Oooh, I knew today was going to be a good day, the second I woke up without a dog's bum in my face.

Consider yourself carded.

as an owner of this lovely breed for over 20 years i feel i know them quite well ....its sounds to me as if your puppy wasn;t socialised very well in the early weeks and has become over attatched to you his growling is prob pushing his luck hitting him is meaninless ..i would have not allowed him to sit on my lap until his behavior improved as for now being shy being dragged across a room will have probably ruined this poor little chap now .cavaliers are sensitive little dogs with high emotions

i really hope this is a wind up

Yes a 7,8, 10 wk old puppy, would be "told off " by his mum, or siblings,, for getting to rough, but they are dogs, and that is how the canine world disciplines its young, they act on instinct, dogs dont reason things out.we are not dogs, we are human, dogs dont see us as dogs, we are a completey different species...... so when we use those tactics on dogs /puppies, they will not register, "oh I am being disciplined by my peers" the pup, will only register fear, he is being hit/smacked by his owner, he wont have a clue as to why.

The only thing you are teaching pup is to fear you ... when we resort to smacking a young pup, we do it because we have lost out temper, not because it is the way to teach a puppy "good behaviour"

Woah! There's a massive assumption. I used to throw people to the floor each week, hit them with sticks and worse, but not once was it through temper. To assume that any strike must be through as loss of temper perhaps says more about you as an individual, than those you perhaps intended to levy your comment at?

At this point, I'll back up a little to qualify my original comment. To the best of memory, I don't think I've ever struck/tapped a dog with a rolled-up newspaper (or anything else for that matter), and I'm pretty sure I'd remember if I had. However, I defend -- strongly -- the right of individuals to do so with their own dog(s).

You will never get me to sign up to this new wave of dog-training and behaviourism which seems to insist on treating dogs like small children. Your "loss of temper" comment is one reason why I shall never subscribe to it. It seems to foster people who feel they can look down on all other methods because they know better and they are more enlightened, and of course, all others are sub-normal or cruel.

Ok, I want to join this Christmas card list too... but no time to post more on this thread today.

i assume by your statement of hitting/throwing people to the floor, you are talking about "martial arts" but I dont see where that is relevent to this thread.... we are talking about someone who hits a young puppy for biting and growling , the two are worlds apart.

My father and brother used to do Martail arts, and it is the most controlled form of discipline, smacking a young pup, as a reaction to something he has done, where is the controlled discipline in that.

If we resort to smacking a young pup, for unexpected behaviour, what positive out come , will that bring.

I have reread my post ,and cant see anyhere where I accussed you of rolling up a newpapper and hitting your dogs??

Nor have I attacked you personally, but you feel the need to attack me...maybe you should take your own words back ..perhaps says more about you as an individual
and mull over them.

I also defenf you right to defend strongly, how other people discipline their dogs., whether they want to use positive or negitive training.... I am strongly in the camp of "positive" training...like everything else in life , you get out what you put in....and in my oh so humble opinion, I will stick to positive every time...

You will never get me to sign up to this new wave of dog-training and behaviourism which seems to insist on treating dogs like small children. Your "loss of temper" comment is one reason why I shall never subscribe to it. It seems to foster people who feel they can look down on all other methods because they know better and they are more enlightened, and of course, all others are sub-normal or cruel.

No one is asking you to change your methods of training, if you feel the old way of thinking works for you , then great.

I have brought up children and dogs, and as I firmly beleive they are polls apart, Canine /Human... actually setting the same rules down has worked well for me.... you want well mannered dogs/children, who respect you , and others, dont throw hissy fits in public, and when you tell then enough if enough , they listen and obey .

but I have never had to resort to smacking either of them, to get my point across.

if any one else takes my post as preaching down to them , it was not meant to be so.... just giving my opinion....and it stays the same.... smacking gets you knowwhere.

But that is my point. You seem to naturally assume that anyone who smacks their dog is doing so in an uncontrolled manner. What makes you so absolutely certain that it can't be done in a controlled discipline manner? (In fact, feel free to ignore the rest of this post, answer just that question logically, and I'll be shut up for life.)

There is just no way on God's earth you could ever know that it is done in a state of lost temper. It's another of the wild assumptions that those who oppose a more strict style of dog training jump to in order to demerit it, and that boil my blood with frustration.

I don't mind anyone decrying the older-style strict dog-training, but I would hope to see it done with some degree of realism.

You might as well state that all people who live in Council Housing eat sausage, chips, and beans every night for tea too. It's about as accurate and as meaningful. A typical stereotype that has absolutely no value.

for me the tap on the butt thing would be a definite no for instance when a puppy had pee'd by accident indoors - a puppy is never gonna get a nip from it's mother for peeing in the wrong place and in no way would learn from it, as this is something it needs to be shown what to do...but maybe it's not the most horrendous thing say in return of a nip. I just don't do it either way but I can see it doesn't have to be all black and white.

For a sensible person hopefully they would know there are very clear differences in what to do and what never to do at appropriate times - but I understand not everyone is sensible or has common sense - reason for that my advice would then be to just not do it at all if you can't tell the differences.

I am obviously very thick here but are you saying you can smack in a controlled manner that you think about it before you do it....so maybe if you have to think about it to controll it.... why do it....would you state the same for smacking children, it is ok as long as you have thought it through?

As for answering the question logically , there is no logic, to smacking???

one assumes when someone resorts to smacking, it is an instant reaction to a action we dont like.... if a puppy mouths you and it hurts.... and you smack it, have you sat and thought it though and decided the best way to teach him to stop is to give him a smack or he bite you , it hurts, and so you hit back . if he pees on the floor, you get mad, and smack him, if he runs away and ignores you, when he comes back you are so mad you smack him..... do you stand there and think, well when he gets back here, I am going to give him a "controlled smack " to get my point across.... the likely hood of that is , he will say stuff you, if I get a smack every time I come back, then why would I want to return to you.

There are very few situations where you can say you use controlled force , so I suppose I am making assumptions, when using this sort of discipline on animals , I cant for the life of me, see where it can be anything else.

P.S As for the council estate , I was brough up on one... did`nt like sausages then, dont like them now..my brother on the other hand, loves them... and chips, and beans.

That is exactly what I am saying. If you are mystified at that notion, let me assure you that I am equally mystified at that fact that you don't believe that's even possible in the first place.

And so, because you have that assumption, everyone else must be doing it wrong and for the same reasons as it seems you would do it? That hardly seems fair to me.