# Positive vs Traditional. Giving me a Headache.



## Concerned (Sep 21, 2016)

Been watching a lot of Dog Whisperer (Have all 7 seasons) as well as some "traditional" training on youtube (e.g. Peter Caine). I have also been watching a lot of positive reinforcement trainers (e.g. Zakk George and Kikopup). Until now, I'm wondering if the Dominance towards humans thing is true or false. I'm sort of seeing it on my 7 month old pup (or just being influenced by media) It feels like the?ere's no final word on this. What are your takes on this?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

The good news is that there is a final word! Dominance theory has been scientifically debunked many times, including by the scientist who came up with it in the first place.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

There's very little you'll find complete consensus on in a wide, varied, and completely unregulated industry like dog training (except - _maybe_ - 'dogs are mammals'). 

That being said, everyone who bases their understanding and techniques of dogs and wolves on current science and learning theory have given their final word on this ages ago: dominance as defined by 'dominance theory' trainers like Cesar Millan is complete bumpkiss. I'm talking applied animal behaviorists, wolf researchers, researchers who focus on canine cognition, highly respected and successful trainers the world over, etc. all agree on this point. Dominance theory training is based on notoriously bad research on wolves - NOT dogs - that was done in the 30s and 40s and has since been repeatedly and definitively refuted as not how _wolves_ naturally behave in the wild, let alone dogs. Dogs aren't trying to take over your life. They aren't furry usurpers. They're opportunistic and will repeat behaviors that get them results they like, but teach them that only polite behaviors get them nice things and they'll be perfectly happy, even if they're not 'alpha dog'.

This is my favorite essay on Cesar Millan and the damage he's done to the public's perception of appropriate dog training: http://www.whyanimalsdothething.com/posts/2016/6/2/the-damage-of-dog-whispering

The author goes out of her way to present all the information in a way that's understandable to everyone, even if you're not familiar with training industry lingo or basic concepts in animal behavior science. Seriously, give it a read, it's good stuff.

Basically, CM is an entertainer. He knows little about actual science-based dog behavior, and repeatedly ignores canine body language, or uses 'dominance' to explain behaviors that are really based in fear, excitement, confusion, or just plain dogs being dogs. He puts animals in dangerous situations, has gotten bit in situations any trainer worth their salt should've been able to defuse or prevent entirely (and guess what, no amount of training can erase a bite record once it happens), and uses excessively forceful techniques to get the 'quick' results he wants. What's worse, in all the years he's been on TV and receiving criticism and concern from top trainers, behaviorist, and animal handlers in the field, he's refused to expand his knowledge and adapt his training to more humane, scientifically grounded methods. He's been called out even by official societies in the animal behavior field, like this letter from the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior: http://beyondcesarmillan.weebly.com/avsab-vets.html

I'll be honest - training based on pain, fear, and intimidation - such as used in dominance theory - works. If it didn't, it probably wouldn't have stuck around so long. HOWEVER, why put your beloved pet through that if positive reinforcement (treats, play, and life rewards) and negative punishment (such as stopping play when the dog is being rude) work just as well or better? Why stage every day with your dog as if it's a battle, us vs. them? And on top of that, punishment has a much higher risk of behavioral fallout. A dog that's learned that you do scary or painful things is more likely to bite than a dog that has learned you're a fun partner and provider of games and treats.

I came across a phrase I really like the other day: "There is no room for tradition in animal care". This isn't saying that tradition = bad - after all, how traditional are leashes? But it IS saying that animal husbandry, training, and behavior is a rapidly growing field. We learn more every day, and throwing out newer techniques or theories backed by solid, scientific evidence just because it's not the way we've always done it, without examining the true costs and benefits of each, leads to stagnation. Remember that many 'traditional' training methods were created in a time when we believed as a society that animals didn't feel pain and were incapable of having complex internal emotional states. That's not a time I want to go back to, personally.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

ireth0 said:


> The good news is that there is a final word! Dominance theory has been scientifically debunked many times, including by the scientist who came up with it in the first place.


This. It's not really a question anymore, dominance theory is completely debunked.

People still argue about more traditional compulsion methods vs positive reinforcement based training methods, but pretty much no trainer worth going to will try to sell you on dominance theory anymore. Even "traditional" or balanced trainers think that Ceasar is an idiot.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

Dominance theory has been debunked. It is not true. Any "dominance" you perceive in your dog is simply a young, 7 month old pup who is learning about her world and how she should behave in it to get what she wants. She's not trying to take over your home, I promise!


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

My take : watching Cesar Milan and Peter Caine videos is a flagrant waste of time. For one thing, Caine in particular advocates for spitting in the dog's mouth as a means of establishing dominance and for soothing a nervous dog. He claims it's been "proven" effective, but yet to my knowledge there's no empirical evidence to support his claim. He's merely a loudmouth, crass, overly-opinionated fool who knows little to nothing about dog behavior nor civil human interaction. Case in point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIwBRbkOi5o

You'd serve yourself far better by watching videos from Donna Hill, Susan Garret, Training Positive, Pam's Dog Academy, Kristin Crestejo, and the like. Or even better still, hook up with a comparable trainer in real life.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

petpeeve said:


> He's merely a loudmouth, crass, overly-opinionated fool who knows little to nothing about dog behavior nor civil human interaction. Case in point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIwBRbkOi5o


Wow. 

And poor dogs. They look very shut down.


----------



## LeoRose (Aug 20, 2015)

IMO, watching CM is a waste of time. Like others have said, he ignores canine body language, pushes dogs over the edge into reacting aggressively, uses flooding techniques, and his "calm submissive state" is just another term for "shut down". 

Positive based training works. If you can't find a good in-person class in your area, check out the Fenzi dog Sports Academy, One happy Dog, or other online training resources.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

You won't see positive only trainers like Zakk George rehabilitating aggressive dogs, and there's a reason they choose the breeds they have, they are EASILY trained. I've never been much into trick training, and that's what trainers like Zakk George and Kikopup specialize in. Having gotten into a facebook conversation with Zakk George once I know if he had it his way ALL dogs bred for protection work and hunting would be forced to live lives as pets, and those that couldn't cope would be euthanized. There is no final word, that's why no one who has responded has any sources and haven't cited the supposed proven science.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> You won't see positive only trainers like Zakk George rehabilitating aggressive dogs, and there's a reason they choose the breeds they have, they are EASILY trained. I've never been much into trick training, and that's what trainers like Zakk George and Kikopup specialize in. Having gotten into a facebook conversation with Zakk George once I know if he had it his way ALL dogs bred for protection work and hunting would be forced to live lives as pets, and those that couldn't cope would be euthanized. There is no final word, that's why no one who has responded has any sources and haven't cited the supposed proven science.


LOL WHAT. Man, you must not have been around dogs and dog training for long  Because herding dogs are all sunshine and rainbows. Tell that to my old Aussie that was an unstable, nervy jerk with seriously insane protective instincts. And try using P+ on him lmao. Try using P+ on my DA/DR foster dog (we tried) and see where the results land you.

Here's a thought: At zoos they train hyenas to give blood using R+ (clicker training specifically). If you can teach a wild predatorial animal to do that using R+, what makes you think an aggressive dog needs a "firmer" hand?


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Um. I admittedly am still gaining experience with aggression but have worked with level 3 biters. And my two other CPDT colleagues with over a decade's experience between them rehabilitate aggressive client and shelter dogs every week. 

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe you just need to be more open minded and reach beyond your beliefs to learn more.

(And to be clear, I don't believe in "positive only" and we don't market ourselves as such. I believe in a training program strongly favoring positive reinforcement and management, but also including negative punishment.)


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

DracoGSD said:


> You won't see positive only trainers like Zakk George rehabilitating aggressive dogs, and there's a reason they choose the breeds they have, they are EASILY trained. I've never been much into trick training, and that's what trainers like Zakk George and Kikopup specialize in. Having gotten into a facebook conversation with Zakk George once I know if he had it his way ALL dogs bred for protection work and hunting would be forced to live lives as pets, and those that couldn't cope would be euthanized. There is no final word, that's why no one who has responded has any sources and haven't cited the supposed proven science.


http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org/why-not-dominance.php



> The real problem with assuming that a dog is showing a behaviour because it has a ‘master plan’ of achieving high status, is the effect that this assumption has on how owners respond to their dogs, and attempt to train them. If owners believe that a dog does something to ‘achieve status’ or ‘control them’ or ‘be the boss’ it naturally tends to lead people to use coercive training techniques. This relies on inducing a negative emotional state (e.g. fear or anxiety) in a dog in order to inhibit behaviour, which has the risk of inducing further undesired behaviour or having a negative effect on welfare, as described further in ‘What are the problems of using training techniques that induce fear or pain?’





> Although it has been widely accepted amongst qualified behaviourists and trainers for many years that the interpretation of dog behaviour based on a ‘dominance model’ relies on unsupported assumptions, this outdated approach is still used by those that have not had the opportunity to study the most recent literature and clinical practice. This article has explained how this theory arose through a historical ‘mistake’ in the interpretation of wolf behaviour, along with a series of assumptions about how this might apply to dogs. These assumptions have been clearly shown to be erroneous by recent research, and a modern interpretation of dog behaviour provides us with a much clearer interpretation of how and why behaviour develops. Although often portrayed as an ‘academic argument’ it is important to realise that the way people interpret the behaviour of their dogs has a strong influence on the way that they behave towards them. Dispelling the myths behind this theory is therefore an important step in enhancing the welfare of the dogs in our care.


This article has a number of other cited sources about Dominance Theory and its flaws. I'm quite certain there are many, many other articles and studies that other people more experienced than me can provide. 

I would be very interested in seeing this FB conversation you had with Zakk George.

