Dominance Theory

Whispered

What does it mean to you? Do you train using dominance based methods? Can it be used reasonably? If you do use it - why? And if you don't then why not?

I would see it as being based on the idea of a wolf pack. It could well mean something different to other people. I personally don't use it, mainly because I can't see the point. But I'd like to hear from others on the issue.

barbiegirl

We never needed to use any real theory with our first dog as she is a sweetheart and has been since the begining, however when Fargo arrived a 5 month old Jack Russell cross with few manners things were different.
He would nip for attention, he hadn't learned soft mouth, he would growl and snap if he didn't like something, he wasn't leash trained, he wasn't toilet trained completely, he would jump on everyone, bark at other dogs when on leash. God he was a handful but we stilll love him.
Initially, especially for the growling and snapping we tried dominance training and it just did not work. If anything it became worse. So then we brought in a trainer and she worked with positive re-inforcement and he is so much better. A work in progress but we are progressing.
What I learned from our experience with our little man, is that patience and oodles of love is required. He knows we are the bosses without us having to put him in submission, smack him or anything else. Time outs are very effective.
Now my problem is my FIL who believes in dominance training, he is old school. He keeps shouting at the dog to get down, and stamping his feet at him, when he's just trying to be friendly. Now he's getting scared of older men. So I'm stopping friendly older men in the streets when we're out walking and asking them to give him a treat, which I provide. This seems to be working. I've also asked my hubbie to say something nicely to his da. I know he means well but honestly our guy only gets aggressive when scared, so having him scared of older men is far from ideal.

Wibbs

Whispered wrote: »

I would see it as being based on the idea of a wolf pack.

Well it's based on the idea of wolf packs observed in captivity. Usually unrelated animals all roughly the same age. So they had no natural hierarchy in play. Add in the stress of environment and human interaction and al sorts of odd behaviours were taken as "natural". It would be akin to an alien trying to work out human relationships by observing people in prison. More thorough and recent research has shown much of it to be completely wrong.

Other than man and some species of cetacean, wolves are the only mammal that routinely takes down prey bigger than itself. In order to do this they need to be a cohesive family unit, not constantly jostling for position. The family unit thing is the important part. The vast majority of permanent wolf packs consist of family units. Daddy, mammy(the so called alphas) and the kids of various ages. Just like a big human family. Indeed more like us than our great ape cousins. Much more. Which is maybe why we found it easy to bring them into our lives and vice versa. Indeed the only large predator humans have ever successfully domesticated is the wolf/dog.

So if you're a wolf and you want to become alpha? Get born, learn, grow up and then set up your own family unit. Just like people. Not alpha, but head of the family. Outside of daft, usually American self help ballsology for men, alphas don't exist in humans either. It's far more complex than that.


My personal take? It's regarded that dogs = juvenile wolves. They never grow up. Hence they never want to set up their own family units. Try to domesticate a wolf and all will be well for the first 2 years, then their instincts will be to strike out on their own. I suspect one could "domesticate" or tame a wild wolf pup, if you could then let them off into the wild when they wanted to go. Like in the wild they'd come back at a distance after that giving mam/dad a wave. If you tried to confine them after that point you have a very unhappy wolf. Dogs never grow up and remain kids for life.

So I would say training dogs is akin to training kids. Give them boundaries, give them support and give them personal responsibilty and give them affection and love. Knowing when to give each one of those and when not to is the trick. Just like kids. Good parents I've known give the right balance of those things. Just like good dog owners. The snapping small dog* is the equivalent of a spoiled brat. The spoiled brat/dog doesn't think him or herself as alpha, merely knows the "parents" are a soft touch.

I'd add that I see owners being always blamed for a bad dog and yea in the majority of examples that is the case, but like people you can just get a wrong un. I've known good families where the kids were great members of society and yet one child was just a little twat. Ditto for dogs. Moreso with some breeds that are so inbred they should be sitting dull eyed and slack jawed playing banjos.

I would say though that learning about wolf physical displays would be useful to see what a dog is feeling(Docked tails and floppy ears can mask a lot of those signals though). Simple things like hugging a dog is often a no no and when you do this watch the dog. A lot of the time they display discomfort by licking their lips. Hugging is a primate thing, not a canine thing.



*IME it's more often a small dog. Why? Because small dogs get more leeway when they're being twats. Small doggie leps into your lap? "ahh isn't she sooooo cute" *hugs*, Dirty great German Shepard does so and it's call the dog warden.

Shammy

I kind of use dominance as a way of training ,different people have a different take on what it actually is, i think a lot of people can get the wrong idea about it , there is no shouting , punishing , hitting the dog.Every dog is different and while one method may work for one dog , it wont work for another.

In my experience along with positive rienforcement leads to a calm confident happy dog .

Whispered

Wibbs wrote: »

Well it's based on the idea of wolf packs observed in captivity. Usually unrelated animals all roughly the same age. So they had no natural hierarchy in play. Add in the stress of environment and human interaction and al sorts of odd behaviours were taken as "natural". It would be akin to an alien trying to work out human relationships by observing people in prison. More thorough and recent research has shown much of it to be completely wrong.

Yeh sorry I should have said that's why I'd consider it flawed. The fact the Mech has himself said how wrong his research was speaks volumes. I'd consider it as something that works, but much in the same way as dominating a child or other weaker family member would.

Shammy wrote: »

I kind of use dominance as a way of training ,different people have a different take on what it actually is, i think a lot of people can get the wrong idea about it , there is no shouting , punishing , hitting the dog.Every dog is different and while one method may work for one dog , it wont work for another.

.

So obviously dominance to you doesn't mean being a big scary dictator who will hold the dog down and expect him to be 100% correct all of the time.
Do you do the things like always eat before the dog, if the dog is on the couch he sees himself as your equal etc? (with regards to people having the wrong idea, I think you underestimate the amount of people who think it perfectly ok to bully a dog as a matter of normal training in the name of dominance)

Do you believe that your dog is trying to become "pack leader"?

