La séparation chez le chien

[patty2]

toi oui robert mais nath parle de vary fermé quand elle s absente sinon plus de maison ...

[nath1977]

voila comme dis patty, a cause que j ai eu des mauvais conseils et que du coup rien n y rechappe

[evelv]

Et alors, le mal est fait ! car si toutou n'est pas sage, ce sera FERME, FERME

Je n'ai JAMAIS plus eu besoin de les fermer après la période où Zora devait y rester pour ne pas ENCORE faire sauter sa cicatrice de stérilisation. Et pourtant, je sais que si je laisse un sac poubelle en évidence, Zora l'éventrera (elle n'a que 2 défauts: les poubelles et les trous dans le jardin)... Et bien j'enlève les sacs poubelle et les mets dans ma belle ( ) poubelle à puce...

Encore une fois, je ne dois pas être la seule à faire comme ça... C'est pas parce que certains personnes sont assez bêtes pour ne pas voir que laisser son chien des heures en cage que TOUS les utilisateurs du vary sont pareils et que TOUS les chiens y sont enfermés. Tout comme c'est pas parce que certains roulent comme des tarés en voiture que tous les conducteurs sont à bannir...

[Forest Charlot and co]

Pour Robert en suposant qu'il sache lire l'anglais

Je dois dire, à mon grand regret que ta culture canine est de plus en plus distancée...



Professor John Bradshaw is holding out a clenched fist – you might see this as a novel way of greeting a stranger were it not that it is my dog, Lily, he is approaching. He is giving her a chance to have a good sniff at him. Before we go any further, it needs spelling out that Bradshaw is not a dog trainer. He has not come to my house to turn Lily into a reformed character. He is a scientist – founder and director of the Anthrozoology Institute at the University of Bristol – who has devoted the last 25 years to studying the domestic dog and has just written the most fantastic book, In Defence of the Dog, which is already on US bestseller lists and is about to become required reading for dog lovers everywhere. Bradshaw is not interested in canine hearsay. He does not peddle opinions. His style is tolerant, clear and benign and he is interested only in what science can support. His book is a revelation – a major rethink about the way we understand our dogs, an overturning of what one might call traditional dogma.

In Defence of Dogs
by John Bradshaw
Buy it from the Guardian bookshopSearch the Guardian bookshop
Tell us what you think: Star-rate and review this bookThe first idea to bite the dust is so huge and entrenched that some owners will struggle to adjust. We have had it drummed into us by trainers such as Cesar Millan that because dogs are descended from wolves (their DNA is almost identical), they behave like wolves and can be understood as "pack" animals. The received thinking has been that dogs seek to "dominate" and that our task is to assert ourselves as pack leaders – alpha males and females – and not allow dogs to get the upper paw. (I remember sitting in the back of a puppy-training class with Lily who was crying while the teacher was talking. I got ticked off. I was told she was demonstrating "dominant" behaviour.) Bradshaw has no quarrel about DNA. His argument is that scientists have been studying the wrong wolves and jumping to the wrong conclusions. He says: "People have been studying American timber wolves because the European wolf is virtually extinct. And the American timber wolf is not related at all closely to the ancestry of the domestic dog."

Bradshaw's hypothesis is that domestic dogs were descended from more sociable wolves but that "whatever the ancestor of the dog was like, we don't have it today". The wolves alive now are unreliable specimens, necessarily rough diamonds, who have been able to "survive the onslaught we have given them". And here is the rub: new research – including work with Indian village dogs – shows that dogs "do not set up wolf-type packs. They don't organise themselves in the way wolves do". Dogs are not striving, in other words, for household domination. Bradshaw believes our relationship with dogs has been sadly distorted. He writes: "The most pervasive and pernicious idea informing modern dog training techniques is that the dog is driven to set up a dominance hierarchy wherever it finds itself." He explains that apparently dominant dogs are usually "anxious" rather than "ambitious". He says: "They don't want to control people, they want to control their own lives. It is what we are all aiming for – to keep control of our own lives. It is a fundamental biological urge."