I imagine some of the people on this forum who are professional dog trainers can cite examples of positive trainers working with dogs with all sorts of behavioral issues. Why would anybody want to use more fear or aversive techniques on a dog that is quite clearly already terrified?

OP, the one thing about positive training techniques that sold me was that it's pretty hard to cause more severe behavioral issues. The worse you can do is mistime a marker or give a reward when you shouldn't. Dog doesn't learn the thing, oh well. Do better the next training session. It is very easy for a handler to mistime a correction. Dog is now afraid of other dog because you administered a collar pop at the wrong time. Dog doesn't like strangers because you alpha rolled it when it started jumping up on people in excitement.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

DracoGSD said:


> You won't see positive only trainers like Zakk George rehabilitating aggressive dogs, and there's a reason they choose the breeds they have, they are EASILY trained. I've never been much into trick training, and that's what trainers like Zakk George and Kikopup specialize in. Having gotten into a facebook conversation with Zakk George once I know if he had it his way ALL dogs bred for protection work and hunting would be forced to live lives as pets, and those that couldn't cope would be euthanized. There is no final word, that's why no one who has responded has any sources and haven't cited the supposed proven science.


Nobody has claimed that everyone who uses positive training has the experience or skill to handle true aggression, nor do aggression cases and how to handle them have anything to do with dominance theory. There are plenty of people who use force-free methods and are highly successful with aggressive dogs; Patricia McConnell is an Applied Animal Behaviorist who's worked with aggression for years, for one. Almost everyone who's achieved a CBCC-KA, for another: http://www.ccpdt.org/certification/dog-behavior-consultant/. 

The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior is also outspoken against both dominance theory and the use of punishment as a first-line strategy, and say it should only be used when the trainer can "articulate the major adverse effects of punishment, judge when these effects are occurring over the short term and long term, and can explain how they will reverse the adverse effects if they occur." I can't link their position statements directly as they're downloadable PDFs, but you can find them here: https://avsab.org/resources/position-statements/

As for dominance theory sources...

A Times piece dissecting CM's dominance theory: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/opinion/31derr.html?_r=1
An article from the UK's Association of Pet Behavior Counsellors: http://www.apbc.org.uk/articles/why-wont-dominance-die
The article "Whatever Happened to the Term 'Alpha Wolf'" by highly regarded wolf researcher Mech goes into how and why erroneous ideas of 'alpha' and dominance got spread about wolves - including his own role in the misinformation. These false concepts are what dominance in dogs is based on. I can't link this one as it seems only available as a downloadable PDF as well, but again, easily searchable.

Keep in mind that plenty of 'balanced' trainers - who may or may not handle aggression cases - agree dominance theory is outdated and has no place in modern dog training.

Michael Ellis, who I understand is kind of a Big Deal in IPO, on dominance myths in dogs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm21nqCG2Fw

I don't necessarily agree with everything said in every link posted, but they all point towards one thing: dominance theory is based on poor science, poor understanding of dogs, and is misleading at best.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> You won't see positive only trainers like Zakk George rehabilitating aggressive dogs, and there's a reason they choose the breeds they have, they are EASILY trained. I've never been much into trick training, and that's what trainers like Zakk George and Kikopup specialize in. Having gotten into a facebook conversation with Zakk George once I know if he had it his way ALL dogs bred for protection work and hunting would be forced to live lives as pets, and those that couldn't cope would be euthanized. There is no final word, that's why no one who has responded has any sources and haven't cited the supposed proven science.


lol, you have no idea.

You want sources? Here you go. I challenge you to find peer-reviewed scientific sources from within the last decade to support your claim.

The Social Organization of the Domestic Dog
An evaluation of dog-training techniques: an assessment of efficacy and welfare.
Why using punishment and negative methods may not only fail to work, but may actually make your dog’s problems a whole lot worse
Punishment-based training increases aggression (study)
Dogs trained without punishment-based techniques exhibit fewer problem behaviours (study)
Punishment-based methods but not reward-based methods were associated with more training detriments (study)
Confrontational training techniques but not reward-based techniques were associated with aggressive responses in dogs presenting for a behaviour consultation (study)


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

...Um. 

I don't even know where to start there is so much wrong here.

Herding breeds do tend to be biddable. They also tend to be very, very sharp and have problems with both fear aggression, dog-dog aggression, obsessive compulsive behavior, superstitious behavior, single event learning (in negative ways), suspicious, dog-on-dog aggression, and general 'bite first, ask questions later' tendencies, and LOW thresholds in all the ways from 'rude behavior' to 'that looks weird. So, yeah, you can pretty much train them to sit quickly. You can also teach them that all strangers are horrifying because one sneezed when they approached once and that's horrible.

But quite aside from that, erm. I don't even tell my dogs NO most of the time. I don't believe in purely positive, I've used a prong on Thud, I've used e-collars to train in snake aversion but mostly? Nah. Not even no reward markers. The dog is set up for success, all the time.

That's worked for:
1.) The Rat Terrier I adopted at 5 years old who thought training was horrible after previously being trained by compulsion, was super soft and shut down easily and generally wanted nothing more than to not train.
2.) The deaf Boston Terrier I adopted at 4 years old who had NO training what-so-ever but spent her life running wild on a farm and who's idea of play was biting the crap out of people and had no self-control at all about anything.
3.) The little chi/beagle/sheltie mutt I found at 4 weeks old who was super shy and timid and shut down and quit easily if she got it wrong
4.) The GSD/LGD mutt I found at 6 weeks old who has crazy prey drive, was absolutely NOT biddable at ALL and generally didn't care what anyone wanted from him/pleasing people and also liked to bite and guard property
and
5.) The genetically fearful and fear aggressive border collie. 

Positive. Training. Works. For. All. Dogs. It may or may not work as FAST as compulsion, aversive, or punishment based methods and sometimes? You have a time crunch or safety issue, but there is no magical unicorn dog out there it will not work for. There is no magical unicorn living organism it will not work for. literally everything alive works on the basic principal that 'gets me what I want/need is a thing I will continue to do'. It works with BEES and GOLDFISH. I promise you, your dog is not some super special exception to basic fundamentals of behavior - the very basic being 'I will continue to do that which gets my needs/desires met'.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Also, I'm a trick trainer too. I wouldn't limit myself to that one category persay, but my dog has his TDCH. The thing about trick training is, more than any other activity or sport it challenges the trainer to think about how to train. Now, I'm not saying trick training is easier or harder than ring sports. I think it is much easier in some ways, as you can do it in your home and it, arguably, does not require as much dedication or investment. But I can also argue that it can be harder to achieve certain behaviors. The major difference is all other sports mostly make use of a dog's natural ability or behaviors. Biting, sniffing, jumping... Yes, the precision aspect takes months or years to achieve. But you're still enhancing or repressing certain behaviors the dog already offers. This is why positive punishment works well enough in a lot of ring sports like obedience, protection, rally, agility... Complex trick training requires a little more out-of-the-box thinking. 

You can't use punishment to teach a dog to hold an object, put a paw on a trash can pedestal, apply a certain amount of forward pressure, and only release the object when the lid is open and also in the correct spot. Or, maybe you can! I have yet to see someone use punishment to train something like that.

Now bear with me... Aggression is a sticky topic. I don't know much about Zak George and Kikopup's professional training careers, but because they use R+ and they master complex behaviors, I imagine they would tackle something like aggression with a similar mindset. Aggression cases also require expert reading of a dog's body language so that is the missing piece. But I would much rather take my chances with those 'trick trainers' than a 'balanced' trainer who thinks repressing the behavior is the way to go. DracoGSD, you didn't specify what exactly you would do to rehabilitate aggressive dogs. So I am just speaking theoretically here. But just saying, I have seen 'firm' trainers correct the heck out of every growl, snarl and lunge... Without thinking about the possibility of working with that dog UNDER threshold, and truly rehabilitating rather than just suppressing the reaction. When those dogs one day 'bite out of the blue' and get put down, it is always sad.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Aggression is not the same as dangerous, ever dog possesses some level of aggression. A dog without ANY aggression would lie there when being attacked by another dog and wouldn't properly tell of a puppy that is being too rough. The willingness to protect itself is a level of aggression, and nearly every single dog possesses that. If you don't even understand aggression and label it all as bad, then your view is not relevant to me. Dogs are animals, not humans.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

CptJack said:


> It works with BEES


Not to go too OT, but the bee thing they're doing right now is seriously awesome.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

You know the real variable here? The only one?

Some dogs can 'take' punishment, learn from it and be okay. Some dogs can't. However, the dog that can 'take' being punished or shocked or leash checked or dominance theory or whatever and be reasonably okay can STILL LEARN VIA POSITIVE TRAINING. 

There is massive risk of fallout with punishment based training. That does not exist in applying reward based methods. 

There are only 2 situations where people insisting some dogs NEED punishment based training/positive won't work makes sense to me:

1-) There is a need for an immediate solution because there is an IMMEDIATE risk to the safety of the dogs, other animals, or people. In this case, find a professional who knows what they're doing so you minimize risk of worsening the situation.

2-) Person defending the method doesn't understand dogs, or training, and couldn't train their way out of a wet paper bag. They can't figure out how to train, resort to really crude methods, then most defend it because otherwise they're admitting to their own short comings. 

And I lied, 3-) Person enjoys being mean to dogs and is using training as a thinly veiled excuse. 

And again I have USED punishment at various points for various things but come on, insisting some dog exists who can't learn via the method everything on the planet learns anything is the most idiotic hogwash I have ever heard.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Canyx said:


> Not to go too OT, but the bee thing they're doing right now is seriously awesome.