With regards to the pack leader idea, I think my dog is constantly trying to chance his arm, not to be in charge but to get an extra 5 mins on the couch, or to get that lovely bit of food, or to get to say hello to the other dog etc.

I think this is where a lot of the confusion comes in. I firmly believe that it's good to have your dog work for what he gets. And it's very important for the dog to be polite, for safety as much as anything else. As such, he will wait for his food, will drop on command, is supposed to let me through the door first (cats in the house) etc. Some people would do the same, for the same reasons and consider it as being based on dominance theory.

Shammy

Whispered wrote: »

So obviously dominance to you doesn't mean being a big scary dictator who will hold the dog down and expect him to be 100% correct all of the time.

Lol of course not , its a dog not a robot

Whispered wrote: »

Do you do the things like always eat before the dog, if the dog is on the couch he sees himself as your equal etc?

No She gets fed at 8 in the morning and at half five in the evening (we have dinner at 6 usually)
She sometimes sits on the couch but usually prefers her bed and no its not a case of her trying to be pack leader

Whispered wrote: »

(with regards to people having the wrong idea, I think you underestimate the amount of people who think it perfectly ok to bully a dog as a matter of normal training in the name of dominance)

If you bully a dog , your creating anxieties and crushing the dogs spirit, thats not what dominance training is to me.

Whispered wrote: »

With regards to the pack leader idea, I think my dog is constantly trying to chance his arm, not to be in charge but to get an extra 5 mins on the couch, or to get that lovely bit of food, or to get to say hello to the other dog etc.

Its only natural for a dog to do that , imo its character ,not the dog behaving badly .

Whispered wrote: »

I think this is where a lot of the confusion comes in. I firmly believe that it's good to have your dog work for what he gets. And it's very important for the dog to be polite, for safety as much as anything else. As such, he will wait for his food, will drop on command, is supposed to let me through the door first (cats in the house) etc. Some people would do the same, for the same reasons and consider it as being based on dominance theory.

I have a gsd so i do alot of training on her obedience as alot of people see the gsd as being a dangerous breed . Obedience training is done with correction then praise etc etc .

aisher

I think a lot of people confuse dominance with being agressive. A dog needs to know who is the boss. I love the methods employed by the Dog Whisperer Cesar Milan - he never hits/kicks dogs but he certainly shows them who is in charge. A dog needs exercise and discipline to be happy - you can still use rewards to encourage training so I do feel both methods are to be used when training.

Wibbs

aisher wrote: »

I love the methods employed by the Dog Whisperer Cesar Milan - he never hits/kicks dogs but he certainly shows them who is in charge.

I dunno. He pinches/imitation bites them, he's also pulled on one dogs lead so hard the animal nearly passed out. He also does that BS roll the dog onto it's bag "like a wolf". Which is largely bullshít as studies have shown wolves very rarely do this. The submissive wolf automatically gives his or her belly. It's not a forced thing on the part of the dominant. He also floods some dogs senses to the point where they just zone out. Yea real clever, well it is until the dog zones back in down the line. A couple of studies have shown that dominant training is more likely to lead to bites down the line.

To be fair to Cesar, you're only seeing a tiny edited part of his technique and he concentrates as much if not more on the owners which is fair play. Plus he's usually dealing with very intractable animals that he has often saved from being put down.

axle108

link to wikibooks explanation http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Dog_Care/Training/Obedience


Eating before your dog, take food and toys without them growling, walk through doors first, but the rest of that stuff :mad:.

TooManyDogs

Whispered wrote: »

Do you believe that your dog is trying to become "pack leader"?

My take on dominance theory is that someone is a clear boss, and that's what that means in my house but there's no shouting or bullying at all. I believe that dogs need to know someone is in charge, and I don't me in charge as in 'you will do what I say NOW' but as in 'don't worry about things, I'll guard the house, provide the food, make up the rules and pay the mortgage'. Packs have to have a leader, be it mammy/daddy dog in familial groups or a boss in non-familial groups but someone needs to make the decisions, if you're not clearly taking charge of things then the dog will. Some dogs show it by simply not relaxing fully because they feel they have to be watching out for everyone else all the time but others go to pieces because they would never have made a good leader anyway but because there is no clear boss they feel they have to do the job. Those dogs can be the fear biters, or obsessive barkers or resource guarders. I'm not saying it doesn't happen in other situations but that's what I've noticed.

In my house I'm the clear boss, my dogs know that I'll guard the door, bite visitors if they need it, correct the baby, worry about anyone stealing the car and all that. They alert me to situations but when I say 'that's ok' they go back to chilling. I know alot of people say there's no such thing as pack theory but I believe there is from watching my lot. I could tell you who's in charge within my 6 dogs. 5 of my dogs I got as older pups or adults but one I got when he was 3 days old and it's amazing what I've learned from his addition. The other 5 pack dynamics are more like an organisation or company, there's one clear boss and she makes it her business to strictly enforce the structure. I had 4 dogs before I got the 3 day old puppy so those 4 dogs think he's their baby still and treat him like a familial pack would but the last dog came in after he was an adult and despite the others treating him like a baby she treats him like an adult so he actually has a parallel position in the pack. It's facinating to watch, the first 4 let Little Dude eat out of their bowls, sit on them in the comfy beds and take their toys (he's now 4!!), the last dog kicks his ass which astonishes him no end. I know it'll take the addition of another really young puppy for Little Dude to loose his position of baby and be made to grow up.

When I fed mine on dry food I poured one huge bowl and called them, they would line up in pack order, the leader would guard the bowl for at least 15 mins before eating, then she'd move away and the next would eat and so on, except for Little Dude who would go in and eat with whichever dog he chose and alot of the time all 4! Now I don't because I feed raw and it'd be a disaster!

