Cats vs. Dogs? Which is easier for you to have as a pet?

[skittledoo]

Originally Posted by PWCorgi

Awwww, no! Though we don't have many bowls around.

He's currently tearing up some junk mail for me though

When I get home tonight I'll find some pics of him in bowls. I know I took a few.

Tearing up junk mail? Hey at least he's productive.

[PWCorgi]

True! And he's awesome at slowly torturing and then eating boxelder bugs that keep getting in.

Very productive (temporary) member of the family

[CaliTerp07]

Surely it depends on the individual critters? I can't imagine any cat that would be more work than my reactive, hyperactive wonder-mutt who opens cabinets, can open latched doors, and climbs my fence to run away chasing squirrels.

I also can't imagine any cat easier than my in-laws' old dog, who exercised himself by running a lap around the yard a couple times a day.

In general though, if you are taking care of both to the extent that they should be taken care of, I would think dogs are significantly more work. There are no months of cat-training classes, you do not have to train a cat to behave in 20 different environments so they can go out in public, cats don't require walks when it's below zero and snowing, and you don't have to rush home from work to let the cat out.

As much as I love Lucy to pieces, there are many days when I wish she had been a cat so that I could stay at work to finish up the last project, or so that I didn't have to go out in the freezing rain (like today) to walk her for an hour. Too bad Zach and I are both deathly allergic.

[ACooper]

I swear it looks like he's yelling....."Ever heard of knocking?!"

Originally Posted by PWCorgi

Lol Fran!

Whiskey sleeps in the sink

[Barbara!]

Originally Posted by yoko

I find it hilarious that you state that you believe in positive training experiences yet still think that it's ok to hit your animals because 'it doesn't work for me'.

You know to be the best or even a decent trainer you should practice what you preach. If you are unable to do the training concepts you are trying to teach you should not be in position to teach/train others.

If you can't control yourself enough not to hit an animal then you can't control yourself enough to be an effective trainer.

-And I don't think someone who is unable to feel for another living creature should be a trainer.
-I don't think that someone who can't understand that those animals don't know why you are hitting them should be a trainer.
-I don't think someone who so openly defends animal abusers should be a trainer or any sort of spokesperson for pet ownership.

I think you need to really think on what you want to do. Because if you want to be a trainer you aren't the person right now that you need to be to be a trainer and you definitely aren't someone who should be telling others how to raise their animals if you are unable to grasp the positive reinforcement enough to do it with your own pets.

And this is what pisses me off. No one understands a single thing I have said or typed. You quote one part out of context and attack it.

I do use positive reinforcement. When did I ever say it didn't work? I never did. Not once, ever. You're turning me into a broken record. I use positive reinforcement with my own dogs.

I popped my cat years ago. That doesn't mean I don't use positive reinforcement now.

I am not causing a problem, nor am I antagonistic. People read and interpret things the way THEY want to read and interpret them....not the actual way that it was written. I mean hell, my original post about spanking a cat said right there in it that IT DOESN'T WORK... But that's not the part people read or replied to. It was "OMG SHE SPANKED HER CAT ANIMAL ABUSERRRR!!111!" Seriously? The same thing with when I popped Malyk on the nose to get his attention... I was automatically an animal abuser that doesn't believe in positive reinforcement... Or when I said that I smacked Chevelle with the leash before I knew much about dog training... The same outcome. People read what they want and make opinions off of their selective reading skills.

[yoko]

Originally Posted by Barbara!

I do use positive reinforcement. When did I ever say it didn't work? I never did. Not once, ever. You're turning me into a broken record. I use positive reinforcement with my own dogs.

http://chazhound.com/forums/showpost...29&postcount=4

Originally Posted by Barbara!

A lot of people are against this, but have you tried smacking or anything? My Chevelle used to do this exact same thing, and no sort of positive training was working. She would just get into that mode and nothing would motivate her and she wouldn't respond to me....

Until I gave her a good smack with the leash across her butt. A couple times of that, and she got the point. She hasn't done it in a long time.

Idk, just what worked for me.

[Barbara!]

See?

Ignore the rest of the post and respond to only one thing, out of context. Thanks for proving my point.

Also, it wasn't working for that behavior. Saying that positive reinforcement wasn't doing what I needed for that behavior is not the same as saying "PR doesn't work"

[yoko]

Originally Posted by Barbara!

See?

Ignore the rest of the post and respond to only one thing, out of context. Thanks for proving my point.

Also, it wasn't working for that behavior. Saying that positive reinforcement wasn't doing what I needed for that behavior is not the same as saying "PR doesn't work"

So it wasn't working and saying it wasn't working isn't saying that it wasn't working?

I hit/spank my dogs when I feel the need. They aren't any less because of it and they certainly aren't damaged. I just think the whole "OMG YOU SHOULD NEVAR HIT YOUR DOG EVARRRR YOU'RE A HORRIBLE PERSON IF YOU DO" is ridiculous. Not saying anything here did that, but yeah.

Here's another please contradict it for me too.

[Barbara!]

Originally Posted by yoko

So it wasn't working and saying it wasn't working isn't saying that it wasn't working?



Here's another please contradict it for me too.

Saying that positive reinforcement didn't work for that behavior is not the same as saying positive reinforcement doesn't work at all. I think you're smart enough to comprehend that.

And I was referring to the popping on the nose... Which is considered "abuse" here. Thanks for quoting out of context, though!

[maxfox426]

Depends on what you define as "easier". Or "harder", for that matter.

In many ways, I'd say that Morgan and the Kitty Boy Brothers are pretty much exactly the same. They are all equally needy and affectionate. They require the same effort in terms of feeding/watering/cleaning/nail clipping/etc. They even all have very similar training styles.

The catbox doesn't bother me much. Neither does scooping poop in the backyard.

Petsitting is one place where the dog is "harder", while the cats are "easier". They all require a petsitter when we are away, but the cats just need somebody to stop in once or twice a day to feed them, whereas Morgan needs somebody to actually keep him in their home.

On the flip side, I find that the cats are "harder" to entertain, while Morgan is "easier". Morgan is happy to do what we do. However, if we don't get enough playtime in with the cats they destroy things like showers and cast-iron skillet pans.

Soo... yeah... it's all a matter of perspective. LOL


ETA: I merely posted to answer the OP, and didn't see that there were already 12 pages of responses here. Needless to say, I haven't read any of it yet. Whoops!