I would tend to classify canine education and dog behavior professionals into four categories:
the aversive ones towards the dog, and towards the human,
the aversive ones towards the dog, and, kind towards to human,
the kind ones towards the dog, and aversive towards the human,
the kind ones towards the dog, and towards the human.
The perception of being aversive or kind does not depend just on the professional. Even if my intentions are good, if I pet a dog when he does not like it (not reacting does not mean he likes it, he may be tolerant only, or have given in to undergo it), my action is aversive. If I say a sentence, even in a humorous tone, without being aware that certain words arouse emotional pain that I am unaware of in humans, I am aversive towards the human. Depending on the canine and/or human individual with whom I communicate, I can unconsciously and unwillingly be in one category one day, and another day in another. That being said, I aspire to make each animal (canine and human) with whom I interact as comfortable as possible.
Human beings can sometimes be handicapped in their analysis by confirmation bias; they only see and remember what will prove their perception right. Part of my work is to further enlighten humans on a deeper understanding of their dog's behavior.
No method, no approach, no dog behavior consultant will be perfect, will bring you “magic” solutions. What truly matters, to my mind, is that everyone feels well-treated. This is also why I am interested in and train myself in a set of different techniques and philosophies. Whatever the specialty, I believe that it brings me information for understanding and material and intellectual tools.
As long as the physical, psychological, and emotional well-being of the dog and the human is present, personally, you will not hear me forbidding you or forcing you to do certain things, and even less so judging you. My limit is to know if the end justifies the means.
There will be a difference between the feeling of oneself, of the other, of their actions, and the negative judgment. If I tell you "I would prefer we implement a change in the approach to the walk", it is different from "you're making a mess! It is mistreatment".
Personally, I am dismayed when I hear professionals make humans feel guilty. There is a difference between raising awareness and making people feel guilty. As a dog behavior professional, I have neither the time nor the knowledge to manage human psychology, and therefore assume the negative consequences of my words (which can also be generated unconsciously because I am not necessarily aware of the entire life of the person in front of me and therefore of their possible traumas).
Can we claim consistency if we practice an aversive approach towards humans while claiming a benevolent approach towards dogs?
When we do not have the ins and outs of the whole of a human being's life, the whole emotional life, etc., it is risky to allow ourselves to make certain comments which impact we do not know of.
If I cannot help the human being, I cannot consider I will help his dog.
My job is to offer you suitable solutions, not to impose on you how to live with your dog.
Comentários