# Why could she be doing this? How do I help her get over it?



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

So, my friend stayed the night, and we slept on the floor in the basement. I did anyway. 

So, I'm laying down, Fry's at my feet, and Karen's just a bit further down than that. There are no problems what so ever. And then, Karen touched her, and Fry gives a growl. Still, I wasn't sure if she had just been startled or not, because Fry will do that with me once in a great while too. Karen touches her again, and she growls again. At this point, I kick her off the "Bed" for a while. 

After a bit, the dog tries to leave the basement, and I have the hardest time getting her to come lay down again. I can't help it, I don't want her up at the top of the stairs. It's narrow, and there is a cubby with all sorts of sharp things. So, I get a treat, and I coax her back into the bed by throwing food at it 'till she realizes that yes, she can come back, and yes, she can go back to sleep. While the dog is awake (And focused on the milk bone") but laying down, I have Karen pet her again. No problems. She is simi asleep, and not interested in the milk bone. Karen pets her. No problems. I don't push it further, but I have a felling it will happen again. 

In the bright side, I finally know why she was growling at me five-year-old cousin, although he wasn’t even allowed to get close while she slept. 

So, and suggestions on how to work on this? Mind you, I don’t have strangers come over a lot. And any ideas as to why? I don’t think it’s aggression or resource guarding, either. (She didn’t give a hoot about being touch while on the bed, fully awake, and with food.)


----------



## TooneyDogs (Aug 6, 2007)

Help me understand why you have a problem with Fry wanting to be left alone...to sleep in peace without being disturbed?


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

TooneyDogs said:


> Help me understand why you have a problem with Fry wanting to be left alone...to sleep in peace without being disturbed?



No offense, but....


I disagree with this completely. Dogs don't get to decide when and where they are going to sleep undisturbed, and particularly when it involves growling at someone or refusing to come when called. 

To the OP, I would suggest continuing to work on socializing the dog at every opportunity, and get the dog used to sleeping in her crate at night. It's not HER bed, it's yours, or it ought to be anyway.


----------



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

TooneyDogs said:


> Help me understand why you have a problem with Fry wanting to be left alone...to sleep in peace without being disturbed?


Idealy, I want her to be left alone. But just like I want her to be able to eat in peace, I need her to undersand that It's okay to be bugged once in a while. After all, what if I had to babysit my cousin over night, and her, not knowing dogs, decided to bug her while I'm sleping and therefore I can't stop him? I do *Not* want to have her put down because she bit him, and my mom would make sure she was.


----------



## TooneyDogs (Aug 6, 2007)

Chris_Texas said:


> No offense, but....
> 
> 
> I disagree with this completely. Dogs don't get to decide when and where they are going to sleep undisturbed


Let me share a true story that follows your training philosophy. 
A family of 5 took in a dog and they were told this very thing (the dog is to move when told to move). They were also told the dog should be confined to a specific area of the house until housebroken.
So far, it all sounds benign. Well, they choose to gate the dog in the hallway to the bathroom and the bedrooms. Every single member of the family made the dog move whenever they went down the hall. They all ignored the protests of the dog (growls) and you guessed it...the growls turned into snapping and eventually bites. The dog was put down. 
The family did everything their trainer told them to do...it was just a 'bad dog'.

Sorry, but, I don't buy into that approach.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

TooneyDogs said:


> Let me share a true story that follows your training philosophy.
> A family of 5 took in a dog and they were told this very thing (the dog is to move when told to move). They were also told the dog should be confined to a specific area of the house until housebroken.
> So far, it all sounds benign. Well, they choose to gate the dog in the hallway to the bathroom and the bedrooms. Every single member of the family made the dog move whenever they went down the hall. They all ignored the protests of the dog (growls) and you guessed it...the growls turned into snapping and eventually bites. The dog was put down.
> The family did everything their trainer told them to do...it was just a 'bad dog'.
> ...



Since it's story time, here's another. 

_Fido was a darling, a cuddly puddle of love when he curled up next to mommy on the couch. It was cute when he pushed in between mommy and daddy to snuggle. He was even more adorable worming his way in between mommy and daddy on the bed. And when he started to shove, then growl, rather than correcting him firmly and immediately, mommy attempted to SOOTH the little bundle of love instead. 

"Isn't he a darling?" she asked her husband when the dog defended his space on the couch by growling and snapping. "Isn't it wonderful how much he loves his wittle mommykins!" she said a few days later to her husband, but he shook his head from his new seat across the room. Then later, "Can't baby Fido rest without being disturbed," she shouted, but there was no person there to hear -- her hubby was asleep in the guest room. From the foot of the bed Fido growled and mommy quickly shut up. Fido liked it quiet when he slept in his bed. 