But Bradshaw is far from suggesting we slacken in our efforts to train our dogs (it is the more brutal training methods he would like to banish). But I wonder how Cesar Millan and his followers will respond to these findings. Millan, America's internationally influential "dog whisperer" has made a television career explaining dog psychology in terms of wolf lore. Bradshaw says: "I am reluctant to demonise Millan, he has come under a lot of pressure." On a recent tour of the UK, Millan was told his methods were close to breaching Defra guidelines (which forbid harsh training). "He is a smart guy and sees which way the wind is blowing. He is now embracing reward-based methods. All that stuff he spouted about wolves was not based on science." Besides, as Bradshaw observes, there are more "hardcore" trainers out there – such as the massively influential Monks of New Skete in the United States who "sound as if they ought to be the gentlest people in the world" but base their bogus, punitive methods on wolf biology: they urge owners to shake their dogs "because this is what wolf mothers do to keep their cubs in line".

Bradshaw favours humane, reward-based training. The latest science shows that dogs learn to "please their owners". It is wonderful to hear this: he makes one feel fantastically upbeat about being a dog owner (and it is a relief to drop all thoughts of a primitive power struggle).

Bradshaw first went to the dogs – in the best sense – because of his interest in "the science of smell. I used to study ants, wasps, moths… then I thought: why not broaden this out?" When he started out, a quarter of a century ago, he was in an unglamorous minority. Now canine science is a "huge industry – with 200-300 people working worldwide". The reasons for this include the sequencing of the canine genome, the rise in animal welfare science, increased interest from vets wanting to specialise in dog behaviour and primatologists who can no longer afford to study chimpanzees. But the most remarkable reason, Bradshaw explains, is that since 9/11 there has been a huge increase in the use of sniffer dogs. Dogs are now used not only for narcotics but to help epileptics (able to alert them when they are on the edge of a seizure) and to sniff out everything from bedbugs to shark's fins and even certain kinds of cancer. Bradshaw, in his book, follows the dog's nose brilliantly (it was intriguing to learn that while dogs love to sniff other dogs they "do not much like being sniffed themselves"). He urges us to show "manners" and be aware of our dog's sense of smell. And his championing of a dog's right to be a dog is attractive. But I had been hoping he might have a solution to what happens when the sense of smell gets out of hand: Lily, whenever there is a roast in the oven, is overcome with greed and longing – and barks. On this matter, he says only: "Ignore her." (I suspect him of being on her side.)

For anyone interested in dog emotion, In Defence of Dogs is also a sentimental – and surprising – education. The first shocker is this: dogs do not experience guilt. So the look Lily gives us when discovered illegally on the sofa (creeping off, flashing the whites of her eyes) is not guilt? Bradshaw explains she may know to associate that basking on the sofa leads to owner disapproval but that is not the same as feeling guilt, or as having the mental equipment to differentiate between right and wrong. Less surprising is Bradshaw's sense that dogs may be capable of jealousy (when I give my husband a hug, Lily wants to be part of the action). But dog jealousy is not of the all-consuming, Othello sort: "They may be able to feel jealousy in the moment but don't obsess about it or trawl Facebook for evidence."

Bradshaw's most incredible – and gratifying – assertion is that dogs are more interested in people than in other dogs. This is not soppy wishful thinking but the result of studying "co-evolution, the two species evolving towards each other". We forget that the play between species, enjoyed by dogs and humans, is very rare. The family feeling that wolves display has been replaced in dogs by "an intense need to bond with people". Bradshaw says that from the moment puppies open their eyes, they start to bond with people "completely, spontaneously and as hard as they can".

He writes about love (science plays safe and calls it "attachment") but in answer to the question: does your dog love you? replies: 'Of course!" The positive hormone, oxytocin, is triggered by love: "Dogs experience a surge of oxytocin during friendly interactions with people." And, he explains, "Dogs really do miss their owners when separated from them." Of an estimated eight million dogs in the UK, it is thought that more than half a million are suffering from separation stress. The closest Bradshaw comes to being interventionist is on this subject (he quotes excellent, easy instructions on how to train a dog not to feel separation anxiety).