I do enforce the not on the sofa, not through the doors first, taking things off them if I have to but alot of that is simply because I have a pack of dogs, not 1 or 2. If I let mine all rush the door I'd spend most of my time on the flat of my ass and if I let them on the sofa where would I sit??? They know that if I want something they have to give it to me but again that's mainly cos there's always someone running off with the loo roll or a childs toy and I'm strict on them giving me their food in case they try to eat something dodgy. I very rarely ask them to give up their food because again in a pack of dogs whoever has the food has the right to it no matter what their position and a pack leader would pretty much never take it off them, fight them for it in the begining yes but not take it off them if it was won.

That's my take on it anyway, I reckon I'm the Boss Lady!

Wibbs

TooManyDogs wrote: »

My take on dominance theory is that someone is a clear boss, and that's what that means in my house but there's no shouting or bullying at all. I believe that dogs need to know someone is in charge, and I don't me in charge as in 'you will do what I say NOW' but as in 'don't worry about things, I'll guard the house, provide the food, make up the rules and pay the mortgage'. Packs have to have a leader, be it mammy/daddy dog in familial groups or a boss in non-familial groups but someone needs to make the decisions, if you're not clearly taking charge of things then the dog will.

Oh I agree. Just like any family group. It's the "DOMINATE" type stuff that seems to be taken up by the Cesar method(more to the point a small subset of his techniques and with delinquent dogs and daft owners that may have made them that way) by many. Parents control their kids, or set boundaries the kids need to grow and be happy, they don't, or shouldn't dominate their family. That's the issue I have with some of Cesar's methods. I do like the man though. For one reason if nothing else; he appears to be open to other methods and people. And most importantly he's all about the happiness of dogs and their families. I gather he really puts his money where his mouth is too, dog charity wise.

That's my take on it anyway, I reckon I'm the Boss Lady!

Oh yea you're defo the boss mammy

Shammy

TooManyDogs wrote: »

I do enforce the not on the sofa,

I call Bulls}{it




But i agree that was my main take on dominance that the dog does know who is boss , and where its place is in the pack.

TooManyDogs

Shammy wrote: »

I call Bulls}{it

Ha ha ha ha ha! You'd want to have seen the look on their faces when I told them to get up on that sofa! You'd think all their birthdays had come at once

Chris_Heilong

To me, it just means simple things like, me eating first but always make sure he get something after I have finished, asking the dog to move out of my way instead of stepping over him, not sleeping in my bedroom and if he does then not on the bed, Me always winning tug of war, letting him know whats mine(everything inside the house) and whats his everything outside. Not giving in to puppydog eyes....ever. Because I have learned give an inch and they will take a mile. Last of all not allowed on the sofa. That is Dominance totally to me and as far as it has to go. No hitting or kicking involved.

So I have a dog that is polite, doesnt go to the toliet in the house and never chews anything indoors.

tk123

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno. He pinches/imitation bites them, he's also pulled on one dogs lead so hard the animal nearly passed out. He also does that BS roll the dog onto it's bag "like a wolf".

This is pretty much what I think of when I think of dominance theory - possibly my post on another thread has spawned this one if that's the right word because I, like a lot of other people think of using negative reinforcement like bullying and shouting and imo misguided wolf comparisons when I think of dominance theory.
I think a lot of people practice it incorrectly which is why it can be so flawed and why they run into problems? A lot of people seem to be more accepting of eg hitting their dog with a rolled up newspaper shouting NOOOOOOO than spending time training it not to rob the roast off the counter.

It suits me to feed him before me in the morning while I have a shower, I like him sitting beside me on the couch and I'm always cold so I'd rather stay huddled inside at the door while he goes out to the loo ahead of me lol :pac::pac:

TooManyDogs

I wonder if the key is how a person defines 'dominant'. Do they mean domineering as in 'inclined to rule arbitrarily or despotically; overbearing; tyrannical' or dominant as in 'ruling, governing, or controlling; having or exerting authority or influence'.

If they take the domineering definition then it's going to involve the shouting and bullying and pushing around but if they take the other definition then they'll teach the dog the rules and with patience and praise.

Cherry Blossom

Well, I own a breed that is known to be particularly tenacious, quicker than most to use it's teeth and has a stereotype that it doesn't particularly like being poked, prodded and generally messed with.

She is uncomfortable with vets and dog groomer's in that she absolutely hates to be restrained. I have never used any type of 'hands on' training with her and as a result have found training an absolute pleasure, I do have to use my brain to come up with ways that will make doing something appealing to her so I suppose some people might say that its all on her terms. I have had other people try to teach her by physically manipulating her (eg. trying to make her sit by pushing her backside on the ground. Her body language in these cases gives clear indications that she is uncomfortable with this (ears go flat against her head, possibly some whining, glances towards me to indicate that she requires rescuing and if she gets the chance will run behind me.

She sits wherever she likes (except at/on the table) sleeps in my bed, is very much just another member of the family rather than a lower life form, treats the kids as her own personal playthings while still knowing exactly what and where the boundaries are and has never/ever crossed them. She's happiest, most well-balanced dog I know, and I put this completely down to the fact that she is fully integrated into the family and is extremely secure within her role in it. As for using her teeth she will use them to groom you and seems to have a knack of knowing when you have an itch that needs scratched
Knowing her personality I could guarantee that any attempt at dominance or trying to force her to be submissive in whatever situation would become extremely counter-productive very fast. The more you would try to force her to do something the more resistance she would put up against it.

Not sure how coherent this post is but there's my .02 cent all the same - positive reinforcement combined with makey-uppy as you go along training tailored to the dogs individual personality

Chris_Heilong

TooManyDogs wrote: »

I wonder if the key is how a person defines 'dominant'. Do they mean domineering as in 'inclined to rule arbitrarily or despotically; overbearing; tyrannical' or dominant as in 'ruling, governing, or controlling; having or exerting authority or influence'.

If they take the domineering definition then it's going to involve the shouting and bullying and pushing around but if they take the other definition then they'll teach the dog the rules and with patience and praise.

