# Dogs doesn't like when boyfriend hugs me



## Silversong86 (Feb 19, 2009)

Hello everyone. I just joined this group and wanted to know your thoughts on this:

So I recently moved across country to live with my boyfriend. I, of course, brought my dog with me. She's a rescue dog, lab and cocker mix, about 10 yrs old and I've had her for 9. Anyway, the funny thing is that every time my boyfriend tries to give me a hug or kiss the dog tries to push herself between us or makes noise to get him to stop. It's the funniest thing, but I wonder if she's jealous for attention (she used to get intensely jealous with the cat before I moved out here. The cat stayed with my dad, fyi) or if she is trying to protect me from him because she doesn't trust him yet. She doesn't seem to do it as often when I am the instigator of these actions. The dog loves him the rest of the time and the play together and everything, so it's not that she doesn''t like him... hmmm  Thanks for responses, Hope all is well and I look forward to chatting with you all in the future.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

It may be that the dog is concerned because it is something he has not seen before. 

I had a dog who did this and ultimately the dog's opinion was right.. I rehomed the BF and kept the dog!  (not suggesting YOU do this.. I just should have listened to my dog... LOL).


----------



## Moker (Feb 5, 2009)

rehoming boyfriend. lmao

i wish my neighbor would do that to her bf.

they have a 7 month english bulldog, the girl and her roommate (another girl), are great about picking up their dogs droppings. The bf however... i've seen him walk the dog and just walk away after their dog poo's. doesn't pick it up. makes me more than a little angry, as everone else in our condo area vigilantly picks up after their dog. this guy is just too frikkin lazy to pick his dogs droppings up. he's a thug wanna be, with the way he dresses and acts


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

It could also be a form of "guarding"....you are hers and she is not happy about someone else trying to touch you......if it is guarding you need to nip that quickly


----------



## BanJojo (Dec 17, 2008)

My dogs do the same thing. And even if we leave them out of the room they start going crazy as soon as we start being intimate. They like us both and seem to be bonded to both of us, so it's not really a protection thing...It's funny, though.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

BanJojo said:


> My dogs do the same thing. And even if we leave them out of the room they start going crazy as soon as we start being intimate. They like us both and seem to be bonded to both of us, so it's not really a protection thing...It's funny, though.


Maybe they are like "OMG OMG you think they gonna..?" "Yeah, they gonna!" "No way!" "Shhh! Maybe we can hear!" "Oh Oh, they are!!" "See! I told you they gonna!" "Yeah, they did!" "Hey I wonder it feels like" "Maybe next time we should ask" "Yeah, we should totally ask!"


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

When she does it, BOTH of you turn your back and IGNORE her. Give her NO attention, act like she doesn't exist, walk away from her if nessesary. When she SITS and relaxes PRAISE PRAISE PRAISE.


----------



## BanJojo (Dec 17, 2008)

I had a horse once that would step on my boyfriend's toe everytime he hugged me. She was actually a bit dog-like in a lot of ways.


----------



## Nikki_Nue (Nov 18, 2008)

Your dog is doing this for the same reason some dogs do not like to receive hugs. Dogs do not hug each other. When their "arms" go on another dog it is a sign of aggression. Imagine when one dog puts his front legs on the shoulder of another dog - it is a dominant stance. Your dog thinks that is what your boyfriend is doing. It explains why he doesn't mind when you initiate the contact but he does mind when the boyfriend initiates. He is protecting your dominance.

It is a good sign, actually. It shows that your dog views you highly and thinks you ought to be respected. The best way to stop this behavior is to tell your dog to "sit" and "stay" when your boyfriend hugs you. Also, have the boyfriend give the dog commands on a regular basis. When your dog sees the boyfriend as dominant to him (the dog), the problem should get better.

Good luck.


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

I would try something a bit different than ignoring the dog, or issuing commands to her before hugging your boyfriend. I would toss a few of her favorite treats as I approached the boyfriend, and keep dropping a few more treats as we hugged.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Nikki_Nue said:


> When their "arms" go on another dog it is a sign of aggression. Imagine when one dog puts his front legs on the shoulder of another dog - it is a dominant stance.


Aggression does not = dominance.



> Your dog thinks that is what your boyfriend is doing.