It is so, so, freaking cool.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

DracoGSD said:


> Aggression is not the same as dangerous, ever dog possesses some level of aggression. A dog without ANY aggression would lie there when being attacked by another dog and wouldn't properly tell of a puppy that is being too rough. The willingness to protect itself is a level of aggression, and nearly every single dog possesses that. If you don't even understand aggression and label it all as bad, then your view is not relevant to me. Dogs are animals, not humans.


Okay, so what did you mean when you mentioned rehabilitation of aggressive dogs? What level on the bite scale? What, in your opinion, should be done in such cases without using R+?


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

> A dog without ANY aggression would lie there when being attacked by another dog and wouldn't properly tell of a puppy that is being too rough.


Just because you have not seen it (or more likely, recognized it) doesn't mean those dogs don't exist. Except the dogs that don't try to fight back usually aren't just "laying there" taking it, they're trying desperately to run away unless it's gotten to the point where they know they can't.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Um, yeah, I'm not labeling a dog willing to defend itself as aggressive. 

Kylie will defend herself. She snaps at rough puppies, she tells Thud off, whatever, though it's air snapping and then trying to remove herself. 

I am labeling a dog who responded to the SIGHT of another dog or person (stranger but sometimes not) no matter how near or far away (and also frankly plastic bags, magazines, cake, hats, umbrellas, things out of place, weird smells...) with growling, barking, lunging, snarling, rushing, and snapping as aggressive. Fortunately, never had a bite happen, but that would be the result of management, dodging, and work not, you know, the dog's unwillingness to attack things.  Came terrifyingly close more than once at the height of the mess with Molly.

So, again, define aggression.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

I forgot one of my favorite videos, Dr. Sophia Yin using counterconditioning with treats to change a dog's aggressive reaction to having their face blown on:

https://drsophiayin.com/videos/entry/counter-conditioning_a_dog_to_blowing_in_face/


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

And also clearly you are not using 'dogs are all aggressive or they'd just lie there' as your definition of aggression or you wouldn't be ripping on positive trainers for not working with aggressive dogs. Because by that definition almost all dogs are aggressive.

And while we're at it, I REALLY want to know what your credentials are. Dogs you've titled, titles you've put on dogs, training seminars, classes, or certifications you have, experience -?

Like what position ARE you speaking from, here?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Canyx said:


> Okay, so what did you mean when you mentioned rehabilitation of aggressive dogs? What level on the bite scale? What, in your opinion, should be done in such cases without using R+?


Oh, please. The answer is you show them that such things aren't acceptable by punishing the aggressive behavior until it goes away. Then you're the boss and things are cool. You watch TV, right? YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. /Sarcasm.


----------



## TSTrainer (Aug 6, 2015)

Lol. No. Dogs are not inherently aggressive. In fact I'm pretty conservative with the term aggressive because people like DracoGSD overuse and distort its meaning.

I've worked with many a fearful, reactive, "fight-rather-than-flight" biter, but rarely an overtly aggressive dog. And I rehab extreme reactivity/"aggression" with +R and sometimes -P on a daily basis. I have never resorted to compulsion or violence to change a dogs emotional state from afraid/angry to calm/happy. It's just not possible. It's like taking you down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood and every time you look over your shoulder I shove you. Your fearful emotional state is just going to escalate instead of improve, and you may lash out at me for constantly pushing you around. Dogs are the same.

And no, I don't only work with herders, but some of my worst cases have been herding breeds.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Here's a case I'm working on to demonstrate how complex aggression can be.

I have a current dog aggression client. He got a small dog's leg and that dog needed stitches. Added stigma of the aggressor being a bully breed. He was so reactive, according to owners, that they couldn't walk him. Their previous trainer recommended a prong collar. The owner came to me because they noticed more reactivity over time and also the prong collar was literally tearing into the dog's neck. I've done three sessions with them so far and I have only seen the dog truly react once. And when he did, I had to stop myself from saying "That's it?" It was my fault when it happened because I pushed the dog to keep walking down a street when a trigger was still in sight, at a distance I thought he could handle (I was wrong). It was classic, all noise, that immediately stopped as we just kept walking. But we went to the park and saw dogs, we saw dogs in the neighborhood... He disengaged from them all. They 'have never seen him be so calm around dogs that close'. A few points:

-TOOLS. The prong collar made things worse because he associated the correction WITH the dog, and it made him more defensive around dogs over time. It was hurting him, like _making him bleed_ hurting him. It did not stop the reactivity. Can a prong collar be used in a way that doesn't do that? Yes. But again, here is a very specific case. I put the dog on a gentle leader and a surefit harness. I also showed them how to stop when he pulls (because he still pulled some with both these tools and he is strong). The tools I recommended were just to control the pulling so that 1. they could walk him and 2. minimize a tight leash to help with reactivity. I also introduced them to a basket muzzle for emergency situations and possible future dog interactions (he does have some doggie friends). I showed them how to muzzle train using R+ and told them to take it slow.

-OWNERS. The owners, admittedly, had no idea what they were doing. Some other things I noted and worked on with them were they coddled the dog too much. Way too much verbal and physical input ALL the time. They themselves also got panicky and tightened the leash when they saw a trigger. They tried to solve problems by stopping their movement and physically/verbally stopping the dog ("it's okay!" and petting/lifting paws). I showed them how to keep things moving in a gentle but firm way. IE, don't yank or drag, but don't stop walking. *Trainers who give corrective tools to average/regular owners who are not physically or mentally able to use them are irresponsible*. And I've said this in a previous thread... If I tell someone to reward their dog and their timing is off, it sucks but the dog won't suffer from it. One of the owners has a long background in using corrective techniques on dogs and said outright that they didn't believe my methods would work. They now think I'm some sort of miracle worker, but there was also that piece to address in a professional manner. It's funny how we can go as long as we want on a forum, but I certainly can't rave about punishment vs reinforcement to a client. It's all about showing, and limited telling. 

-EXPECTATIONS. They asked me if after the training they could take him to the dog park. Again, these people don't know. They aren't stupid; they just aren't versed in dog behavior... like most pet owners. It shocks me that some trainers recommend corrective tools as a blanket statement.... Anyways, based on the progress and level of reactivity I saw, I strongly recommended that they avoid other dogs for the time being. I estimated that with a few months of training they may be able to walk him around like a 'normal' dog that doesn't fixate on other dogs. I said no dog park ever. I talked about dog introductions and muzzle training. And because I have a somewhat dog aggressive dog, I empathized with them about having a dog like this.

-MANAGEMENT. I recommended flirt pole and spring pole, yard play, or play dates with his few doggie friends, to meet his exercise needs. I showed them my flirt pole and we used it; their dog loved it! I told them it was okay to not formally walk him on days when they didn't feel like it, or days when he seems very aroused. I recommended places to practice. I emphasized that preventing reactivity was important for the training to progress. 

-TRAINING. Notice how this section is last. Because how can you get here without first assessing the capabilities of the owners and creating achievable expectations? We did BAT 2.0, credit to Grisha Stewart. It's all about good distance, movement, and rewarding the dog for disengaging. We used treats sometimes but movement is the important piece. And like I said, I was amazed by how well this dog did given the owner's descriptions versus how close to other dogs he could actually function. We addressed issues like the coddling, tight vs loose leash, how much movement, when to give a treat, when to prompt... The devil is in the details.

My assessment: I recommend ZERO punishment is used in this dog's training. The dog has some dog friends but is a big strong bully who has done damage. His behavior indicates to me that he gets easily aroused and at this point I can't tell if altercations with dogs come from over arousal or true aggression. I suspect the former, but told his owners I would be happy to assist in a dog try, after more training and after this dog is muzzle trained. The owners are heavily invested in management so I think the prognosis is good, in terms of creating a happy lifestyle for all of them.

---------------------------------------------

Get the picture? IE, it's complicated. It aggravates me to no end when someone just slaps a choke/prong/shock collar on a dog, tells the owner he needs to be more in control when the dog reacts, punishes the reactivity out of a dog, then claims the dog is cured when the dog is not exhibiting any signs of reactivity or aggression. I call those dogs time bombs. It's not that simple.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Kudos to the dog lying down. I am concerned about the dog that won't stop attacking.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Readiness to attack. Every protection dog must have this in order to do what they are bred to do. Every dog will attack, the situations of which they will vary in every dog, for some it takes a vary disparate situation. It only needs to be addressed when it becomes dangerous. Many dogs also have prey drive and will attack prey, if given the chance. They are predatory animals, after all, and I don't consider that aggression unreasonable or even dangerous, as long as they are in the hands of someone knowledgeable.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

DracoGSD said:


> Aggression is not the same as dangerous, ever dog possesses some level of aggression. A dog without ANY aggression would lie there when being attacked by another dog and wouldn't properly tell of a puppy that is being too rough. The willingness to protect itself is a level of aggression, and nearly every single dog possesses that. If you don't even understand aggression and label it all as bad, then your view is not relevant to me. Dogs are animals, not humans.


I guess you missed this post then.



> Um. I admittedly am still gaining experience with aggression but have worked with level 3 biters. And my two other CPDT colleagues with over a decade's experience between them rehabilitate aggressive client and shelter dogs every week.
> 
> Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe you just need to be more open minded and reach beyond your beliefs to learn more.
> 
> (And to be clear, I don't believe in "positive only" and we don't market ourselves as such. I believe in a training program strongly favoring positive reinforcement and management, but also including negative punishment.)


And this one


> Um, yeah, I'm not labeling a dog willing to defend itself as aggressive.
> 
> Kylie will defend herself. She snaps at rough puppies, she tells Thud off, whatever, though it's air snapping and then trying to remove herself.
> 
> ...




Nice try though.