I think we are all one the same page here, and as you said they need to know rules and limitations just like children, but to much love and not giving them structure is also bad as is the case in China where one child policies have created the little emperor syndrome and the child is given all they want and let away with everything, as children the become selfish and noisy and get into fights with other children same can happen to dogs, usually when you see a dog behaving badly its because its owner hasn't given it any structure to its life.

TooManyDogs

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I think we are all one the same page here, and as you said they need to know rules and limitations just like children, but to much love and not giving them structure is also bad as is the case in China where one child policies have created the little emperor syndrome and the child is given all they want and let away with everything, as children the become selfish and noisy and get into fights with other children same can happen to dogs, usually when you see a dog behaving badly its because its owner hasn't given it any structure to its life.

I think you're dead right, in some ways it was much simpler for dogs 30 years ago, most houses had one, they were fed scraps and meat at the end of the meal, they walked everywhere with the wife/mother with the buggy because of fewer cars, or were allowed to wander so were always well exercised. They weren't allowed on the sofa and sometimes beyond the kitchen in case they got the sofa/carpet dirty because there wasn't the money to replace them and the dog was often dirty from being allowed run through ditches and puddles, they were allowed sleep by the fire, kids were taught not to yank at the dog which is unfortunately is often uncommon now. Quite simply they weren't spoiled and knew they weren't in charge so there didn't seem to be as many behavioural problems. I'm not saying that life was perfect for them, there was a lot of bad training methods and they weren't taken to the vet as they should have been alot of the time but you get my drift.

I think that in a lot of ways dogs are loved to death. Pet shops selling wedding dresses and football shirts for dogs but not coats to keep them warm, easter eggs and christmas puddings instead of bones, dog buggies to keep the dogs hair cut clean and sparkly collars but not strong ones are helping create the thinking that dogs are simply furry children. Tv dog trainers (all of them!) certainly create problems because most people forget that tv programs are made for entertainment so they will never reflect the trainer or training properly so should only be viewed as entertainment and not gospel. Then when you say to someone to make rules for their dogs they get upset thinking you're one of those scary 'dominance theory/packleader' people the tv warned them of!

One thing that always sticks in my mind is my dad giving me hassle because I don't let the dogs on the sofa, his 3 are allowed on his and he couldn't see why I was being so mean. Once when he was visiting (from america so he doesnt see my dogs very often) we went up the fields to walk the dogs and 1 dog rolled in fox sh1t, another took a swim in a ditch and a third lay down in a muddy puddle. As he watched the puddle swimmer I said 'that's why I don't let them on the sofa'. His dogs are groomed every 6 weeks without fail, have bling collars, beautiful beds and are allowed on the sofa but rarely go out for walks...... who's being mean now? And guess who's dogs are well behaved and who's arent?

DBB

aisher wrote: »

I think a lot of people confuse dominance with being agressive. A dog needs to know who is the boss. I love the methods employed by the Dog Whisperer Cesar Milan - he never hits/kicks dogs but he certainly shows them who is in charge.

:eek:
I wonder if you have missed a lot of the Cesar footage that I've seen if you really think he doesn't kick dogs?
There was a recent show featuring one of his production team, who showed how CM "preps" dogs before recording. One of his tricks, which I saw him doing on this video several times, and I've also seen glimpses of it on the shows that go to air but judiciously edited, is to swiftly drive his heel into the dog's side as he walks along beside him.
Also, can I ask, have you ever seen one of his "illusion" collar in real-life? Did you know there is a narrow string hidden underneath the upper collar, the bit that lies close to the jugular vein and carotid artery? This string is designed to cut off the blood supply to the dog's brain. So, when we see dogs on his show suddenly lying down after an aggressive incident, if you look you'll see that the dog's tongue and mucosal membranes are blue: the dog is cyanotic, He's fighting for life, not "calm submissive"!
One of the first bits of CM footage I ever saw, he was pucking a dog in the face to make him drop a stone he had in his mouth. The dog was getting really perplexed about it. CM got the owner to do this pucking into the dog's face. The dog bit her. That dog had never bitten anyone before.
These are a small sample of examples of the physical aggression CM uses routinely, and can be seen on his shows. These, as well as the outdated methods utilising flooding, which is psychologically abusive.
Any animal show which has to put up on-screen warnings saying "Do not try this at home" must surely set alarm bells ringing? I don't think any trainer/behaviourist should use any techniques that the owner can't easily utilise without being harmed or without harming their dog. the fact is that properly qualified trainers and behaviourists don't need to resort to these tactics. Herein lies a great tragedy.

As for dominance theory... the unfortunate truth is the "dominant" does portray the wrong message, whether we like it or not. It's seen as being an ugly quality in a human. Nobody wants to be described as "dominant".
However, what most people are psoting here is not a dominance approach, it's a parental approach. Yes, dogs need a leader. So do children. But this is not a despotic leader, it is a benevolent leader. In other words, a parent.
So why not say we use a parental approach? Or a benevolent leader approach? Nobody ever says a good parent rears good kids by dominating them? Why? Because (a) they don't, and (b) it sounds horrible. A successful owner rears a dog in a very similar (but dog-appropriate) way to how they rear kids.

As for various elements of a "dominance" approach...
Prof. Temple Grandin describes an experiment where one group of dogs were allowed win every tug-of-war game they played with humans. another group of dogs were never allowed win the game. However, there was no difference between these two groups when it came to subsequent "dominant" behaviour.
Grandin surmises, correctly IMO, that the same result would be found if a group of dogs who are fed after their owners was tested against a group of dogs fed before their owners. She also supposes dogs that are allowed on the furniture will be no different to dogs not allowed on furniture.
I haven't yet met a dog who attaches any significance to when they eat in relation to us. Perhaps this is a throwback to the belief that the "alpha" wolf eats first? Well, this has also been shown not to be true. The only place a wolf guards when he/she is eating is the area immediately surrounding his/her mouth. Otherwise, there is no ranking system when it comes to eating in a natural wild wolf family.
I think a lot of these beliefs come from original, and as it turns out, wrong suppositions made about wolves. As another example, I can see why someone might see a dog charging through a door is trying to be leader... but I don't see it this way. I see it as the dog being impolite and not having been taught manners at the door. A very big difference.