How do you determine what the dog is "thinking" exactly? 



> It explains why he doesn't mind when you initiate the contact but he does mind when the boyfriend initiates. He is protecting your dominance.


I think you are confused over the definition of dominance. Dominance is NOT a characteristic of the animal. It is simply the description of the winner in a contest. We love pizza, there's one slice on the table, we both reach for it, I get it and eat it, I am dominant. We love apple pie, there's one slice on the table, you get it and eat it, I am submissive. The labels dominant and submissive are just that, labels. They are not what the dog IS relative to anyone else. 

I would ask the question, if her boyfriend hugs her what resource is being contested? Likely none. It's likely the dog is simply not familiar with the novelty of someone hugging the OP.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I would ask the question, if her boyfriend hugs her what resource is being contested? Likely none. It's likely the dog is simply not familiar with the novelty of someone hugging the OP.



I would say that it is possible the OP is the Resource...but I agree that this could possible be just something that is new to the dog and he/she is expressing his/her "stress" over it...(for lack of a better word )


----------



## BanJojo (Dec 17, 2008)

It's also not true that dogs don't hug. My akita/chow, when I get home from a long day and let her out of the crate, will come up to me, jump up, put her "arms" around my shoulders and lick my face. If you don't call that a hug, what is? And it's not just random jumping with excitement like Banjo. She has the intent to put her front legs around me in a hug. I don't know if her previous owner taught her this or what.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Wally tries to do that to me too (except...being about 2 feet tall makes that a task he can't complete).

I call it dog-hugging - as it's about the next best thing since they don't have arms that move like ours and can't really wrap like a human/primate hug.



Curbside Prophet said:


> I think you are confused over the definition of dominance. Dominance is NOT a characteristic of the animal. It is simply the description of the winner in a contest. We love pizza, there's one slice on the table, we both reach for it, I get it and eat it, I am dominant. We love apple pie, there's one slice on the table, you get it and eat it, I am submissive. The labels dominant and submissive are just that, labels. They are not what the dog IS relative to anyone else.


Dominance may not be a characteristic - but I believe it can be a behavior. If I but my hand on your shoulder and say "that pie is mine" and you get up and leave - that's also dominance. I don't have to "win" the pie - I just have to stop you from attempting to get it. 

As far as knowing what a dog is thinking - since dogs don't lie, they display their thoughts through actions. It's why I can say Wally's thinking "I need to get out and go bathroom!" when he spins around at the door. Am I in his head? No. But his actions are a window to his mind and what he is thinking.

The idea you can not at all ever never 0% be able to know what a dog is thinking is overstating it, imo.


----------



## Nikki_Nue (Nov 18, 2008)

While aggression does not always equal dominance dogs are seeking dominance through aggression - they are aggressive in their persuit of dominance. And it is obvious what he is "thinking" through his actions. 

As for whether or not dogs "hug" dogs naturally lick faces to great eachother. Especially more submissive dogs will lick more dominant dog's faces. Your dog puts his paws on your shoulders for balance. He does not have the same intent in his actions as two humans have when they hug. Yes it is a greeting, but this dog probably does not see it that way - hence the response.


----------



## LoupGarouTFTs (Oct 27, 2007)

I agree that it sounds like resource guarding and that it should be stopped now. It's not cute or funny, it really can be dangerous. People are indeed resources--or at least their attention is a resource and people provide resources to the dog. The advice of ignoring the dog when she is attempting to guard you is good advice (ignoring the behavior will make it go "extinct"), but you might want to turn your side, not your back, to her and simply avoid making eye contact.


----------



## BanJojo (Dec 17, 2008)

Okay, I understand that that's the case with most dogs. Banjo, when she puts her legs around you, it's definitely for balance. Aurora, however, seems to have a bit more intent about it. She really seems to be trying to copy a human hug. She's not bouncing off the walls, she very calmly reaches up, wraps her arms around me, and gives me a gentle lick. I see the difference with Banjo, where she's just trying to get to me, with paws and tongue and anything she can.


