Life with Dogs: Constant Invitations to be a Better Person

It was 35 degrees yesterday in the late afternoon and I was so happy that it was warm enough to do some outside obedience training — a reminder about adaptability and perspective.

Having an UP dog when training/playing/competing is not the same thing as having a dog who is just plain wild and crazy. My girls are easy to live with, and have on/off buttons (so to speak).

First up was Sparkle — she was SO happy to be training!

Down Signal — cookie — Sit Signal — go chase the stuffed moose.

We played Go Out Games, which is the same — and different — as saying I trained Go Outs.

It is the same because yes, I was training Go Outs.

But it is different because to say we reflects my collaborative approach to dog training, and playing games speaks of my commitment to attitude and fun.

And then it was Claire’s turn and the volume on the bouncing and attitude somehow got even higher, which did not seem possible; Sparkle is a hard act to follow.

Claire is a novice dog and at almost three years old, has spent literally years on her heeling skills, which are such an important foundation for all of obedience showing.

It is easy to lose attitude when training heeling, which is why it must be playing at heeling. If the difference doesn’t resonate, that is an invitation to change your mental channel about dog training.

Daisy — happy to tear up the agility course, and content to hang out quietly and happily in the house.

But what I was really planning to share this morning is something related to my ongoing series.

When my dog — an experienced one or a novice one — doesn’t meet my expectation for a behavior, there are really just two choices: I can blame the dog or I can take responsibility.

If I blame the dog, the correction lands on the dog.

If I take responsibility, I change something.

Training dogs reminds me on a daily basis to pay attention to my own role in relationships, the challenges associated with communicating clear expectations, and the value of assuming good intentions.

How would you be different if Blame was not part of your Game? If you understood unmet expectations as simply a lack of understanding — or that your expectations are not actually realistic?

What would change in relationships — with humans and dogs — if differences or unmet expectations simply made us curious — and not defensive or angry?

Huh. Interesting stuff.

When the Only Defense is to Shoot the Damn Messenger

Disclaimer: This is not actually a political post, even though I am going to mention Impeachment.

I just read a news story that impeachment is not popular in what are known as “swing states.” I have lived in a swing state, and appreciate the generally kind and respectful nature of people who live there. I can envision such people wanting to avoid impeachment because it is messy and unsavory and divisive, regardless of whether they find the actions of the president to be appropriate or not.

I am always astounded by the reality that wonderful, decent human beings will take what I perceive as unfortunate behavior over confrontation any day of the week.

Like it seriously blows my mind.

And it causes me to wonder if there is something wrong with me that I lack the ability to just roll down the shades and ignore the drama going on outside.

Because trust me on this — I totally lack that ability.

I have had occasions in recent weeks to observe my reactions to what I perceive as unfortunate behavior, and I am not just talking about the national news.

Fascinating stuff, all this self-awareness.

I recognize that where I used to wade right on in, I am much better at hitting pause and considering what I might not know or understand about said situation. This is a good thing.

However, hitting pause doesn’t mean I let something go — quite the contrary. While my response is suspended, my actions are not. Instead, I am obsessively seeking evidence and data to support or refute my initial impression(s).

Frankly, it is exhausting.

The past week has reminded me of an unpleasant reality: When unfortunate behavior cannot be disputed or covered up, the strategy shifts to attacking or dismissing the person (or process) noting the unfortunate behavior.

Because of the aforementioned inability to pull down the shades on things, and because of my persistent and dogged determination to establish accuracy before I react to unfortunate behavior, just know that when I do identify unfortunate behavior I am as sure as humanly possible that the evidence supports the conclusion.

The dog was shown after the prohibited surgery. The person did cheat. The colleague did plagiarize. Policies were not followed. And so on.

In fact, I believe that being dismissed or attacked means I hit the evidential bullseye, so to speak.

Shooting the Messenger, also known as an ad hominen attack, is what we do when we cannot dispute facts. It is a dishonest, unfair, unkind way to divert attention from the unfortunate truth.

I am always surprised that people actually fall for all that nonsense.

But what really blows my mind is that some people truly do not care about the unfortunate behavior in the first place, no matter how well-documented.

Whereas I see unfortunate behavior as something that needs to be addressed, others see the cost of addressing the unfortunate behavior — or even acknowledging the unfortunate behavior — as too great.

Huh.

Humans are so interesting.

Okay — given that we have different responses to the same behavior, wouldn’t it be better to just acknowledge and accept the differences instead of attacking the character of those with a different opinion?

Of course, that requires that people agree on what they are seeing. I have been trying to think of an example of how that can happen with a good outcome and think I have one — but this post is too long and so let this end as…

What's the Right Thing to Do?

Up the road from us, a neighbor built a fully-functioning replica of an old-fashioned Conoco gas station on his property. In doing do, the neighbor created this view for others in our rural, single-family dwelling kind of neighborhood.

This would never happen in places with strict zoning laws — but Montana prides itself on not being a “Nanny State.”

Apparently Live and Let Live means enjoying your individual freedom while your neighbor enjoys their Conoco gas station.

The tension between the rights of individuals to pursue happiness when there are different views of happiness is tough.

Someone said something to the effect that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins (source not established).

This is helpful — until we consider what constitutes our metaphorical noses.

Is my nose assaulted by the placement of a replica gas station into my mountain view? I do not think so but another neighbor was so affronted by the gas station that they planted a little forest to block the view.

Do I have a bloodied nose if workplace policies and procedures are disregarded? If someone cheats at a dog show? If someone takes unauthorized funds and/or services from a club or other voluntary organization to which I have a fiduciary responsibility?

And even tougher — is a broken nose sometimes the lesser of two evils?

Some people are really good at taking blows, taping up that nose to preserve relationships or avoid general unpleasantness.

I am not.

I do think I am better at pausing and thinking things through, contemplating that impossible balancing act between an individual’s right to make unfortunate choices and my responsibility to the Greater Good, whatever that happens to be (if anything).

The truth is that sometimes it is not our business, even if the decision of another distresses us.

And sometimes it is our business — even our responsibility. The trick is discerning the difference, and then acting with integrity.

May I just observe that sometimes Life with Dogs is so much simpler than Life with Humans?