food only" trainers....who I massively do not respect as you can use a clicker with a ball....who insist food is the universal reinforcer and if your dog is a non foodie then just cut back on its meals. Make it hungry! Hello? I mean, are these people even hearing themselves? Kinder and gentler is starving your dog? On what planet? If they are devoted to PR, paramount in that ethic is to find what makes their dog happy. If they are missing THAT, then they are missing the whole point. They who wince at "compliance" are comfortable with starving a dog so that he will work. I find that both bizarre and non ethical. Not because they don't give their dog full meals (even if I personally think that they should), but because they would insist a dog who is not a foodie can be FORCED to be one. And then call themselves "force free." Ugh! *****!!!!!*****
Edited by author Fri Nov 30, '12 11:35am PST
|my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals|| [notify]|