----------



## Moker (Feb 5, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I think you are confused over the definition of dominance. Dominance is NOT a characteristic of the animal. It is simply the description of the winner in a contest. We love pizza, there's one slice on the table, we both reach for it, I get it and eat it, I am dominant. We love apple pie, there's one slice on the table, you get it and eat it, I am submissive. The labels dominant and submissive are just that, labels. They are not what the dog IS relative to anyone else.



uh.. no offense, but you may want to actually look up dominance before saying that.

dominance IS a characteristic imo, bismarck and my neighbors dog constantly have dominance issues, biz tries to hump the neighbor dog, proving his dominance, the neighbor dog tries the same thing on biz.
heck, look at wolves (of which dogs are related too), they have a dominant pair, the alpha's, that rule by aggression.


----------



## LoupGarouTFTs (Oct 27, 2007)

Moker said:


> heck, look at wolves (of which dogs are related too), they have a dominant pair, the alpha's, that rule by aggression.


"Alpha" wolves do not "rule by aggression." The alpha wolves are allowed to rule by their ability to lead and make decisions.


----------



## chasse (Jan 28, 2009)

LoupGarouTFTs said:


> I agree that it sounds like resource guarding and that it should be stopped now. It's not cute or funny, it really can be dangerous. People are indeed resources--or at least their attention is a resource and people provide resources to the dog. The advice of ignoring the dog when she is attempting to guard you is good advice (ignoring the behavior will make it go "extinct"), but you might want to turn your side, not your back, to her and simply avoid making eye contact.


A better word for it is possessiveness. Resource guarding is a good way to explain it because it is somewhat similar to when you try to take away or share a prized toy with a dog you get a similar response, but it's even more like the jealous boyfriend who wants to fight a guy at the bar because he looked at his girl funny. You are his female, he possesses you, and the only one that can stop it is you by changing the human-dog relationship around so that you own the dog, not the other way around. If you think it's the funniest thing it will never stop, because when you are laughing and smiling about his "guarding" (in you dogs mind, posessing) you, you are actually saying on dog language "good boy" and inadvertantly training him to do that behavior. It can get worse, much worse, if allowed to continue.


----------



## Moker (Feb 5, 2009)

LoupGarouTFTs said:


> "Alpha" wolves do not "rule by aggression." The alpha wolves are allowed to rule by their ability to lead and make decisions.


uh... that's wrong. partially though. the alpha's are the most aggressive in a pack, and the most dominant.
then if the pack is large enough, the beta, who has less privelages in the pack than the alphas.
all the way down to the omega.

each wolf defends it's position in the pack, it want's to move up, but will have to fight the wolf above it for the privelages.


----------



## LoupGarouTFTs (Oct 27, 2007)

Moker said:


> uh... that's wrong. partially though. the alpha's are the most aggressive in a pack, and the most dominant.
> then if the pack is large enough, the beta, who has less privelages in the pack than the alphas.
> all the way down to the omega.
> 
> each wolf defends it's position in the pack, it want's to move up, but will have to fight the wolf above it for the privelages.


No, not really. Wolves that lead do so through scent marking, decision-making, postural cues, and other non-violent means as a general rule. There may be dominance fights, but these are not the means by which the pack leaders rule, they are the means by which other pack members engage in social climbing and the means by which the pack leaders defend their position. Actual "rule" of the back is based on the leaders' ability to keep the pack safe and fed, but even less dominant pack members can lead at times.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/wolflead/discuss.htm

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/biology/communication.asp


----------



## Moker (Feb 5, 2009)

heh, thanks for that.
i didn't see that page, and it pretty much proves that they do use aggressive behavior in the pack.

again, thanks for helping me prove the point


----------



## LoupGarouTFTs (Oct 27, 2007)

Moker said:


> heh, thanks for that.
> i didn't see that page, and it pretty much proves that they do use aggressive behavior in the pack.
> 
> again, thanks for helping me prove the point


Are you really reading the articles or are you data-mining? I don't want to hijack this thread for a discussion on wolf behavior, since dogs are not wolves and don't share all of their social characteristics, so I'm not going to respond to other wolf-related posts, but I think that you will see from other research and books on wolves that they are not as aggressive as you think.



> Wolves use body language to convey the rules of the pack. A wolf pack is very organized. Rule number one says that the pack is made up of leaders and followers. The pack leaders are the male parent and the female parent - usually the father and mother of the other pack members. They are likely to be the *oldest, largest, strongest and most intelligent wolves* in the pack. They are known as the alpha wolves and are usually the only members of the pack to produce pups.