----------



## TSTrainer (Aug 6, 2015)

DracoGSD said:


> Readiness to attack. Every protection dog must have this in order to do what they are bred to do. Every dog will attack, the situations of which they will vary in every dog, for some it takes a vary disparate situation. It only needs to be addressed when it becomes dangerous. Many dogs also have prey drive and will attack prey, if given the chance. They are predatory animals, after all, and I don't consider that aggression unreasonable or even dangerous, as long as they are in the hands of someone knowledgeable.


+R trainers never work with aggressive dogs, and yet every dog is, according to your definition, aggressive? What are these +R trainers training, then??


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

TSTrainer said:


> +R trainers never work with aggressive dogs, and yet every dog is, according to your definition, aggressive? What are these +R trainers training, then??


"I'm looking foolish; people are proving me wrong. Time to move the goal posts."

Is about all I can come up with.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> Readiness to attack. Every protection dog must have this in order to do what they are bred to do. Every dog will attack, the situations of which they will vary in every dog, for some it takes a vary disparate situation. It only needs to be addressed when it becomes dangerous. Many dogs also have prey drive and will attack prey, if given the chance. They are predatory animals, after all, and I don't consider that aggression unreasonable or even dangerous, as long as they are in the hands of someone knowledgeable.


For anyone out in internetland reading this - the part in quotes is wrong. Not every dog will attack. Some dogs do, in fact, lay down and take it when they are in a _desperate_ situation. It's called "shutting down", and it happens all the time: creating stress/fear so strong that the dog does not react. The phrase "paralyzed with fear"? It's a cliche for a reason. And, in fact, it's one of the negative outcomes of P+ training.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> For anyone out in internetland reading this - the part in quotes is wrong. Not every dog will attack. Some dogs do, in fact, lay down and take it when they are in a _desperate_ situation. It's called "shutting down", and it happens all the time: creating stress/fear so strong that the dog does not react. The phrase "paralyzed with fear"? It's a cliche for a reason. And, in fact, it's one of the negative outcomes of P+ training.


This.

AND there are reasons 'aggression' is a bad thing even when it's not overtly dangerous and that is when it is a sign of the dog being MISERABLE. A dog who is responding out of fear, even if it's forward aggression is *useless* in protection, as well as being fundamentally unstable, unhappy, and unworkable. It's called 'weak nerve' commonly (when not very bad) and is HUGELY undesirable.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

DracoGSD said:


> Readiness to attack. Every protection dog must have this in order to do what they are bred to do. Every dog will attack, the situations of which they will vary in every dog, for some it takes a vary disparate situation. It only needs to be addressed when it becomes dangerous. Many dogs also have prey drive and will attack prey, if given the chance. They are predatory animals, after all, and I don't consider that aggression unreasonable or even dangerous, as long as they are in the hands of someone knowledgeable.


What does this have to do with Dominance Theory vs. Positive Reinforcement?

Prey drive, a natural behavior, is even something that can be redirected/fixed with positive reinforcement. People train their dogs not to chase their cats. I, a person who is not a professional trainer and would probably be considered a beginner to the whole thing, trained my dog to ignore rabbits jumping up in front of him using positive reinforcement. By your definition, my dog is aggressive, yet trainers who use positive reinforcement don't train aggressive dogs? How does that work?


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

CptJack said:


> This.
> 
> AND there are reasons 'aggression' is a bad thing even when it's not overtly dangerous and that is when it is a sign of the dog being MISERABLE. A dog who is responding out of fear, even if it's forward aggression is *useless* in protection, as well as being fundamentally unstable, unhappy, and unworkable. It's called 'weak nerve' commonly (when not very bad) and is HUGELY undesirable.


From how I understand protection work, the dog sees it as a game, just like playing tug or fetch. They are not responding with aggression, they are doing it because they think its FUN. I mean, they don't even do it because they like hurting people seeing as they are trained by decoys wearing giant body suits! It's basically a giant game of tug fetch where they bark and run after a giant toy and then get to bite it and make it fall down.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Lillith said:


> From how I understand protection work, the dog sees it as a game, just like playing tug or fetch. They are not responding with aggression, they are doing it because they think its FUN. I mean, they don't even do it because they like hurting people seeing as they are trained by decoys wearing giant body suits! It's basically a giant game of tug fetch where they bark and run after a giant toy and then get to bite it and make it fall down.


Ok, so if I said rehabilitate dogs, does that mean all dogs ever need rehabilitation? I said aggressive dogs, it does not mean ALL aggressive dogs ever.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

DracoGSD said:


> You're getting off topic, I addressed positive trainers vs balanced/traditional trainers, aggression being relevant to which methods are appropriate. If you want to go into what is and is not aggression then make a thread with that being the topic.
> 
> I simply do not believe positive only trainers can handle excessively aggressive dogs, and their choice in breeds verifies my beliefs.


So what about the trainers people already listed? The positive trainers. Who work with aggressive dogs. Do you just not believe they're positive trainers or just assume the dogs aren't "REALLY" aggressive.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

So you think you can punish aggression out of a dog? I don't believe I've ever seen that happen. It usually works the other way (as the studies that gingerkid linked to show).


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Effisia said:


> So what about the trainers people already listed? The positive trainers. Who work with aggressive dogs. Do you just not believe they're positive trainers or just assume the dogs aren't "REALLY" aggressive.


No, no, they're not really aggressive because they're herding breeds and herding breeds are easy. Also GSD aren't herding breeds in spite of being herding breeds because also Personal Protection.

But also all dogs are aggressive to some level or another. Otherwise they're lumps. 

Except herding breeds which are owned by positive trainers. Or hounds. Or terriers. Or mutts. 

All of which are owned by positive people who have worked with aggressive dogs.

And while we're at it herding breeds aren't *really* some of the most common breeds to have aggression issues (the real ones, not the 'I'm an animal and not a lump ones). Because Draco says so and won't read linked research. (And apparently knows nothing about Aussies, BCs, or ACDs in particular. Also probably not much about GSDs since, lol, herding breed). 

Basically "Straw man arguments, confirmation bias, and moving goal posts because otherwise they'd have to admit they are WRONG."


----------



## TSTrainer (Aug 6, 2015)

Again, you think all dogs are aggressive, but you don't mean all aggressive dogs. It makes zero sense. Either +R trainers are training aggressive dogs, or not all dogs are aggressive. Your definition of aggression just doesn't work. 

Trainers like to be successful in their chosen sport and pick breeds that excel in that kind of work. A trainer's choice in breed does not indicate their skill in training other peoples dogs.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> So you think you can punish aggression out of a dog? I don't believe I've ever seen that happen. It usually works the other way (as the studies that gingerkid linked to show).


I honestly think at this point he's saying that dogs who are 'aggressive' aren't a problem but do require punishment and that people who train all positive only train totally non-aggressive dogs because they're inferior trainers and only dogs who just lie there and take whatever can be trained with cookies. 

ALSO NOT HOW IT WORKS and strawman, confirmation bias, moving goal-posts, logical fallacies, etc, but you know.


----------



## TSTrainer (Aug 6, 2015)

CptJack said:


> No, no, they're not really aggressive because they're herding breeds and herding breeds are easy. Also GSD aren't herding breeds in spite of being herding breeds because also Personal Protection.
> 
> But also all dogs are aggressive to some level or another. Otherwise they're lumps.
> 
> ...


I love you.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

DracoGSD said:


> You're getting off topic, I addressed positive trainers vs balanced/traditional trainers, aggression being relevant to which methods are appropriate. If you want to go into what is and is not aggression then make a thread with that being the topic.
> 
> I simply do not believe positive only trainers can handle excessively aggressive dogs, and their choice in breeds verifies my beliefs.


So aggression is relevant but you're not interested in clarifying your definition of 'aggression' which is somehow different than that of every other person on this forum, including the professional trainers and people who live or have lived with dogs who are a legitimate danger to people or other dogs...

Also wasn't the original post more about the legitimacy of dominance theory specifically? We've provided plenty of sources against it. Where are your sources from well-respected behaviorists, researchers, and trainers saying dominance theory is real?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

TSTrainer said:


> I love you.


I love you, too.

Also yes. I own a BC because they tend to be great at my sport(s) of choice. Not because BC are easy. That isn't how that works. Yes, yes, she DOES learn tricks quickly. She's also got no margin for error and as a result is the most difficult dog I've ever trained - quite aside from being a nutcase.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DaySleepers said:


> So aggression is relevant but you're not interested in clarifying your definition of 'aggression' which is somehow different than that of every other person on this forum, including the professional trainers and people who live or have lived with dogs who are a legitimate danger to people or other dogs...


but "dangerous" isn't what he means by aggression. :wink:


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> but "dangerous" isn't what he means by aggression. :wink:


Exactly. he means 'breathing animal, not a robot'. Positive trainers only use robot dogs.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Exactly. he means 'breathing animal, not a robot'. Positive trainers only use robot dogs.


Yeah, those little yipping ones that flip! Of course, even those sometimes fall over and don't flip right, but that must be because R+ doesn't really work as well as P+, right? Just need to buckle on a shock collar and you'll have 100% flips every time.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Exactly. he means 'breathing animal, not a robot'. Positive trainers only use robot dogs.


And if a positive trainer has a reactive dog, it's because they're not using balanced/traditional methods. Until the moment they get the reactivity to a manageable level, after which it is and always has been a lump.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Draco has been given a brief timeout for backseat moderating. I suggest we all take this opportunity to get back on topic and address the OP's questions.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

DracoGSD said:


> Ok, so if I said rehabilitate dogs, does that mean all dogs ever need rehabilitation? I said aggressive dogs, it does not mean ALL aggressive dogs ever.