The Sweeper

For the first year of Gus's life, I used only positive rewards based training. I even had a positive rewards trainer who wouldn't allow you to raise your voice at all to the dog - the 'leave it' command wasn't to be delivered sternly, it was to be used as a request.

She had some success - it's far better to motivate a dog to do what you want it to do than to cause it to respond because it's either intimidated by you or afraid of what will happen if it doesn't do it.

However at 25kgs and over a year old, Gus was seriously difficult to control when outdoors. Positive rewards training fell flat on its face, because there was no reward more exciting than bouncing around like a nong when outside. There was absolutely no way on this planet I could ever consider leaving him offlead.

I remember when I started taking him to agility class - the other beginners in the class were relatively well behaved and Gus was mental. The class organisers asked me if I ever walked him or socialised him. He wouldn't even give me a 'sit'. The other owners began to come up to me with 'oh here try THIS, THIS will work' and offering me their treats. One woman actually put the food in Gus's mouth because she was so sure it was just my treats that were crap - he spat it back at her. (LOL.)

Between classes, I would work with Gus in my yard with minimal distractions. It helped some, and then one day we had a breakthrough - Gus loves his spiky rubber ball with the bell inside it. He's never allowed have it unsupervised because I'm afraid he'll destroy it and the bell will come out and he might swallow it. By confiscating it a lot, I had unwittingly created a very high value reward toy.

Next agility class I brought the ball, and the professional trainer (comes every second week) was there. She was amazed at the difference in him - he'd sit, wait, so on, for the ball. However he was still dicking around a lot. At one point she said to me 'Can I have his lead? I'm just going to correct him so he stops mucking about.' So I handed the lead over.

He was pulling and bouncing and she called him, and he went to lunge at a passing dog - and she gave him a flat collar correction. This is where the trainer allows the lead to go slack, and then gives it a sharp jerk. The first one stopped Gus in his tracks. He turned to look at her, decided it was an anomaly and went to lunge and jump about again. She delivered a second correction, three short sharp jerks this time. By the end of the third jerk - the three jerks covered about three seconds total - Gus sat down and looked at the trainer. He was cowed. She immediately praised him and made right with him, and while he appreciated the pats and decided she wasn't going to hurt him, he behaved incredibly well for the rest of the class.

He worked hard for his ball, did jumps, did the tunnel (never did it before) and the trainer also taught me how to properly use the long leash. Other class attendees couldn't believe it. Gus and I were working through the obstacle courses, and in prevous weeks I couldn't even get him to 'sit'.

That flat collar correction isn't part of the 'positive rewards only' training tools, but with a stubborn, energetic and unruly dog it changed his entire day. After he focused, he got a chance to see how much FUN working for the ball could be. I didn't need to correct him again at all, because him getting a chance to see how cool agility was meant he now responds all the time to an offer of a game with the ball.

He still has a way to go yet, but his obedience is good because his focus is better, and in order to improve that focus he had to be given a 'stop dicking around' correction.

At home, I've taught gus 'doorway' manners - can't go in and out doors before me, has to sit and wait until he's allowed go in or out through a door, so on. Also not allowed go bananas at the doorbell (though he still tries). I would never seek to 'alpha roll' my dog, I think that's a load of toss. I also don't beat or roar at him, but I do have to occasionally use a loud voice or stand over him and draw myself up tall to get his attention. Once I have his attention, he's great.

He'll be 18 months old on 1st November. As he grows up, his focus and attention improve. Gus was quite a 'broken' dog - isolated and kept in his own mess in the boot of a car as a pup, adopted my me at 12 weeks with chronic ringworm, so no socialisation until 16 weeks when that had cleared up. Generally a bad start, missing all the vital periods by a country mile. Where I've seen the effects of that are in his motivators (there were none until the ball), and his bonding (up until three months ago he could have been anybody's.)

Training a dog like that using only positive rewards - well, I got so far, but then as I said to you, it was something else that created the breakthrough.

TooManyDogs

The Sweeper wrote: »

Training a dog like that using only positive rewards - well, I got so far, but then as I said to you, it was something else that created the breakthrough.

I agree with you, I think that positive only training is often no good without also teaching consequences. Dogs will work if there's a good enough reward but often find their own reward that's better than anything we have for them. That's when we need to teach them 'no' and I think it's perfectly ok for them to understand 'no' as well as 'yes'. We don't hesitate to teach our children consequences, we know positive only with kids doesnt always work so why are we afraid of teaching dogs 'no'??

kylith

I dislike being described as my dogs' 'mammy', but I supppose that's what my training amounts to. I have never raised my voice or my hand to my dogs, and I consider that if I've lost my cool that I've failed. Training is done with positive reinforcement, and I've yet to have major problems.

They are allowed on the sofa by invitation (they ask to be allowed up), because I like to give them a cuddle and they're too small to pet comfortably when I'm sitting on the sofa. For me the most important thing is that they don't automatically assume they can get on the sofa because I don't want them on the furniture if we have visitors. I think that the most important thing is that they'll get off the sofa when told to; if they refused, or growled at me, then they'd never be allowed up again.

I never attempted to train them to wait for me to go through the door first because I think it's impractical with doors that open outward, but they do it anyway. Whether it doesn't occur to them to go in or whether it's some form of respect, I don't know.

I don't make a point of eating before them, I eat at my dinner time, they eat at their dinner time and we have no issues about food. After some early corrections (saying 'ah-ah') they don't go near my food. OH and I can eat biscuits when the dogs are on the couch and they're not bothered. If I get distracted during breakfast I can leave the room and not worry that they'll swipe my toast as soon as my back is turned.