Bradshaw is determined to make "It's a dog's life" into a positive statement. We talk about the future – and his sense that there is an urgent need to reform pedigree breeding if dogs are to have a healthy future. We talk about the past – and the dogs from his own life: Ginger (a cairn terrier belonging to his grandfather); Alexis (a lab/Jack Russell cross – "a roamer"); Ivan (a lab/airedale – "a squirrel chaser"); Bruno (a purebred lab – "not all that bright but he loved us dearly… he did not know how to retrieve") and about his present labrador, Murphy, a field dog. We talk, too, about how good dogs are at reading our body language – and he makes one determined to read theirs correctly (he is a close student of every twitch of ear and tail). I ask about his title: do dogs really need defending? "They need defending from people who persist in the old methods and don't take any notice of science."

Before he leaves, Bradshaw and I have a tug of war with Lily in which (you have to be a dog owner to understand how cutting-edge this is) she is repeatedly allowed to win. She trashes a toy duck and shreds a rope. It is a great and victorious afternoon – as far as she is concerned. Here's Bradshaw on tug-of-war research: "Dogs were allowed to win tug-of-war games played with a person, over and over again; understandably, this made the dog more keen to play with people than when they were forced to lose every time, but there were no signs indicating that any dog became 'dominant' as a result." He is good news for owners and – there is no doubt about it – Professor John Bradshaw is a dog's best friend.

En gros, comme César millan l'a si bien fait, tu te sers du prétexte, le chien un loup civilisé pour faire passerr des idées, malheureusement obsolètes

[evelv]

je comprends pas !

mon chien dans son vary peut se déplacer dans toute la maison !

Oui mais malheureusement, beaucoup d'utilisateurs ferment la porte du vary quand ils partent.

Et je suis d'accord avec toi, ils ne sont pas plus heureux en chenil qu'en vary porte fermée. Comme je l'ai mis plus haut, le dogue allemand de ma belle-mère avait toute une pièce pour lui seul, mais il y était enfermé tout le temps sauf pour son pipi du soir dans la cour... Je n'appelle pas ça traiter son chien correctement personnellement.

[evelv]

Pour Robert en suposant qu'il sache lire l'anglais

Je dois dire, à mon grand regret que ta culture canine est de plus en plus distancée...



Professor John Bradshaw is holding out a clenched fist – you might see this as a novel way of greeting a stranger were it not that it is my dog, Lily, he is approaching. He is giving her a chance to have a good sniff at him. Before we go any further, it needs spelling out that Bradshaw is not a dog trainer. He has not come to my house to turn Lily into a reformed character. He is a scientist – founder and director of the Anthrozoology Institute at the University of Bristol – who has devoted the last 25 years to studying the domestic dog and has just written the most fantastic book, In Defence of the Dog, which is already on US bestseller lists and is about to become required reading for dog lovers everywhere. Bradshaw is not interested in canine hearsay. He does not peddle opinions. His style is tolerant, clear and benign and he is interested only in what science can support. His book is a revelation – a major rethink about the way we understand our dogs, an overturning of what one might call traditional dogma.

In Defence of Dogs
by John Bradshaw
Buy it from the Guardian bookshopSearch the Guardian bookshop
Tell us what you think: Star-rate and review this bookThe first idea to bite the dust is so huge and entrenched that some owners will struggle to adjust. We have had it drummed into us by trainers such as Cesar Millan that because dogs are descended from wolves (their DNA is almost identical), they behave like wolves and can be understood as "pack" animals. The received thinking has been that dogs seek to "dominate" and that our task is to assert ourselves as pack leaders – alpha males and females – and not allow dogs to get the upper paw. (I remember sitting in the back of a puppy-training class with Lily who was crying while the teacher was talking. I got ticked off. I was told she was demonstrating "dominant" behaviour.) Bradshaw has no quarrel about DNA. His argument is that scientists have been studying the wrong wolves and jumping to the wrong conclusions. He says: "People have been studying American timber wolves because the European wolf is virtually extinct. And the American timber wolf is not related at all closely to the ancestry of the domestic dog."

