I noticed Cesar millan hitting dogs like something to do with water bowl dog food Labrador aggression. He hit her several times in the episode. I noticed yanks on leashes and force. His Alpha thing bothers me i don't believe that no more. He seems to think of dogs as property too. Dog terms like owner pets etc. hate the property terms dogs are not objects living beings. No lesser than humans we have all same feelings all beings pain and strive for love. I hate brags about humans being better than all other species superior. No one is inferior to anyone. Dogs are my companions comrades best friends like other humans. I'm the guardian caretaker of dogs or best friends.
"I noticed Cesar millan hitting dogs like something to do with water bowl dog food Labrador aggression. He hit her several times in the episode. I noticed yanks on leashes and force
Yeah, I am not a fan of Cesar's either, but he does have quite a following and is a self-made man.
"His Alpha thing bothers me i don't believe that no more."
The whole alpha - pack garbage, may have some grains of truth somewhere, but it is so over-done, over-used, that I think it causes way more problems than it helps.
"He seems to think of dogs as property too. Dog terms like owner pets etc. hate the property terms dogs are not objects living beings."
Well, they are property in the eyes of the law. Sorry, but that is true, and I hope that it continues to be true. I am my pet's owner, I am, therefore responsible for their behavior, their condition, their training, damages caused by them, etc. And this is true until the dog dies, is put down, or I give or sell him to a new owner. He is not going to grow up and move out on his own at any point. He is and will always be totally dependent on me unless his ownership transfers to another responsible party.
"No lesser than humans we have all same feelings all beings pain and strive for love. I hate brags about humans being better than all other species superior. No one is inferior to anyone."
While dogs have emotions and can feel pain, and can bond with people or other dogs, they are not humans. There are some significant differences that can get us in trouble if we equate dogs to humans. First and foremost, a human leaves behind a family, friends, people at work, people at church, pets etc, some of whom he is responsible to caring for. For this reason, if it comes between saving the life of any of my dogs, and any human being, I will miss my dog very, very much, and grieve for her, but I will save the human if at all possible.
I don't see it that humans are so much better than other species, but dogs are not moral beings. They can love to an extent, they can choose to obey you, but they do not make decisions based on how their action will effect other beings. Humans can do this. Dogs do not. Expecting a dog to hold to a moral code that we adopt is really unfair to the dog. We in fact, have to ensure that our dog's behavior is appropriate and prevent anything that we do not want our dog to do by protecting the dog, and being present, correcting the dog, etc.
A human being will be at some point responsible for a job, for a home, for a family, etc. A dog is never responsible for anyone. We are responsible for them and this is not going to change, no matter how much we train or trust them. We cannot let them make their own decisions because we are responsible for the consequences of those decisions.
"Dogs are my companions comrades best friends like other humans. I'm the guardian caretaker of dogs or best friends."
My dogs are my companions, my comrads, my best friends as well. But I am not their guardian, I am their owner, and that means that I am their caretaker. The whole guradian
terminology comes from the animal rights movement, and it is actually very scary. Understand that the animal rights movement and the animal welfare movement are not one in the same. The individuals and organizations behind the Animal Rights Movement, like PETA, really do not like the idea of animal ownership at all. Which means, that if they do not like that you own a dog, they would like to be able to hire an attourney for your dog and take you to court to transfer the guardianship of your dog to a more appropriate entity. This is kind of the road this movement is going down. These people are as crazy as this sounds paranoid. If they feel your dog should have a larger yard to romp in, they can fight for a court to award someone else guardianship of your dog.
The Animal Welfare movements wants to ensure that people are not neglecting or abusing animals. I am all for that. And if people break laws, they may try to have a dog removed from the ownership of an individual -- that is fine too.
The difference is that the Animal Rights movement really does not believe in people living with animals. They would rather there not be any dog breeds and pet dogs die out completely, and dogs revert back to packs of feral dogs, like coyotes or wolves. The fact that you tell your dog to SIT to give him a treat is terrible to them, because you are enslaving an animal for your own ends -- they are that crazy.
There is nothing wrong with the premise of owning a dog or many dogs. This movement is trying to change the way we think about dog-ownership. Dog ownership is in fact responsibility for a specific dog and nothing more. It is not negative. They are trying to make the terminology negative to forward their attitudes of a people's relationship with animals.
I don't think any of us on this site would be happy with the world according to how Animal Rights People would have it.