Just...What? You said all dogs have some aggression and that positive trainers don't work with them, which would imply that all of us here supporting positive reinforcement have aggressive dogs. Have you not read any of the umpteen sources people have provided you? And where is your source that positive trainers don't work with "excessively" aggressive dogs? Also, I like how you've added the "excessively" now. Which is what, in your definition? 

If you're going to be calling for citations, the least you could do is read them and provide your own for your claims...I imagine we're going to travel down the "my opinion is valid whether its based on fact or not" road again, aren't we?


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Last time they 'provided citations' the post 'went to moderation' (but was never taken out of moderation, despite instructions on how to do so being provided), and the 'screencaps' were supposedly in an album in their profile that was mysteriously inaccessible.

Anyhow, the good news is that the OP now has lots of resources explaining the fallacy of dominance theory in dogs, and showing how effective positive training can be!


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DaySleepers said:


> Last time they 'provided citations' the post 'went to moderation' (but was never taken out of moderation, despite instructions on how to do so being provided), and the 'screencaps' were supposedly in an album in their profile that was mysteriously inaccessible.
> 
> Anyhow, the good news is that the OP now has lots of resources explaining the fallacy of dominance theory in dogs, and showing how effective positive training can be!


Here is another study that I forgot to include. The authors directly observed - rather than relying on owner-reports - the use of two training methods (R+ and R-) on stress signals in dogs. If anyone is interested in the full-text of these articles, PM me.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

DaySleepers said:


> Last time they 'provided citations' the post 'went to moderation' (but was never taken out of moderation, despite instructions on how to do so being provided), and the 'screencaps' were supposedly in an album in their profile that was mysteriously inaccessible.
> 
> Anyhow, the good news is that the OP now has lots of resources explaining the fallacy of dominance theory in dogs, and showing how effective positive training can be!


Oh, well how unfortunate. That technology, I tell you what.


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

OP, my advice is to go to actual training clubs and observe for yourself. Look for handler/dog teams that are joyful to watch and ask them what methods they use. Most handlers are very willing to share what they know. 

People can argue all day long about which method is better, but at the end of day, it depends on the dog, it depends on the handler, and it also depends on how the method is applied. I've trained several foster dogs with motivational-only methods and others with a balanced approach, all of them showed tail-wagging happiness when they were training.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

The plural of anecdote is not data.


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

Totally agree, data can change over time, what is true today may not be 10 years down the road. Use your common sense, science is a guideline, but it shouldn't dictate all your actions in life.


----------



## LeoRose (Aug 20, 2015)

This is an excellent essay. http://lauraromanik.com/my-training-evolution.html


----------



## wideturn (Apr 30, 2016)

DracoGSD said:


> You won't see positive only trainers like Zakk George rehabilitating aggressive dogs, and there's a reason they choose the breeds they have, they are EASILY trained. I've never been much into trick training, and that's what trainers like Zakk George and Kikopup specialize in. Having gotten into a facebook conversation with Zakk George once I know if he had it his way ALL dogs bred for protection work and hunting would be forced to live lives as pets, and those that couldn't cope would be euthanized. There is no final word, that's why no one who has responded has any sources and haven't cited the supposed proven science.


I have a dog that very aggressively guards and I have done both corrective methods as well as +R methods. I am going to school for animal sciences currently and even though I started my training journey as a "balanced" trainer, I am now firmly force free. 

Corrective methods reduce behavior and end up suppressing behavior. So these aggressive dogs wearing e-collars look as though they've been cured because the dog won't dare show communication of how he's feeling (growling, barking, etc) and they end up either with a learned helplessness where they can't express their discomfort and are always miserable, or they explode seemingly out of nowhere because their behavior was suppressed not actually "cured". 

+R may take longer to rehabilitate an aggressive case, but you always know what you're working with because the dog will happily communicate their stress levels. You don't get as much fall out from behavior, and your dog is happier for it.

I have an american bulldog mix with what was severe aggression with resource guarding and a bite history to the face of a person. He is now a functioning member of society and our family and his behavior isn't suppressed, it's been modified. 

And as far as what you said about protection trained dogs, it is unfortunate that most trainers cannot train those high drive dogs without force. Those dogs CAN be trained without it, look up Corinne Wrend or Shade Whitesel who compete in IPO force free, it just takes more skills on the handler or trainer's part.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

GSD_and_Mal said:


> Use your common sense, science is a guideline, but it shouldn't dictate all your actions in life.


 I like to think science prevents me from sailing off the edge of the world. Or from falling up. But that's just me and my own guidelines, I guess.


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

petpeeve said:


> I like to think science prevents me from sailing off the edge of the world. Or from falling up. But that's just me and my own guidelines, I guess.


LOL, true, science is very powerful, can't live without it, but can't live without common sense either. Or maybe I can just find a middle ground, where science and common sense can happily co-exist


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

if actual, proven, science, is contradicting your common sense, there's a pretty major problem somewhere.


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

CptJack said:


> if actual, proven, science, is contradicting your common sense, there's a pretty major problem somewhere.


Using common sense doesn't mean to ignore scientific data. At the same time, basing methods on science doesn't mean that common sense can't be used. No worries for me, science and my common sense can actually get along quite well, my occupation requires it  

Sorry moderators for getting off topic. I was trying to make a recommendation for the OP to go to actual training clubs and observe.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

GSD_and_Mal said:


> OP, my advice is to go to actual training clubs and observe for yourself. Look for handler/dog teams that are joyful to watch and ask them what methods they use. Most handlers are very willing to share what they know.
> 
> People can argue all day long about which method is better, but at the end of day, it depends on the dog, it depends on the handler, and it also depends on how the method is applied. I've trained several foster dogs with motivational-only methods and others with a balanced approach, all of them showed tail-wagging happiness when they were training.


For context, the OP is a first-time puppy owner with a pomeranian. To this point, their questions have been largely about basic concerns about how to housetrain and other very newbie questions - and Concerned? That's great! I love that you ask questions and try to understand things better when you're unsure, and we were all first-time dog owners and feeling out of our depth at one point. It's perfectly normal and understandable, and I say this as no criticism towards you. Quite the opposite.

But that's the thing, GSD_and_Mal. While many of the regulars here are trainers, breeders, into dog sports, or just long-time dog owners, others (posters and lurkers alike) are _brand new_ to the dog world. They don't have the skills to read dogs' body language and understand the difference between, for example, an engaged dog and a shut down dog. They both are doing what the trainer asks, right? They also don't have the background in training and behavior to be able to tell when a trainer is feeding them a bunch of hooey, and when the trainer knows what they're doing and is going to use methods appropriate to the dog in front of them. Whatever methods you use, common sense should tell you that there's a lot of really poor trainers who talk a really good game and have a stellar sales pitch.

What we're trying to do is provide the background knowledge so the OP and any lurkers - who have pet dogs with very basic pet dog training concerns - alike can make a more educated decision about training. Yes, science is always changing. But pack/dominance theory was flawed from the start and we've known so for _decades_, so anyone who applies pack/dominance theory in their training should be avoided. It's hugely prominent in the public eye right now because of CM, but I've seen positive and balanced trainers alike agree he's a hack. Positive trainers work very successfully with aggressive dogs. This is _fact,_ not a 'scientific guideline'. Those two points were the major arguments on this thread. I'm not going to go scream at someone who's using corrective methods on a dog that is clearly engaged and responsive and can handle positive punishment emotionally, even if it's not a choice I'd make myself, but when people come in here saying "R+/P- doesn't work in XYZ scenario" we ARE going to prove them wrong.

In the end, everyone has to decide what's best for their dog. But they can't do that without understanding the basic tenants of various training methods, and without experience with dog body language or behavior.


----------



## Galathiel (Apr 11, 2012)

I have a German Shepherd. He has what I consider 'appropriate aggression'. He is aloof but approachable in public and is very stable. Some dogs doing protection sports do work solely out of prey drive, however, some also go into defense drive .. and that dog means business. So it's not always just play for the dogs. I used a balanced approach with my dog and wish I had had the skill and patience to keep it more R+. I'm old and was taught mainly to correct the dog to get the appropriate behavior, so R+ was very new to me and I was probably confusing the dog a lot of the time. Just being honest. He's a very independent dog with not as much pack drive as I would like, but at now almost 4, I love him dearly. (His first two years were the longest 2 years of my life, though!).

I see no reason to use aversives with a Pomeranian. I love poms and would love to have one again some day (I love big dogs and little dogs ... but not so much medium sized dogs ... I know ... I'm weird).


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Since we're now into the "science vs. common sense" debate, I'm going to post something I posted on FB (for context, I work in evidence-based medicine research):


> Although I am very strongly R+, I hate it when trainers call themselves "science based" when they really mean "R+" or "reward-based". P+ has a basis in science, and when R+ trainers call themselves science-based they're ignoring that fact.
> 
> But also... outside of maybe (and that's a very hard maybe) the hard sciences, there are few decisions that science can "dictate". There are often extenuating circumstances (e.g., patient has rare genetic condition that causes treatment to be ineffective) and multiple points of view to take into consideration when asking/answering a particular question. It happens in every discipline that involves living creatures.
> 
> ...


My own training principles, which have shifted over the few years I've been training, are firmly to do what is "best" from the perspective of the dog, as much as I can. There are very few situations where I would put my needs during training over the dog's (mainly when safety for one of us is a concern), and no situations where I have needed to turn to P+ to solve a problem, including working with dogs that are high drive, low-impulse control or "stubborn".

I will not argue that P+ is not effective - if it was not, it would not be used so frequently. But in my experience, it is not necessary, and when it is used, it is often because it is "best" from the perspective of the trainer or the owner, not the dog.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I still use the term "science based" in my training because of the peer reviewed and published research that has shown R+ is more effective in dog training and produces less stress hormones, because scientists such as wolf biologists denounce dominance based training, because the rules of operant conditioning around which I base my training was developed by a behaviorist (Skinner), and the rules of classical conditioning by which training works were developed by a physiologist (Pavlov).