Bradshaw's hypothesis is that domestic dogs were descended from more sociable wolves but that "whatever the ancestor of the dog was like, we don't have it today". The wolves alive now are unreliable specimens, necessarily rough diamonds, who have been able to "survive the onslaught we have given them". And here is the rub: new research – including work with Indian village dogs – shows that dogs "do not set up wolf-type packs. They don't organise themselves in the way wolves do". Dogs are not striving, in other words, for household domination. Bradshaw believes our relationship with dogs has been sadly distorted. He writes: "The most pervasive and pernicious idea informing modern dog training techniques is that the dog is driven to set up a dominance hierarchy wherever it finds itself." He explains that apparently dominant dogs are usually "anxious" rather than "ambitious". He says: "They don't want to control people, they want to control their own lives. It is what we are all aiming for – to keep control of our own lives. It is a fundamental biological urge."

But Bradshaw is far from suggesting we slacken in our efforts to train our dogs (it is the more brutal training methods he would like to banish). But I wonder how Cesar Millan and his followers will respond to these findings. Millan, America's internationally influential "dog whisperer" has made a television career explaining dog psychology in terms of wolf lore. Bradshaw says: "I am reluctant to demonise Millan, he has come under a lot of pressure." On a recent tour of the UK, Millan was told his methods were close to breaching Defra guidelines (which forbid harsh training). "He is a smart guy and sees which way the wind is blowing. He is now embracing reward-based methods. All that stuff he spouted about wolves was not based on science." Besides, as Bradshaw observes, there are more "hardcore" trainers out there – such as the massively influential Monks of New Skete in the United States who "sound as if they ought to be the gentlest people in the world" but base their bogus, punitive methods on wolf biology: they urge owners to shake their dogs "because this is what wolf mothers do to keep their cubs in line".

Bradshaw favours humane, reward-based training. The latest science shows that dogs learn to "please their owners". It is wonderful to hear this: he makes one feel fantastically upbeat about being a dog owner (and it is a relief to drop all thoughts of a primitive power struggle).

Bradshaw first went to the dogs – in the best sense – because of his interest in "the science of smell. I used to study ants, wasps, moths… then I thought: why not broaden this out?" When he started out, a quarter of a century ago, he was in an unglamorous minority. Now canine science is a "huge industry – with 200-300 people working worldwide". The reasons for this include the sequencing of the canine genome, the rise in animal welfare science, increased interest from vets wanting to specialise in dog behaviour and primatologists who can no longer afford to study chimpanzees. But the most remarkable reason, Bradshaw explains, is that since 9/11 there has been a huge increase in the use of sniffer dogs. Dogs are now used not only for narcotics but to help epileptics (able to alert them when they are on the edge of a seizure) and to sniff out everything from bedbugs to shark's fins and even certain kinds of cancer. Bradshaw, in his book, follows the dog's nose brilliantly (it was intriguing to learn that while dogs love to sniff other dogs they "do not much like being sniffed themselves"). He urges us to show "manners" and be aware of our dog's sense of smell. And his championing of a dog's right to be a dog is attractive. But I had been hoping he might have a solution to what happens when the sense of smell gets out of hand: Lily, whenever there is a roast in the oven, is overcome with greed and longing – and barks. On this matter, he says only: "Ignore her." (I suspect him of being on her side.)

For anyone interested in dog emotion, In Defence of Dogs is also a sentimental – and surprising – education. The first shocker is this: dogs do not experience guilt. So the look Lily gives us when discovered illegally on the sofa (creeping off, flashing the whites of her eyes) is not guilt? Bradshaw explains she may know to associate that basking on the sofa leads to owner disapproval but that is not the same as feeling guilt, or as having the mental equipment to differentiate between right and wrong. Less surprising is Bradshaw's sense that dogs may be capable of jealousy (when I give my husband a hug, Lily wants to be part of the action). But dog jealousy is not of the all-consuming, Othello sort: "They may be able to feel jealousy in the moment but don't obsess about it or trawl Facebook for evidence."

Bradshaw's most incredible – and gratifying – assertion is that dogs are more interested in people than in other dogs. This is not soppy wishful thinking but the result of studying "co-evolution, the two species evolving towards each other". We forget that the play between species, enjoyed by dogs and humans, is very rare. The family feeling that wolves display has been replaced in dogs by "an intense need to bond with people". Bradshaw says that from the moment puppies open their eyes, they start to bond with people "completely, spontaneously and as hard as they can".