What I do agree with CM on is exercise and boundaries. I don't think they're 'just' dogs, because I see their moods and emotions, but nor are they people and it is very unfair to expect them to act like people. My dad always said that a tired dog is a good dog, and he hasn't been wrong yet.

TooManyDogs

kylith wrote: »

What I do agree with CM on is exercise and boundaries. I don't think they're 'just' dogs, because I see their moods and emotions, but nor are they people and it is very unfair to expect them to act like people. My dad always said that a tired dog is a good dog, and he hasn't been wrong yet.

Whatever else is said about CM he is the first very visible dog trainers who really emphesised exercise and how vital that is, and very often it's the route of a lot of behavioural problems.

Bullseye1

Thankfully my girl has no interest in being the boss. She is happy with her natural position in the household. She is an absolute pleasure to walk off lead and has a brilliant callback. And this with little or no training. It seemed to be naturally inbreed in her.

And no I'm not talking about the wife .

DBB

The Sweeper wrote: »

Training a dog like that using only positive rewards - well, I got so far, but then as I said to you, it was something else that created the breakthrough.

I think I need to speak in defence of positive training here, because it seems to me, from reading various posts, that it is being somewhat misrepresented, with a possible knock-on effect of being misunderstood by other readers. Sweeper, I'm not singling you out here, simply using your post as an example!

No dog trainer, no matter how positive they call themselves, can be 100% positve and reward based. By the same token, even the gentlest of parents cannot be 100% reward based.
Why?
Because no dog, and no child, is perfectly well-behaved all the time, and when they do carry out inappropriate or unwanted behaviours, we have to be able to communicate to them that they're not to do that again. This is going to involve some sort of punishment. However, it's what punishment we use, and how we pitch it, that divides "traditional" trainers from positive trainers.

The traditional approach has been to use what we call positive punishment. In a nutshell, positive punishment involves shouting, slapping, collar-pops as described by The Sweeper, shocking, startling, or otherwise doling out some sort of aversive which will make a dog, or child, less likely to carry out the unwanted behaviour.

The problem with positive punishment is that it needs to be carried out absolutely instantaneously with the unwanted behaviour, and has to be administered every single time the behaviour is carried out, until it stops. This often means having to consistently punish for quite some time.
The average owner does not administer the punishment at the right time every time, or go over-the-top, leaving the dog completely confused as to why their owner is doing these things to them.

Sometimes, if you carry out a very big punishment on the dog just once, he'll never repeat the behaviour. An example would be if a dog chases a sheep, and gets a very large, painful electric shock in the process.. this is more likely to immediately put a stop to the chasing behaviour.

The more common scenario is that the dog is punished with something less aversive than an electric shock, let's take the Sweeper's lead-pops as an example. Whilst the Sweeper's dog may have stopped messing after a few correctly-timed lead-pops, a less confident dog could be quite devastated at having it's lead popped, and I've seen many a dog go badly backwards when such an aversive is administered, even though some would consider a lead-pop not to be that big a deal. Alternatively, a very boisterous dog may not feel the first few lead-pops, and so they have to keep being administered, or made more severe, in the hopes the dog will eventually stop.

Problem is, animals become immune to a low-grade punishment which "creeps up" on them like this, which is why many dogs learn to run across a radio fence, barely feeling the electric shock. We also see it with people walking their dogs who are pulling: the owner chucks, chucks, chucks the lead again and again, with absolutely no effect on the dog's pulling behaviour. The dog is completely inured to the constant chucking, and is still pulling.

So, whilst positive punishment is effective as long as it is administered with expert timing and with a big enough consequence for the dog, the pay-off can be far, far too high, and many a dog has been destroyed from such a training approach. We all know many such dogs. Many trainers across the world can't bring themselves to use these techniques any more, particularly because we know that we can get the same effect by not using physical aversives, but instead using a different tack.

Now, back to positive reinforcement. As I said earlier, no positive trainer can exclusively use positive reinforcement, because we need to be able to give a dog, or child, a consequence when they inevitably misbehave.
So how is this done?

It's called NEGATIVE punishment. This occurs when we take something from the dog that he really wants, as a consequence of his misbehaving. An example widely used in both dog and child training is the "Time Out". This is when the dog, or child, is first given a warning to stop the unwanted behaviour, and if that warning is ignored, the dog, or child, is given a short period of time alone away from all the fun. Supernanny's "naughty step" is an example of a Time Out. Walking away from a pup who keeps nipping us is a Time Out. It is an exceptionally effective, and non-damaging way to give a misbehaving dog or child a consequence.
Another example of negative punishment is Reward Withholding: say we're teaching a dog not to jump up. When he jumps up, we withhold our attention, or the food reward, or toy... or all three! When he chooses an alternative and more acceptable behaviour, like sitting, then he gets the attentio/treat/toy.

Time Outs and Reward Withholding are considered by animal and human behavioural scientists and practitioners to be far, far less harmful than positive punishment, whilst still just as effective at stopping an unwanted behaviour. So, whilst a positive trainer may not like having to use the word "punish" at all, they are perfectly okay to use such measured and "soft" punishment techniques in order to have a bold dog pay a consequence, without causing any psychological or physical damage.

The problem we have at the moment is that many trainers are not fully aware of how punishment and reinforcement actually work, and critically, not aware of how to react when things go wrong.
Indeed, it is how a trainer deals with inappropriate behaviour that is the real test of whether they are a "positive" trainer or not.
And it is this that owners need to check when engaging a trainer: trainers that are still reverting to physical punishment when things go wrong are not keeping up to date with their own training, it they are trained at all.

We are in a transition period at the moment in Ireland, whereby there are lots of trainers aware that they need to use positive reinforcement, but they're not sure how to use negative punishment properly. Time and time again, I see these "in transition" trainers doing great things with dogs using rewards and praise, but when the dog misbehaves it's back to the lead-pops, kneeing in the chest, ear-pinching, choke chains etc.
My own feeling is that these trainers just haven't quite grasped that there is a very effective alternative to positively punishing a dog, and they revert to the traditional techniques they've used for years.