These days, until research proves otherwise, I think 'reward based' is very much 'science based.' And being reward based does not exclude punishment. (I am a huge fan of negative punishment but would still consider myself reward based).


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Canyx said:


> I still use the term "science based" in my training because of the peer reviewed and published research that has shown R+ is more effective in dog training and produces less stress hormones, because scientists such as wolf biologists denounce dominance based training, because the rules of operant conditioning around which I base my training was developed by a behaviorist (Skinner), and the rules of classical conditioning by which training works were developed by a physiologist (Pavlov).
> 
> These days, until research proves otherwise, I think 'reward based' is very much 'science based.' And being reward based does not exclude punishment. (I am a huge fan of negative punishment but would still consider myself reward based).


I get that reward-based training IS science-based; I totally agree. Maybe it is just a regional thing, but there are a lot of trainers around here who brag about having a science-based dog-training education and then insist that P+/R- doesn't work period, not that the methods should be avoided because they are at best no more effective than R+/P- and have significantly higher risk of fallout. "They just don't work". Which.... to the best of my knowledge, isn't what science says. :/


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

gingerkid said:


> I get that reward-based training IS science-based; I totally agree. Maybe it is just a regional thing, but there are a lot of trainers around here who brag about having a science-based dog-training education and then insist that P+/R- doesn't work period, not that the methods should be avoided because they are at best no more effective than R+/P- and have significantly higher risk of fallout. "They just don't work". Which.... to the best of my knowledge, isn't what science says. :/


Perhaps they say that to discourage people from using P+/R- methods. "It works sometimes, if you do it correctly" can be interpreted a lot of different ways by different people, as evidenced by this thread and others!


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

gingerkid said:


> I get that reward-based training IS science-based; I totally agree. Maybe it is just a regional thing, but there are a lot of trainers around here who brag about having a science-based dog-training education and then insist that P+/R- doesn't work period, not that the methods should be avoided because they are at best no more effective than R+/P- and have significantly higher risk of fallout. "They just don't work". Which.... to the best of my knowledge, isn't what science says. :/


Those trainers are not being entirely truthful then! 
The evangelical R+ folks don't appeal to me much, even if I probably train similarly to them...


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Lillith said:


> Perhaps they say that to discourage people from using P+/R- methods. "It works sometimes, if you do it correctly" can be interpreted a lot of different ways by different people, as evidenced by this thread and others!


Perhaps, except this is happening in personal communications with me (I have known them for several years), not on websites or public forums where there might be a chance of the public interpreting "P+ can work but isn't good for X reasons" as an endorsement.


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

DaySleepers said:


> For context, the OP is a first-time puppy owner with a pomeranian. To this point, their questions have been largely about basic concerns about how to housetrain and other very newbie questions - and Concerned? That's great! I love that you ask questions and try to understand things better when you're unsure, and we were all first-time dog owners and feeling out of our depth at one point. It's perfectly normal and understandable, and I say this as no criticism towards you. Quite the opposite.
> 
> But that's the thing, GSD_and_Mal. While many of the regulars here are trainers, breeders, into dog sports, or just long-time dog owners, others (posters and lurkers alike) are _brand new_ to the dog world. They don't have the skills to read dogs' body language and understand the difference between, for example, an engaged dog and a shut down dog. They both are doing what the trainer asks, right? They also don't have the background in training and behavior to be able to tell when a trainer is feeding them a bunch of hooey, and when the trainer knows what they're doing and is going to use methods appropriate to the dog in front of them. Whatever methods you use, common sense should tell you that there's a lot of really poor trainers who talk a really good game and have a stellar sales pitch.
> 
> ...


Then maybe we should recommend new owners to learn how to read a dog's body language first, before even going into training methods? Common sense tells me that there are a lot of people who are great at theories, but not at practical application. Don't take it personally, I don't know you nor how you train. I was just trying to tell the OP that rather than trying to sort through all these posts, people going back and forth, sometimes it is better to just see it for yourself. Recently a young lady visited our dog club. She already visited several other dog clubs, observing, watching, asking questions, and learning. She is trying to decide what she wants to do with her future dog, which she will be getting in a year or so. Experienced or not, you watch enough people/dogs, watch enough youtube videos (and read enough forum threads.....), you will know what happy and engaged obedience looks like. 

I didn't realize the OP was a first time dog owner with a Pomeranian..... there was a lady in my nose-work class with a tiny little Papillon, the dog had great engagement, drive, and very beautiful obedience. Handler was a force-free trainer. So small breed or not, it probably wouldn't make a difference in terms of me recommending the owner to go out and see for himself/herself. 

I am not a CM follower, we don't even have a TV in our house for that matter. I've seen a few clips of him on youtube, didn't intrigue me. As far as I could tell, I don't believe my posts mentioned anything about dominance theory. 

I know motivational training works with aggressive dogs. Our 4-year-old GSD was dog aggressive/toy aggressive when we got him at 15 months old. We did CC/DS, all the while crating and rotating, for 7+ months before he finally met our resident dogs. We've used CC/DS on some of our fear aggressive foster dogs, so yes, I know it works. We know from experience. But hey, plural of anecdote is not data, unless if it just happens to match scientific data, otherwise it can't be factual, right? LOL, sorry, couldn't help it, just thought that statement was kind of funny. Science evolves because scientific data is continually being validated, challenged, or debunked. That's how science moves forward.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

GSD_and_Mal said:


> Then maybe we should recommend new owners to learn how to read a dog's body language first, before even going into training methods? Common sense tells me that there are a lot of people who are great at theories, but not at practical application. Don't take it personally, I don't know you nor how you train. I was just trying to tell the OP that rather than trying to sort through all these posts, people going back and forth, sometimes it is better to just see it for yourself. Recently a young lady visited our dog club. She already visited several other dog clubs, observing, watching, asking questions, and learning. She is trying to decide what she wants to do with her future dog, which she will be getting in a year or so. Experienced or not, you watch enough people/dogs, watch enough youtube videos (and read enough forum threads.....), you will know what happy and engaged obedience looks like.


I agree! Learning body language first would be ideal, but when they have the dog in front of them, who needs training _now_, and popular media is telling them that a shut-down dog is a well trained dog, it's really important to establish which _sources_ they should be listening to about body language and behavior. Both of the P+ trainers the OP mentioned in the starter have extremely questionable methods and create stressed, shut down dogs, but it's often much more tempting to listen to people with slick videos and network sponsored TV programs than random internet people. That's largely why we're invoking big names in the dog training community, scientific studies, organizations of trainers and behaviorists, etc. Because we're fighting an uphill battle against popular perception. After all, why would _Nat Geo_ put out a program that was bad for dogs? Of course it makes a lot more sense to trust the TV personality from that nature science channel than randos online, without outside sources to back up our (the internet randos') claims.

Basically, observation/research is important, yes. I'm not saying they shouldn't go observe local clubs/trainers! But it'll go a lot smoother if OP knows to walk away from dominance-based training (unless they want an example of what not to do). 

As someone who no, didn't grow up with dogs, and yes, had to do a ton of research, reading, talking with trainers, online coursework, etc. to reach the level of understanding I have now (which, I freely admit, is incomplete and always expanding, and I lack experience outside of what has and has not worked with my own dog)... 'common sense' isn't so common when it comes to reading dogs. If you'd taken me ten years ago and put me in front of a string of shut-down, mechanically obedient compulsion-only-trained dogs going through an obedience course, I'd probably have been like "WOW AWESOME! I would TOTALLY want my dog to behave exactly like that!" Thankfully, my ignorance as a teen was limited to walking my friend's Elkhound on a flexi+prong combination and thinking it was funny when he reacted to other dogs (not something I'm proud of, ftr). Dog behavior and body language was not intuitive for me, back then, period, and I'd have been willing to believe most anything someone with some authority (trainer, experienced dog owner, TV personality) told me. I'm glad I was able to research and learn before I had a dog, but not everyone can or does, and it's okay if they need guidance beyond 'observe and decide for yourself.'



> I didn't realize the OP was a first time dog owner with a Pomeranian..... there was a lady in my nose-work class with a tiny little Papillon, the dog had great engagement, drive, and very beautiful obedience. Handler was a force-free trainer. So small breed or not, it probably wouldn't make a difference in terms of me recommending the owner to go out and see for himself/herself.


That's why I brought it up, there was no mention of age, breed, or owner experience in the OP, and in this case I did feel it was relevant. Not because I think small dogs can't be well trained(??) but because I do believe toy breeds have special concerns that the general public may not consider. For example, I'd never be comfortable using collar corrections on a toy breed, whether or not the dog has the temperament to be fine with correction-based training, because of how small they are, and how prone many toy breeds are to tracheal collapse even _without_ the help of collars. Heck, I don't even like putting a flat collar on my medium-small dog anymore, and he's a lot less delicate than most toys. That and most balanced trainers I respect (yes, even though I'd not choose to use those methods personally) seem to follow the policy of 'no corrections until the dog knows the command/desired behavior inside and out'. Which flat out doesn't apply to a young puppy. Since the OP is concerned about what kind of training is appropriate for her dog right now, I don't feel this is insignificant.



> I am not a CM follower, we don't even have a TV in our house for that matter. I've seen a few clips of him on youtube, didn't intrigue me. As far as I could tell, I don't believe my posts mentioned anything about dominance theory.
> 
> I know motivational training works with aggressive dogs. Our 4-year-old GSD was dog aggressive/toy aggressive when we got him at 15 months old. We did CC/DS, all the while crating and rotating, for 7+ months before he finally met our resident dogs. We've used CC/DS on some of our fear aggressive foster dogs, so yes, I know it works. We know from experience. But hey, plural of anecdote is not data, unless if it just happens to match scientific data, otherwise it can't be factual, right? LOL, sorry, couldn't help it, just thought that statement was kind of funny. Science evolves because scientific data is continually being validated, challenged, or debunked. That's how science moves forward.