> If two wolves have a disagreement, they may show their teeth and growl at each other. Both wolves try to look as fierce as they can. Usually the less dominant wolf, the subordinate one, gives up before a fight begins. To show that it accepts the other wolf's authority, it rolls over on its back. Reactions to this behavior may range from tolerance (the dominant wolf standing over the submissive wolf) to mortal attack, particularly in the case of a trespassing alien wolf. *Following the dominance rules usually keeps the wolves in a pack from fighting among themselves and hurting each other.*





> Dominant animals may scent mark through urination every two minutes. When they do so they raise a leg, this dominant posture utilizes multiple forms of communication and is called a "Raised Leg Urination" or RLU.





> Scent-marking, while having no direct bearing on leadership per se, provided the clearest indicator of dominant, breeding status, and our direct observations confirmed earlier work (Peters and Mech 1975; Haber 1977; Rothman and Mech 1979; Asa et al. 1990; Asa and Mech 1995; Mech 1995, 1999). All scent-marking was done by wolves of high status, and even a single observation of double scent-marking was sufficient to identify a wolf pair as dominant breeders. In this study, nonbreeders never marked, nor did most subordinate breeders; the only exception involved a female ascending to dominant status, who was observed scratching in the absence of the dominant pair. In another study, a female also ascending to dominant breeder status was seen flexed-leg urinating (Mech 1995).





> We found division of leadership to be about equal between dominant males and females, at least in winter, in contrast to the pup-rearing season, when the male concentrates on travel and prey capture and the female is focused on rearing pups (Mech 1999).





> Although dominant breeding wolves provided most leadership, we found that subordinate wolves, both breeders and nonbreeders, also provided leadership during travel. Dominant breeding wolves might share leadership in order to take advantage of pooled experience in a territory, although in this study a newly arrived dominant male showed the greatest tendency to lead.





> Even though the subtle social interactions involved in travel coordination are difficult to observe, *we found that dominant breeding wolves often made decisions that affected the pack's direction even when not in the lead.* It is common in social species for subordinate individuals to closely monitor dominant leaders, so it is necessary to distinguish decision-makers, the true leaders, from initiators, who merely suggest a direction (Byrne 2000).


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

KBLover said:


> Dominance may not be a characteristic - but I believe it can be a behavior. If I but my hand on your shoulder and say "that pie is mine" and you get up and leave - that's also dominance.


Is it? What if I don't like pie after all. Aren't I, by leaving, gaining what I want? Wouldn't that make my behavior dominant? You see, the label, really, is a silly one, and was only meant to be a descriptor for a perceived contest. If there is no contest, or if our perception is wrong, so too is the label...so too whatever behavior you assign to dominance. So no, dominance is not behavior. That is the fallacy of dominance theory. 

It is extremely important to understand that dominance is a theory. It is a hypothetical construct invented by us to explain phenomena. Does dominance exist? The theory exists. The real question is does it reflect a real phenomenon in reality? IMO, not really. 

But if you prefer, here is Drews definition from "Essence of Dominance".


> Dominance is an attribute of the pattern or repeated, agnostic interactions between two individuals, characterized by a consistent outcome in favour of the same dyad member and default yielding response of its opponent rather than escalation. The status of the consistent winner is dominant and that of the loser is subordinate.


So not only is "dominate" the label for the winner it must be a repeated pattern, the result consistent, not escalate into something more, and be in favor of the winner. I would say the OP's dog can not be categorized into any of these parts. 



> I don't have to "win" the pie - I just have to stop you from attempting to get it.


Not only do you have to win the pie, you need to do so consistently and without escalation. 



> As far as knowing what a dog is thinking - since dogs don't lie, they display their thoughts through actions. It's why I can say Wally's thinking "I need to get out and go bathroom!" when he spins around at the door. Am I in his head? No. But his actions are a window to his mind and what he is thinking.


Yes, but when you do so in an erroneous fashion, you are likely to address the behavior in an erroneous fashion. I've said this when we assign a thought process to a dog, if it benefits the dog in a pleasurable way, great, make up whatever thoughts you want. If however, it does not benefit the dog in a pleasurable way, we need to address the behavior from another approach. "Pleasurable" is subjective, but that just gives more reason to not assign thoughts to the dog. Assigning thoughts does nothing more than limit our approach, and that IMO, never benefits the dog. 