He writes about love (science plays safe and calls it "attachment") but in answer to the question: does your dog love you? replies: 'Of course!" The positive hormone, oxytocin, is triggered by love: "Dogs experience a surge of oxytocin during friendly interactions with people." And, he explains, "Dogs really do miss their owners when separated from them." Of an estimated eight million dogs in the UK, it is thought that more than half a million are suffering from separation stress. The closest Bradshaw comes to being interventionist is on this subject (he quotes excellent, easy instructions on how to train a dog not to feel separation anxiety).

Bradshaw is determined to make "It's a dog's life" into a positive statement. We talk about the future – and his sense that there is an urgent need to reform pedigree breeding if dogs are to have a healthy future. We talk about the past – and the dogs from his own life: Ginger (a cairn terrier belonging to his grandfather); Alexis (a lab/Jack Russell cross – "a roamer"); Ivan (a lab/airedale – "a squirrel chaser"); Bruno (a purebred lab – "not all that bright but he loved us dearly… he did not know how to retrieve") and about his present labrador, Murphy, a field dog. We talk, too, about how good dogs are at reading our body language – and he makes one determined to read theirs correctly (he is a close student of every twitch of ear and tail). I ask about his title: do dogs really need defending? "They need defending from people who persist in the old methods and don't take any notice of science."

Before he leaves, Bradshaw and I have a tug of war with Lily in which (you have to be a dog owner to understand how cutting-edge this is) she is repeatedly allowed to win. She trashes a toy duck and shreds a rope. It is a great and victorious afternoon – as far as she is concerned. Here's Bradshaw on tug-of-war research: "Dogs were allowed to win tug-of-war games played with a person, over and over again; understandably, this made the dog more keen to play with people than when they were forced to lose every time, but there were no signs indicating that any dog became 'dominant' as a result." He is good news for owners and – there is no doubt about it – Professor John Bradshaw is a dog's best friend.

En gros, comme César millan l'a si bien fait, tu te sers du prétexte, le chien un loup civilisé pour faire passerr des idées, malheureusement obsolètes

Oh, un copier-coller (sans rancune hein Forest, elle était trop facile je l'avoue mdr).

[nath1977]

oui mais ici on a conseillier ce truc et pas donner le bon "ode d emploi" donc on ecoute quand on sais pas et on crois que apres le chien aura appris par logique a ne pas faire tel ou tel comportement

ici totu y passe donc je prefere le mettre en chenil lors de mes absences

sans compter qu un chien qui bouffe tout peut se faire du mal

quand je suis la (la plupart du temp ) il est avec nous rassure toi

[Forest Charlot and co]

Source


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... ?fb=optOut


Spécialiste du chien reconnu John Bradshaw


Bien que tout cela soit déjà connu chez nous

Rappel Barry Eaton

[evelv]

oui mais ici on a conseillier ce truc et pas donner le bon "ode d emploi" donc on ecoute quand on sais pas et on crois que apres le chien aura appris par logique a ne pas faire tel ou tel comportement

ici totu y passe donc je prefere le mettre en chenil lors de mes absences

sans compter qu un chien qui bouffe tout peut se faire du mal

quand je suis la (la plupart du temp ) il est avec nous rassure toi

Je dirais juste qu'entre la peste et le choléra, tu choisis la solution qui te semble la moins mauvaise. Maintenant, je pense que tu ne travailles pas donc tu es là la plupart du temps (donc en résumé, il y sera rarement). Tu as des gens qui enferment leur chien en vary ou en chenil toute la journée, je ne pense pas que ça soit ton cas .

Attention, je pense également qu'il y a des races de chiens qui sont faites pour vivre dehors et qu'on ne doit pas confiner à l'intérieur 24h/24 non plus, même dans la chaleur d'un foyer et entouré de la famille. D'où l'intérêt de choisir la race qu'on décide d'avoir en toute connaissance de cause. Je pense par exemple aux chiens de Nouki, qui aiment certainement, de temps en temps, être dans le canapé avec leurs maîtres mais qui ont aussi besoin de vivre leur vie en meute et dehors (je dis ça mais je n'y connais rien en Malas donc si ça se trouve, je me goure complètement mdr).