Okay, you don't believe in CM/Dominance theory and know R+/P- works with aggressive dogs... but then why did you poo-poo the scientific sources we provided? Because by and large, they were to prove those two points, not to say P+ doesn't work ever. I know a couple talked more specifically about the advantages of R+ over P+, but that was not the main issue we were addressing there.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

GSD_and_Mal said:


> Then maybe we should recommend new owners to learn how to read a dog's body language first, before even going into training methods? Common sense tells me that there are a lot of people who are great at theories, but not at practical application.





DaySleepers said:


> I agree! Learning body language first would be ideal, but when they have the dog in front of them, who needs training now, and popular media is telling them that a shut-down dog is a well trained dog, it's really important to establish which sources they should be listening to about body language and behavior.


I concur. Absolutely. And I believe Turid Rugaas' work would be a great place to start, even / especially for beginners and first time dog ownres. Here is a primer, for the OP and any lurkers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj7BWxC6iVs&index=2&list=PLUN-GgqykyYAJiU0h0r5WLNmsjtSp8lxf 

In my opinion it's incumbent upon new dog owners to apprise themselves of the communication that's occurring, and stress levels that the dog may or may not be encountering, when they're evaluating which methods or quadrants of Operant Conditioning are "working" to a satisfactory level, and which ones are falling short.


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

DaySleepers said:


> I agree! Learning body language first would be ideal, but when they have the dog in front of them, who needs training _now_, and popular media is telling them that a shut-down dog is a well trained dog, it's really important to establish which _sources_ they should be listening to about body language and behavior. Both of the P+ trainers the OP mentioned in the starter have extremely questionable methods and create stressed, shut down dogs, but it's often much more tempting to listen to people with slick videos and network sponsored TV programs than random internet people. That's largely why we're invoking big names in the dog training community, scientific studies, organizations of trainers and behaviorists, etc. Because we're fighting an uphill battle against popular perception. After all, why would _Nat Geo_ put out a program that was bad for dogs? Of course it makes a lot more sense to trust the TV personality from that nature science channel than randos online, without outside sources to back up our (the internet randos') claims.
> 
> Basically, observation/research is important, yes. I'm not saying they shouldn't go observe local clubs/trainers! But it'll go a lot smoother if OP knows to walk away from dominance-based training (unless they want an example of what not to do).
> 
> ...


Yeah....I knew there was a reason why I stopped watching TV.

Well....I was trying to tell the OP that if he/she gets confused with all the information (as a newbie, one can easily get lost with what he said/she said/TV said/science said), then just go and see it with your own eyes. You don't have to believe what other people say, in fact, you don't even have to believe what science says, but at least believe your own eyes and your own experience. If he/she can find a traditional trainer (by that I mean compulsion-based) with happy/engaged dogs, what can I say? In reality though, I've only seen traditional trainers with obedient but either suppressed or depressed dogs. Hey, but I try to keep an open mind, maybe someone will surprise me one day......

All the happy/bouncy handler/dog teams that I've seen are either force-free or balanced trainers who are much heavier on +R/-P than +P/-R. 

It is not that I don't believe in science or scientific data, but all that can be very misleading at times. I know of a "force-free" trainer who does stuff that makes me cringe. But people go to this trainer because this person's methods are supposedly kinder :lie: So nowadays unless I've seen how a trainer works dogs, I am hesitant to say one "method" is necessarily better than the other. It really depends on how it is interpreted and how methods are used. 

I agree, toy breeds are much more delicate physically and deserve special attention (and handling) during training.


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

petpeeve said:


> I concur. Absolutely. And I believe Turid Rugaas' work would be a great place to start, even / especially for beginners and first time dog ownres. Here is a primer, for the OP and any lurkers.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj7BWxC6iVs&index=2&list=PLUN-GgqykyYAJiU0h0r5WLNmsjtSp8lxf
> 
> In my opinion it's incumbent upon new dog owners to apprise themselves of the communication that's occurring, and stress levels that the dog may or may not be encountering, when they're evaluating which methods or quadrants of Operant Conditioning are "working" to a satisfactory level, and which ones are falling short.


Agree, calming signals would be a great starting point! You have to know how to read a dog's body language to understand what he/she is trying to tell you. We've recommended that to some of our foster dogs' adopters. Thanks for the link!


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

It sounds like we're close to the same page, then. I still argue that OP shouldn't disregard everything here, especially what was said about dominance theory rhetoric being a huge warning sign in a trainer, but I do agree that the 'force-free' label doesn't automatically a good trainer make, and that if and when anyone decides to seek outside help with training, they should look for someone whose methods work best for _their_ dog. I just do believe that by and large, force-free/positive training theory (done well) works for far more dogs with less chance of fallout than even R+/P- focused balanced training does.

I do apologize if I came off harshly at first, but the last person who came by to argue was making extreme and somewhat ridiculous claims (not to mention dangerous - "punishment must be used to rehabilitate aggression" type stuff), refusing to clarify their points, backpedaled or claimed common concepts in behavior and training had completely different definitions than what anyone else was using, and was... generally incredibly frustrating. I admit I was a bit primed to be defensive because of that. So thank you for keeping the discussion between us mature and civil, even if we do have things we may need to 'agree to disagree' on.


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

DaySleepers said:


> It sounds like we're close to the same page, then. I still argue that OP shouldn't disregard everything here, especially what was said about dominance theory rhetoric being a huge warning sign in a trainer, but I do agree that the 'force-free' label doesn't automatically a good trainer make, and that if and when anyone decides to seek outside help with training, they should look for someone whose methods work best for _their_ dog. I just do believe that by and large, force-free/positive training theory (done well) works for far more dogs with less chance of fallout than even R+/P- focused balanced training does.
> 
> I do apologize if I came off harshly at first, but the last person who came by to argue was making extreme and somewhat ridiculous claims (not to mention dangerous - "punishment must be used to rehabilitate aggression" type stuff), refusing to clarify their points, backpedaled or claimed common concepts in behavior and training had completely different definitions than what anyone else was using, and was... generally incredibly frustrating. I admit I was a bit primed to be defensive because of that. So thank you for keeping the discussion between us mature and civil, even if we do have things we may need to 'agree to disagree' on.


No need to apologize, I know where you are coming from. I should've explained my initial points better, especially coming into the middle of a heated discussion

As for aggression, my experience is limited to our foster and personal dogs. We are just very fortunate that the dogs we encountered with aggression problems were all very food- or toy-motivated. Understanding how to work under threshold, re-directing before problems arise, rewarding heavily for desirable behaviors, and not rushing for progress can go a very long way with these dogs. 

A lot of people are just so stuck in their ways and refuse to change. The way I see it, dog training methods should be catered to the individual dog. We currently have a member in our ringsport club. He came from another dog club that didn't believe in markers/clickers, all their training was compulsion-based. The guy was new to dog training, so he didn't know better. His 1-year-old Malinois was obedient, but all behaviors were performed cautiously. When he came to our club, we told him no e-collar/prong, nor any obedience behaviors until the dog's ears were up and tail was wagging during training. The handler was open-minded about it, with a little of coaching, he learned to read his dog. He spent 2-3 months just working on engagement and drive-building. Fast forward 5 months, the dog is now happily training with him, still no need for e-collar/prong. 

And for the OP and any lurkers, when I say tail-wagging happiness during training, I mean tail-wagging happiness :wink: There is no reason why a dog shouldn’t be happy during training, especially if you are just working on basic obedience. Here are two videos of our past foster dogs. Neither knew any OB commands when they first got here. The black Lab was around 3 years old, a very shy/timid dog. All her training was motivational. The video was two weeks into clicker training, she was learning her sit, down, and place. She went to a first time dog owner. The owner found a clicker trainer to help her continue the training, they went on to getting a CGC a few months later :clap2:

The chocolate Lab was kicked out of 2 "forever" homes and at least 4 foster homes before she came to us. She was around 1.5 years of age, confident, environmentally stable, and 70 lbs of bouncy personality without any manners. I tried my best to put obedience on her without breaking her spirit. I did all of her foundation work with a clicker and used a prong mostly for walking, this was about 3 months into training, us working on engagement outdoors, sit, and down. It took us a few months, but we eventually found a family that appreciated her for how she was and was willing to give her time to mature.


----------



## Mirzam (Jan 17, 2011)

Lillith said:


> What does this have to do with Dominance Theory vs. Positive Reinforcement?


Actually, R+ (science-based) trainers do believe in dominance theory, they have just renamed and tweaked it, it's now called resource holding potential, so it is now "situational based".


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Mirzam said:


> Actually, R+ (science-based) trainers do believe in dominance theory, they have just renamed and tweaked it, it's now called resource holding potential, so it is now "situational based".


Um, working in this field with a number of other certified trainers... I have never used the terminology you're describing here nor have I heard any R+ trainers say these things. Where are your quoted phrases coming from?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Canyx said:


> Um, working in this field with a number of other certified trainers... I have never used the terminology you're describing here nor have I heard any R+ trainers say these things. Where are your quoted phrases coming from?


I've never heard of it in real life, but it's apparently ALL OVER the place online. Apparently John Bradshaw (a behaviorist) coined the term in a booked called Dog Sense.



OTOH, it ain't dominance. At all. 



