It really is. There are so many influences and so many potential scenarios in dog behaviour (as with human behaviour) that it is hard to qualify what is going on for any given dog. What we generally seem to do is post-hoc rationalisation according to the latest theories available, and whatever sits most comfortably with our own personal philosophies and moral compasses.
It does not sit well with many of us, quite understandably, to think of punitive behaviour as ultimately beneficial for a dog (or at least a dog- humans interaction scenario which i guess most of us are working towards, as for the dog themselves aggressive behaviour might actually work out quite well for them, but not in the context in which we are hoping to live alongside them.)
And yet, I would really describe myself as quite utlitarian in this respect - that the overall positive benefit would justify short term punitive approaches - IF that's how they worked (and I'm still not convinced they do) So if I thought a short term aversive approach would save myself, family, partner, other people....my own dog, other dogs from longer term negative consequences (bites, having to be put to sleep)..yes I would do it. And it seems it does work for some people, at least from what we've heard here and from general anecdotal responses.
It's an interesting one. In Scotland I believe we will soon be banning smacking, the argument being that it's abusive and not necessary to correct a child as there are other more effective ways of disciplining children and achieving positive behaviour. It is of course also argued that one form of physical correction will lead a justification of the child's physical response in future scenarios -..if my mum hits then it is ok for me to hit. - But at the same time authorities act in ways they do not allow citizens to - authorities imprison people to regulate behaviour when we don't allow an individual citizen to incarcerate someone on a whim. Does our position and our hope for an eventual overall positive outcome for the dog and everyone they encounter justify responses that are aversive?
Does acting aggressively ourselves encourage our dogs to act more aggressively as we are models for them, or will they escalate aggression in response? Or does a strong dominant approach actually encourage an immediate and longstanding submissive attitude which suppresses aggressive reactions in the long term, through the dog understanding that, in the hierarchy, they are not dominant, and they are not inappropriately allowed to exhibit aggressive response? The more more recent studies seem to suggest the latter is achievable due to a strong instinctive sense of hierarchy dogs seem to work to (albeit in smaller scale studies).
Are we doing our dogs, other dogs and people in general a disservice by actually fostering more aggressive responses because our permissiveness doesn't 'nip things in the bud' and we mistakenly believe positive training can solve all problems when it leads to the dog's sense that they are in control and can act as they wish to determine all scenarios to their advantage?
I don't know and I don't think there are any straightforward answers. I certainly can see how attempts by myself to try to control situations by a more 'dominant approach' have completely backfired and encouraged more aggressive response, but I also can't help but think this is because I was ostentatiously no match for Ollie and his teeth - and, like an unevenly matched stand-off in the park, the one with bigger will, and teeth (and flooding testosterone) won. When the power discrepancy is massive and transparently unassailable in favour of the other (dog parks with very confident large dogs, who will 'tell off' where necessary) I can see very clearly how my dog submits and we have a very peaceable situation - posturing is enough to alert all what the outcome is. When Ollie was in the presence of huge men again he was instinctively submissive.