[Forest Charlot and co]

Si je réfléchis un peu,
en prenant les utilisaateurs de cages d'intérieur: j'ai deux sortes d'utilisateurs
ceux qui travaillent donc entre 4 à 8 heures absents

ceux qui ne travaillent pas donc censés s'occuper de leurs chiens et avoir du temps à consacrer soit à la recherche d'emploi, soit à éduquer, promener leur chien

et j'oubliais ceux qui travaillent mais dont un conjoint reste à la maison


J'ai parcouru, après avoir tapé le mot de vary les avis de forums et ils sont nombreux ces forums, tous, je dis bien tous se réfèrent


la sécurité du chien
les pipis
les destructions
la tranquillité

en résumé le vary sert essentiellement à éviter les problèmes et donc à éduquer
Tous se vantent de ne surtout pas laisser leur chien plus de 3 heures, c'est long pour un chiot , dans le vary


Donc soit tous mais tous sont , sans emploi donc auraient du temps à consacrer à l'éducation
soit pensionnés et vu les ages, les réflexions je doute soit ils mentent soit ils disent la vérité et le vary serait donc l'instrument béni de personnes ayant beaucoup de temps et n'ayant pas envie d'en perdre à éduquer.

Désolée mais que font toutes les personnes qui travaillent à temps plein et qui sont sur le forum, cela existe et qui soutiennent ne pas enfermer le chien mais ne pas avoir de destructions


A cela on rajoutera toutes les personnes qui ont des chiens en vary, adultes et qui ne sont toujours pas éduqués;;;

[nath1977]

tu as raison ma kiki a des fois pas envie de rentrer avec les autres, elle prefere regarder le ciel

il faut aussi respecter ses preferances qui sont differentes des autres

[Forest Charlot and co]

Oui , qui suis je pour décider de priver mon chien, pire mon meilleur ami disent les livres pleins d'amour , de leur liberté, de leur droit le plus naturel à se soulager?

Savez vous que si, dans un magasin, vous avez un besoin, on ne peut normalement vous refuser l'accès aux toilettes, ben, les chiens, si..
C'est un chien, pas mon meilleur ami finalement

[nath1977]

Oui , qui suis je pour décider de priver mon chien, pire mon meilleur ami disent les livres pleins d'amour , de leur liberté, de leur droit le plus naturel à se soulager?

Savez vous que si, dans un magasin, vous avez un besoin, on ne peut normalement vous refuser l'accès aux toilettes, ben, les chiens, si..
C'est un chien, pas mon meilleur ami finalement

tu sais jetter un oeuil a sante le post pour le chien qui tourne apres sa queue

[robert]

Pour Robert en suposant qu'il sache lire l'anglais

Je dois dire, à mon grand regret que ta culture canine est de plus en plus distancée..

En gros, comme César millan l'a si bien fait, tu te sers du prétexte, le chien un loup civilisé pour faire passerr des idées, malheureusement obsolètes

Encore une fois qu'est ce qui te permet d'avancer de telles conneries sur moi !?!

Tu as ouvert un poste sur la diffamation et là c’est de la diffamation !

Tous les gens qui te gênent, tu dois essayer de les démolir pour être la seule avec tes raisonnements à la con ! Décidément tu ne changes pas et ne changeras jamais. Fais toi soigner, va voir un psy pour humain !

Je suis à l’opposé de CM et le loup est à l’origine du chien point barre !
Je ne regarde pas le chien comme étant un loup !
Garde tes affirmations diffamatoires pour toi ! Et continues à couper les poils des chiens.

[Forest Charlot and co]

Tu as raison tu as raison tu as raison, et à la poubelles les chercheurs biologistes, ce ne sont pas des spécialistes !!!
juste des charlatans, de l'intox, de la crotte!!


Et vive l'inculture....c'est avec ele que les populistes et autres démagogues font leurs lits, pauvre Belgique!