> The idea you can not at all ever never 0% be able to know what a dog is thinking is overstating it, imo.


The idea that you can assign human emotions to a dog is overstating it to another extreme. I prefer to practice the Law of Parsimony, I understand that not everyone cares to, and can do that.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well our 10 yr old dog starts barking when wife and I kiss or hug, we think it's cool it doesn't bother us at all. It's not a question of dominance as their is only one alpha in the home(wife) and if dog owns us she better start paying some of the bills around here.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Nikki_Nue said:


> While aggression does not always equal dominance dogs are seeking dominance through aggression - they are aggressive in their persuit of dominance. And it is obvious what he is "thinking" through his actions.


I don't think anyone is questioning whether dogs can or do think...of course they do. What is being questioned is our interpretation of these thoughts, and anyone who says dogs are aggressive in their pursuit of dominance, we have good reason to question those interpretations. Aggression is not a requisite for dominance...it's not even necessary.



Moker said:


> uh.. no offense, but you may want to actually look up dominance before saying that.


No offense taken, but your assumption is offensive. What makes you presume I don't know the definition(s)? 



> dominance IS a characteristic imo, bismarck and my neighbors dog constantly have dominance issues, biz tries to hump the neighbor dog, proving his dominance, the neighbor dog tries the same thing on biz.
> heck, look at wolves (of which dogs are related too), they have a dominant pair, the alpha's, that rule by aggression.


Now I understand your presumption. Your understanding is based on outdated knowledge.

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/iwmag/2008/winter/alphawolf.pdf

If you're wondering who David Mech is, he is likely the premier authority on wolf behavior. 

So before making any assumptions about me or any other members, perhaps you should update your information.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Is it? What if I don't like pie after all. Aren't I, by leaving, gaining what I want? Wouldn't that make my behavior dominant? You see, the label, really, is a silly one, and was only meant to be a descriptor for a perceived contest. If there is no contest, or if our perception is wrong, so too is the label...so too whatever behavior you assign to dominance. So no, dominance is not behavior. That is the fallacy of dominance theory.


If you didn't like pie, why would I even need to tell you to stay away? I'd know not to bother - because you don't like it anyway. You'd show no interest in eating it, and so I wouldn't need to keep you away.

This would be especially true if we were dogs - since our body language, again, tells our thoughts. If you weren't interested in the pie at all - I could see that before I even got in your face - so I wouldn't need to waste energy "telling" you to stay back.




Curbside Prophet said:


> But if you prefer, here is Drews definition from "Essence of Dominance".
> So not only is "dominate" the label for the winner it must be a repeated pattern, the result consistent, not escalate into something more, and be in favor of the winner. I would say the OP's dog can not be categorized into any of these parts.


I view dominance, or the desire to be dominant as the attempt to gain control over the desired resource. That could be what the OP's dog falls into. He might be losing the resources to the boyfriend, but he's not taking it lying down, so to speak.

I guess I view the process as much as the end result. Seems the theory only cares about the end result and who "wins" or "losses". To me, the actual attempt to win is as important - especially considering I'm not going to lose to a 12 lb dog. But the fact if Wally even attempted to "battle" me for a resource - that's enough in my mind.



Curbside Prophet said:


> Yes, but when you do so in an erroneous fashion, you are likely to address the behavior in an erroneous fashion. I've said this when we assign a thought process to a dog, if it benefits the dog in a pleasurable way, great, make up whatever thoughts you want. If however, it does not benefit the dog in a pleasurable way, we need to address the behavior from another approach. "Pleasurable" is subjective, but that just gives more reason to not assign thoughts to the dog. Assigning thoughts does nothing more than limit our approach, and that IMO, never benefits the dog.


Pleasurable is subjective, imo, only in that what one dog likes, another might not. Whatever the dog likes, he/she is going to find pleasurable. That's to me the definition of the word. Again, I don't think dogs can "fake a smile" and act like they like something they hate or rather not do. I think you'd be more apt to get calming signals or slower performance of the task - the dog's way of saying "I'd rather not do this, but if I must..."