So, in Sweeper's dog's case, the lead-popping worked for that dog. However, I know many, many dogs who'd have cowered to the floor if that was done to them, or wouldn't even feel the lead-pop and keep doing what they're doing, leaving the trainer with no option but to increase the level of aversive.

What would a positive trainer have done in this case?
Every time the dog starts to misbehave, he gets a "non-reward-marker", a verbal signal that tells him that if he continues, he's going to have to pay the consequence. "Ah-ah", "Ouch", "Too bad" or "not gonna happen" are all good, but it doesn't matter what it is, as long as it is consistent and develops a meaning for the dog.
Then, when the dog inevitably ignores this verbal warning, he is immediately led away from the situation, and placed for 30seconds or so into a quiet room where he can't have fun. In some cases, all that needs to happen is that the owner walks away without using the quiet room at all. Depends on the dog. When his 30 second Time Out is over, he's brought back out to the situation and things carry on as normal. If he behaves, he stays. If he doesn't, he gets another verbal warning, followed by another Time Out if the warning's ignored. Eventually, just the verbal warning alone will stop the behaiour... this is how we teach a dog what "No" means, to answer TooManyDogs above! Of course a dog needs to learn what "No" or something similar means, I don't think any positive trainer would disagree, and this seems to be a big misapprehanesion people have about the positive approach.

This can take time, there's no doubt about that, but after a number of repetitions (again, the number depends on the dog) the verbal warning starts to become far more significant to the dog, as he starts to learn that ignoring the warning brings on the Time Out consequence. The first few times are always the toughest as the dog/child chances his arm and doesn't realise that you really do mean it! However, trainers and behaviourists using this approach are having consistent success with serious behavioural problems, and not having to wrestle with their morals in the process.
So, the dog is effectively "punished", but in a very undamaging and workable way for the average owner. Critically, it will not cause the dog to become a nervous wreck or be worried about the actions of the person on the end of his lead.

Sorry for this long post everyone:D
I was getting really concerned that people were not aware that Positive dog training is perhaps a misnomer, because every trainer of every species has to dish out some sort of consequences when the wrong behaviour is presented.
However, what a trainer is prepared to do on ethical grounds is the vital element. Using frightening or physically aversive positive punishment is fraught with potential problems down the road, whilst using well-considered negative punishment as described, in conjunction with positive reinforcement, is just as effective, and in fact is far more effective in most cases, but without damage done to the human-dog relationship.

TooManyDogs

DBB wrote: »

Then, when the dog inevitably ignores this verbal warning, he is immediately led away from the situation, and placed for 30seconds or so into a quiet room where he can't have fun.

In ideal circumstances this is a great teaching tool but for the likes of an agility class there is no 'quiet room', and withholding attention/treat/toy is often not a consequence for the dog as his behaviour is self-rewarding.
By the time you would take your dog away from the exciting sights and sounds of an agility class the timing would be completely wrong, it might take you a minimum of 1 minute to reach the quiet area by which time the dog may well have calmed down of it's own volition and most definitely won't understand what it's being given a time out for.

To my mind a good dog trainer will individualise training to the dog in question and have a massive range of training methods to draw from as well as having the experience of dealing with plenty of dogs. Lead pops with perfect timing might well be ideal for one dog and very gentle consequences might be ideal for another, it's the experience of the trainer that will decide which is right for each dog, there isn't only one way to train a dog. I have 6 dogs and I've trained each dogs with adapted methods to suit each one.

There are so many online courses teaching dog training these days that anyone can become a 'dog trainer' without having much experience of dogs, a lot of these trainers describe themselves as 100% positive reinforcement. The dogs going to those trainers often have fabulous tricks like tapping on the cupboard door for treats or playing dead but can't walk well on a lead and have other behavioural problems resulting from not being taught consequences. Experience is what counts, how to read a dog and decide what will work with each dog drawing from many years of dealing with a massive variety of dogs and situations and behaviours.

DBB wrote: »

this is how we teach a dog what "No" means, to answer TooManyDogs above!

I'm well aware how to teach a dog 'no', thanks but I wasn't asking :rolleyes:

DBB

I'm well aware how to teach a dog 'no', thanks but I wasn't asking :rolleyes:

I didn't think you were asking:rolleyes:. You've missed my point.
You had posted that a dog needs to learn what "no" means. With this nobody can argue. However, your suggestion was that positive dog training does not teach this to a dog, when in fact it does. So I was merely correcting a misapprehension you seemed to have. Not telling you how to teach a no. :rolleyes:

In ideal circumstances this is a great teaching tool but for the likes of an agility class there is no 'quiet room', and withholding attention/treat/toy is often not a consequence for the dog as his behaviour is self-rewarding.
By the time you would take your dog away from the exciting sights and sounds of an agility class the timing would be completely wrong, it might take you a minimum of 1 minute to reach the quiet area by which time the dog may well have calmed down of it's own volition and most definitely won't understand what it's being given a time out for.

Yes, I know a class won't necessarily have a quiet room. But again you've missed the point. You don't need "ideal" circumstances to carry out a Time Out.
I'm assuming you know how a clicker works. For those that don't, he clicker is a "reward marker". It tells the dog when he has done something for which he is going to be rewarded soon, but not straight away.
Because the clicker acts as a "bridge", it means you don't have to get the treat into the dog the instant the good behaviour happens. In fact, the clicker enables a trainer to reward some time after the behaviour has happened. In other words, the dog may be long past doing the behaviour he was clicked for, but he still gets the reward.