> n his book “Dog Sense”, author and behaviourist John Bradshaw offers a compelling alternative to the outdated and often misused term “dominance.” Bradshaw refers to this model as “Resource Holding Potential (RHP).” In the RHP framework, the dog isn’t seeking to dominate or establish any kind of imagined rank in some hypothetical social hierarchy. Instead, the dog has identified a resource she wants and then assesses her chances at getting and holding on to that resource.


Basically, it's dogs being dogs. ALL Dogs will do *stuff* for things they want and try to keep things they value as important. It's how we train them to start with, ffs. Actually it's more like 'living organism being a living organism'. BUGS do it.

Quote is from here (citing my sources) http://lifeasahuman.com/2013/pets/what-to-do-if-you-think-your-dog-is-dominant/


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Canyx said:


> Um, working in this field with a number of other certified trainers... I have never used the terminology you're describing here nor have I heard any R+ trainers say these things. Where are your quoted phrases coming from?


I've posted an answer, but I'm waiting for it to be unmoderated - with link/quotes.

Simple version : It comes from John Bradshaw's book Dog Sense. 

It isn't dominance theory tweaked, it's basic learning theory. "Dogs do what they think will get them a resource/thing they want." No kidding. There is NOTHING to do with hierarchy or social standing in this. Anywhere. At all.


----------



## Mirzam (Jan 17, 2011)

Canyx said:


> Um, working in this field with a number of other certified trainers... I have never used the terminology you're describing here nor have I heard any R+ trainers say these things. Where are your quoted phrases coming from?


I am surprised you have never heard of the concept of “Resource Holding Potential” (RHP) as it has been offered as the best explanation for the social structure of canines. The theory has gained favor because it is seemingly more resonant with the fact that the social behavior of canines is very fluid, unlike the old theory of dominance which held that canine social structure was a rigid hierarchy of rank. Eric Brad on his blog, explored the notion in regards to the old view of dominance.

http://lifeasahuman.com/2013/pets/what-to-do-if-you-think-your-dog-is-dominant/




> In his book “Dog Sense”, author and behaviourist John Bradshaw offers a compelling alternative to the outdated and often misused term “dominance.” Bradshaw refers to this model as “Resource Holding Potential (RHP).” In the RHP framework, the dog isn’t seeking to dominate or establish any kind of imagined rank in some hypothetical social hierarchy. Instead, the dog has identified a resource she wants and then assesses her chances at getting and holding on to that resource.
> 
> Eyes
> 
> ...


Of course this requires all manner of complex motives to dogs, ie a ToM. I am a dominance denier, as described by Marc Bekoff, described in his article here.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Probably this? https://naturaldogtraining.com/blog/resource-holding-potential/

I find it difficult to dissect, process, and understand his writing. Too many "Behan-isms" for my liking. But knock yourself out if you feel so inclined.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

petpeeve said:


> Probably this? https://naturaldogtraining.com/blog/resource-holding-potential/
> 
> I find it difficult to dissect, process, and understand his writing. Too many "Behan-isms" for my liking. But knock yourself out if you feel so inclined.


I hate everything about that site. It is so freaking... annoying.


http://lifeasahuman.com/2013/pets/what-to-do-if-you-think-your-dog-is-dominant/ This is much better.



> In the RHP framework, the dog isn’t seeking to dominate or establish any kind of imagined rank in some hypothetical social hierarchy. Instead, the dog has identified a resource she wants and then assesses her chances at getting and holding on to that resource.
> 
> It could be that they want to chew on a particular bone. It could be that they are afraid that their food bowl will be taken away prematurely. It might even be that the prefer the companionship of their human. In any of these cases, a dog may display what is commonly called “dominant” behaviours. But the goal is not to show anyone who is “boss”, they just want that resource.


ETA: Best quote:



> If you are honest, your dog isn’t trying to wrestle control of the family budget away from you. He’s not after your job or your status in society. Your dog just wants stuff.
> 
> And you know what? Your dog should have his stuff. But there needs to be a mutually agreeable system for getting the stuff its OK to have. Many of us call that “dog training.”


All of this, of course, meaning IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DOMINANCE IN ANY REGARD, DEAR GOD.


----------



## Mirzam (Jan 17, 2011)

petpeeve said:


> Probably this? https://naturaldogtraining.com/blog/resource-holding-potential/
> 
> I find it difficult to dissect, process, and understand his writing. Too many "Behan-isms" for my liking. But knock yourself out if you feel so inclined.


From the article, which makes perfect sense to me:



> But none of these self-defeating logic loops and oxymorons are the biggest problem with the RHP approach. The main problem is that this presumed internal decision making process, that is then to be broadcast through a distinctive body language so as to communicate intent to a rival, would have had to have evolved in tandem with the equal/opposite suite of traits, mental capacities and display behaviors so that said rivals are capable of receiving the intended message and are then able to act in a complementary manner so that their signals don’t get crossed and pass futilely between them.


----------



## Mirzam (Jan 17, 2011)

From Marc Bekoff's article in Psychology Today, I linked to in a post which is still awaiting approval (?):



> Note 2: After I wrote this essay I discovered that a special issue of the Journal of Veterinary Behavior is devoted to "The 'dominance' debate and improved behavioral measures." Many of the papers point to misunderstandings of what dominance means, and John Bradshaw and his colleagues note "there is no evidence that dominance is a character trait of individual dogs, but rather that it is a property of relationships, that can arise due to asymmetries in any one of at least 3 distinct personality traits." Indeed, I agree that dominance hierarchies are all about social relationships, however, I have lived with dogs I would call "dominant individuals" and have observed dominant dogs at dog parks and other venues. I also discovered an essay devoted to ethological analyses of dominance relationships in dogs called "Dominance in Domestic Dogs: A Quantitative Analysis of Its Behavioural Measures." I still maintain there are absolutely no credible reasons why dogs should be uniquely different from other species in which dominant individuals and dominance hierarchies have been observed.
> 
> Note 3: A comment from Dr. John Bradshaw:
> 
> I agree that it’s possible to construct dominance hierarchies from the way that groups of dogs interact – I’ve done so myself. That shouldn’t be an issue, or at least only one of semantics. For me, the real issue is an ethical one, how concepts of “dominance” impact on the treatment of dogs by dog trainers and the owners they advise. What you appear to dismiss as " ideological turf wars among some trainers" has real implications for the welfare of dogs, and should not be taken lightly by anyone who believes that animals have emotional lives. Many trainers use 'dominance reduction' to justify the routine infliction of pain on dogs. For this reason, I believe that all responsible ethologists should take great pains to distinguish between their technical (and, of course, well-established) concept of dominance, as one method for describing social interactions, and the everyday use of the word 'dominant', which denotes a tendency to be aggressive, threatening and/or controlling. Many dog trainers use the two interchangeably, and some take great delight when academics appear to do the same. As a direct consequence, dogs suffer. (There's more on this in the paper of mine that you cite in your post.


Sounds "political" to me, but then as I said in the post that has been approved yet, I'm a dominance denier.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

....yeah, from what I see here calling RHP "tweaked dominance theory" is a gross misrepresentation, as is implying all positive trainers follow it as if it's a well established concept in the wider training/ethological lexicon, which it clearly is not.

I _think_ where you're coming from is it has to do with resources, and the ethological definition of dominance is an "individual's preferential access to resources over another", which yes, is situational. It's also about as close to dominance theory as the Netherlands is to flat earth theory. Sure, they both can be described with the phrase "flat earth", but the contexts are so different that it'd be foolish to try to argue being Dutch and being a flat earth believer is the same thing.

The dominance theory in dog training is bunk. The concept 'dominance' in ethology (the study of animal behavior) is real - it describes how different individuals in the _same species_ can have different preferences for a resource, and the resource then therefore tends to go to the individual with the strongest preference. IE, my in-law's dachshund really loves warm, comfy sleeping spots. They're very high value to her, and she's willing to pressure our dog out of them so she can get them. Our dog likes toys way more than her, though, so he gets priority access to toys while they're together, because she has no desire to challenge him for them. They're only 'dominant' and 'submissive' in respect to specific scenarios regarding those resources. The concept dominance is also useful in describing species that _do_ have strict linear hierarchies, the way "dominance theory trainers" erroneously think that wolves do - chickens, pigs, several species of primates (to no one's surprise). But dominance is still not a personality trait nor applicable to human/dog relationships.

I didn't go into dominance theory vs. the ethological concept 'dominance' because it wasn't relevant to the OP's question and I'd hoped not to confuse the issue, but I think that ship has sailed.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> From Marc Bekoff's article in Psychology Today, I linked to in a post which is still awaiting approval (?):


I've approved your post, but in the future, if you want a post approved and removed from moderation, you need to PM a moderator with the link to the thread and ask them to do so. In this case, I happened to be reading this thread and noticed your post, but if you depend on waiting for this to happen, your posts may never get approved.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DaySleepers said:


> ....yeah, from what I see here calling RHP "tweaked dominance theory" is a gross misrepresentation, as is implying all positive trainers follow it as if it's a well established concept in the wider training/ethological lexicon, which it clearly is not.
> 
> I _think_ where you're coming from is it has to do with resources, and the ethological definition of dominance is an "individual's preferential access to resources over another", which yes, is situational. It's also about as close to dominance theory as the Netherlands is to flat earth theory. Sure, they both can be described with the phrase "flat earth", but the contexts are so different that it'd be foolish to try to argue being Dutch and being a flat earth believer is the same thing.
> 
> ...


Yes, this, all of it. A new theory to explain an old observation doesn't mean its a "tweaked" version of an old theory. Sometimes it's an entirely.... new theory. :O

Similarly, I have yet to see RHP mentioned in the peer-reviewed literature, and it definitely sounds like it's just a layman's term for the ethnological concept of dominance (which is an observation, not a training theory), as Daysleepers has already described.


----------