Curbside Prophet said:


> The idea that you can assign human emotions to a dog is overstating it to another extreme. I prefer to practice the Law of Parsimony, I understand that not everyone cares to, and can do that.


I don't want either extreme - I want the actual truth. If it's 20%, then that's what I want. If you can tell in this case, but not that one, that's what I want. To me, that level of understanding will improve my relationship with Wally and dogs in general, instead of just assuming in either direction. I don't want to over-read, but I don't want to throw away what I can get either, just in the sake of not over-reading.


----------



## LoupGarouTFTs (Oct 27, 2007)

KBLover said:


> I view dominance, or the desire to be dominant as the attempt to gain control over the desired resource. That could be what the OP's dog falls into. He might be losing the resources to the boyfriend, but he's not taking it lying down, so to speak.


I just want to disagree with this a tiny bit. Dominance is not the attempt to gain control over anything. The truly dominant dog believes that everything belongs to him/her: my food, my water, my human, my toy, and so on. There is no need to "gain control," since the resource is already in the dog's control. In the OP's case, the dog may believe that her control over the resource, his human, is being challenged by the boyfriend (as you said). There is a good chance that she will escalate the behavior from merely standing between the OP and her boyfriend to a slightly harder correction.

Regardless of the definition of dominance or resource guarding, however, I believe it is important for the boyfriend to assert his dominance over the dog, not with alpha rolls or any such nonsense, but through NILIF or something similar. In my opinion, no dog should ever have more "status" in the "pack" than a human being.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

KBlover said:


> If you didn't like pie, why would I even need to tell you to stay away? I'd know not to bother - because you don't like it anyway. You'd show no interest in eating it, and so I wouldn't need to keep you away.


Except in the case that if I were a dog I’d likely be an obnoxious arse, and if I knew messing with your pie made you dance, I’d mess with your pie. I do own a terrier after all. In other words, my behavior does not necessarily determine what my thoughts are. If you guessed I’m being “dominant” when I’m just being a jerk, you are incorrectly calling jerk behavior, dominant behavior. There must be a contest and a resource to win for dominance to exist to have any description value. My point is, the description is not important to whether we find the behavior desirable or not. 




> He might be losing the resources to the boyfriend, but he's not taking it lying down, so to speak.


I don’t find it necessary to read into the behavior. I’m okay with saying the behavior is a result of the dog attempting to maximize resources (perhaps affection in this case), but I would stop short of calling it resource guarding, just for the fact that it takes two entities to share affection. Resource guarding a human just doesn’t fit into any of the four F’s neatly. 



> I guess I view the process as much as the end result. Seems the theory only cares about the end result and who "wins" or "losses".


If you’re attempting to quantify/qualify behavior, yes, you have to look at results. This is the intent of the labels. Everything else derived from it is opinion and conjecture…especially if you’ve seen it on TV. 


> To me, the actual attempt to win is as important - especially considering I'm not going to lose to a 12 lb dog. But the fact if Wally even attempted to "battle" me for a resource - that's enough in my mind.


I don’t think we need to make it more complicated than answering this one question…is the behavior desired? Yes or no, tells you how important modifying the behavior is. What the dog is thinking is not valued in answering that question. 


> To me, that level of understanding will improve my relationship with Wally and dogs in general, instead of just assuming in either direction. I don't want to over-read, but I don't want to throw away what I can get either, just in the sake of not over-reading.


Here’s my problem with assuming thoughts on a dog…if you’re going to modify the behavior, how do you control the dog’s thoughts? You can’t. No matter how hard you try to persuade your dog, the dog won’t lie, right?, the dog’s thoughts will always be owned by him - just as your thoughts are owned only by you. So when I suggest the dog’s thoughts are not relevant, it is from fact that we have no control over another being’s thoughts. So why invest my effort into something the dog will always have control over and can not be seen? 

I’d rather invest my effort in that which I can control…elements in the dog’s environment. In this case I would control the bf and reinforcers. I would manipulate the dog’s proximity from the OP and bf, I would manipulate the distance between the bf and OP, I would observe the OP and bf (perhaps their behavior is eliciting the dog's), and I would reinforce desired behaviors and punish undesired behaviors. What part of this is necessary to include the dog’s thoughts?, when the effectiveness of our approach is determined by one thing and one thing only…observed behavior.


----------