The same is true when using a "non-reward marker". It does the exact same job as the clicker, but it tells the dog that he's about to lose his reward, as opposed to gain a reward.
This is why I described how the handler verbally "warns" the dog that his behaviour is about to result in an unwelcome consequence. This "warning" is the non-reward marker, and it tells the dog that what he's doing, at that moment, is what's going to be punished.
So, you warn the dog. If he persists, he gets a Time Out. You will note from my post that a Time Out can take various forms. One form it can take is simply for the dog to be led away from the class, or away from the thing that he's wanting to get to. Loose leash walking is taught in the exact same way. When the dog wants to approach, and his punishment is to lose ground, it acts as a Time Out.
So, it doesn't matter that the dog has calmed down by the time he reaches his Time Out area. The non-reward-marker has done its job, just the way a clicker does. So, a dog most certainly does understand what he's being given a Time Out for.
I'm not just spouting this. I'm using it on hundreds of dogs every year in every conceivable situation. So I know it works.:)

To my mind a good dog trainer will individualise training to the dog in question and have a massive range of training methods to draw from as well as having the experience of dealing with plenty of dogs. Lead pops with perfect timing might well be ideal for one dog and very gentle consequences might be ideal for another, it's the experience of the trainer that will decide which is right for each dog, there isn't only one way to train a dog.

You're quite right. But in my opinion, and that of every single qualified behaviourist who I've met or whose work I have read (and I mean properly qualified, not internet qualified), when one can get just the same result using gentler punishment techniques, why oh why would anyone use physically unpleasant methods? Like I say elsewhere, I've worked with hundreds of aggressive, nervous, phobic, disobedient dogs and I have never, ever met one that would respond "better" to a lead pop than to a gentler way of getting the message across.
And this gives me another opportunity to dispel a misapprehension that poeple seem to have about positive training. "Positive" training is not one method of training. It is an approach, not a method. It utilises a whole gamut of different approaches, methods, ideas, techniques etc. There are librabies upon libraries of books describing many and varied positive training methods, any of which a good trainer will have at their disposal. Indeed, a good trainer/behaviourist will have to use very individualised approaches to each and every dog they encounter, using methods that may not appear in any book, but which still conform to the positive training approach. The one thing that unites all methods used, is that the dog is never subjected to anything which could frighten or harm it. Nobody needs to resort to that. I certainly have never had to, having handled a whole lot of dogs with some really serious behavioural problems. I'm not magc. I don't have a gift. I just always approach any problem I come across in a troublesome dog with a positive aspect. Hasn't let me down yet.

There are so many online courses teaching dog training these days that anyone can become a 'dog trainer' without having much experience of dogs, a lot of these trainers describe themselves as 100% positive reinforcement.

... which, as I described in my post, anyone who says they're "100% positive reinforcement" doesn't actually really understand what positive training is. Like I say, there isn't a trainer of man nor beast on this planet that can train using positive reinforcement on its own. But that's internet trainers for you.
It's up to the owner to delve into the courses their trainer has done, and what training associations they're affiliated to. This can tell quite the story about the real level of formal training one's trainer has.

Experience is what counts, how to read a dog and decide what will work with each dog drawing from many years of dealing with a massive variety of dogs and situations and behaviours.

Whilst I agree that experience is important, if one is going to call oneself a dog behaviourist or trainer, in this day and age it's a bit rich not to get oneself a formal, industry-recognised qualification. They are fairly easily available.
For the record, I know many people in various professions who have lots of experience at what they do. The unfortunate thing is that they've been doing it questionably for a long time. This is why professions such as medicine, veterinary, psychology etc, and in the future animal behaviour, require Continuing Professional Development/Education, as just because a practitioner has been doing it a certain way for years, doesn't mean it's the right or best way of doing it. I find that the people who protest most at the concept of having to upskill are the ones who haven't voluntarily kept their education up to date, and have a lot of catching up to do.

Chris_Heilong

I dont think there is any one correct system, that would be arrogant, but as TooManyDogs said, an approach should be tailored to an individual dog, IMO what ever works for your dog is the best system.

Just like raising kids we all make mistakes and learn from our mistakes but at the end of the day we know whats best for them. One thing I will say is violence breeds violence and the dogs I have seen that show aggression are usually followed a few moments latter by the owner hitting their dog and telling it to behave.

Cherry Blossom

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I dont think there is any one correct system, that would be arrogant, but as TooManyDogs said, an approach should be tailored to an individual dog, IMO what ever works for your dog is the best system.

+1

I'm very comfortable with my make it up as you go along system, a fair bit of it is thinking outside the box and a lot of it is directly transferred from experience schooling horses. The biggest advantage is of course that it leaves you open to consider other people's opinions and my philosophy in life in general is that if you are not willing to consider that every other view on any given subject matter may have some merit then your own opinion loses all credibility and you end up looking like an arrogant know it all. Scientific research is all very well but unless you are actually the person who conducted it, you are still just rhyming off something you have read/been taught/ tried out and it works for you. Free thinking is the greatest human trait, and we should all use it as much as possible instead of being sheep and following the flock. There is so much satisfaction in figuring out something for yourself. Although patience is a bit of a necessary skill to enable this to happen.

(By 'you', I don't mean you specifically, I mean you, me, everybody and anybody)

Bizzum

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

+1

I'm very comfortable with my make it up as you go along system, a fair bit of it is thinking outside the box and a lot of it is directly transferred from experience schooling horses. The biggest advantage is of course that it leaves you open to consider other people's opinions and my philosophy in life in general is that if you are not willing to consider that every other view on any given subject matter may have some merit then your own opinion loses all credibility and you end up looking like an arrogant know it all. Scientific research is all very well but unless you are actually the person who conducted it, you are still just rhyming off something you have read/been taught/ tried out and it works for you. Free thinking is the greatest human trait, and we should all use it as much as possible instead of being sheep and following the flock. There is so much satisfaction in figuring out something for yourself. Although patience is a bit of a necessary skill to enable this to happen.

(By 'you', I don't mean you specifically, I mean you, me, everybody and anybody)

By this logic: The next time you have a problem, be it health, plumbing, mechanical etc. , will you be happy with the "make it up as you go along system"?

Dr Nick Riviera comes to mind:)

"The knee bone's connected to the...Something. The something's connected to the .....Red thing. The red thing's connected to my...Wrist watch........Uh Oh........"