The End_


Now that story time is over, let me be blunt. You don't know anything about my training philosophy, but I will gladly tell you and the original poster. Here it is: It's a DOG. It's not your spouse, it's not your mom, it's not your best friend, and it's not even a kid. It's a DOG. If your five year old kid refused to go to bed and threatened to bite you for "bugging him" you wouldn't be here saying leave the tyke alone. You would be reaching for your belt with one hand and the brat with the other. While dogs require a bit more subtlety and communications skill, the foundational principle remains the same. If you wouldn't tolerate that crap from a kid, a relative, a friend, or a houseguest, then you damn sure shouldn't be tolerating it from a DOG. 

Some people apparently believe that the relative lack of negative reinforcement in some currently trendy training philosophies somehow equates to a lack of discipline. This is incorrect. Tolerance for misbehavior is wrong, period, regardless of the training philosophy one embraces. Yet like parents competing at love by spoiling their kids, some dog owners seem to want to compete in terms of what they will accept before they finally say enough. I call it the "I love my dog THIS much" game, and I can see people playing it here every day.

EDIT to add one thing -- I see nothing wrong with giving your dog "his" own place where he wont be bugged. It's called his crate.


----------



## TooneyDogs (Aug 6, 2007)

Chris_Texas said:


> Fido liked it quiet when he slept in his bed.
> 
> The End


The difference was/is....no dog should have to endure relentless assault just because they're dogs and we can make them do whatever we want even if it's unreasonable.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

TooneyDogs said:


> The difference was/is....no dog should have to endure relentless assault just because they're dogs and we can make them do whatever we want even if it's unreasonable.


There was nothing unreasonable done here. If we were talking about a 15 year old arthritic old timer growling to be left in peace because it's too tired and hurting to move, then I might side with the dog. In tis case it is a young dog, a teenager actually, and testing.


----------



## TooneyDogs (Aug 6, 2007)

Chris_Texas said:


> There was nothing unreasonable done here. If we were talking about a 15 year old arthritic old timer growling to be left in peace because it's too tired and hurting to move, then I might side with the dog. In tis case it is a young dog, a teenager actually, and testing.


Again, sorry but when the dog lets you know that they are uncomfortable about being handled/pestered and no one pays any attention and persists in the activity....that is unreasonable. 
Should the dog be uncomfortable about petting....no/never. But, this isn't the way to train that behavior....by continuing to do it in an attempt to flood or condition the dog. Same approach was used in making the dog move every single time someone went down the hall....WHY? 
For the life of me I cannot understand why folks will not listen to their dogs, recognize a problem early on or do the appropriate training.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

TooneyDogs said:


> For the life of me I cannot understand why folks will not listen to their dogs, recognize a problem early on or do the appropriate training.


Now this is something we agree on.


----------



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

I don't wish to flood her into it. I trealize that just having her be petted over and over again while she growls will get someone bit. That's obvious. I still want her to accept it the every once in a while she does get touched.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

katthevamp said:


> I don't wish to flood her into it. I trealize that just having her be petted over and over again while she growls will get someone bit. That's obvious. I still want her to accept it the every once in a while she does get touched.


Does she growl whenever anyone touches her, or only in certain locations/ times?


----------



## Alpha (Aug 24, 2006)

I'm on the fence because I have a dog that growls when touched and she's sleepy. She's never snapped, and I've never really pushed the issue training wise because she is a very vocal dog, I'll be perfectly honest, and it's awful, but sometimes we laugh about it as we hug and kiss her good night and she grumbles as if to say; Get on with it!! I'm tired! Leave me alone!

So in a sense I agree with Tooney. If a dog growls because it's tired and wants to be left alone, that's "okay". If you correct that dog, or pester it to the point that it bites someone... who's fault is it??? Dog??? Human? Who's got more brain power?

On the other side, I agree that growling shouldn't really be accepted when the dog is in YOUR bed and your touching it. Let me point out that I don't think dogs should sleep WITH people, _especially_ if it's growling at people who are accidentally touching it in their sleep, regardless of what you believe about the growling. (My dog has her own bed that we probably shouldn't bother her in, do as I say not as I do... )

I think Chris asks a good question, that's important in determing what to do, and that's is this all the time? Or only in this one situation, when the dog is tired? What about with a special toy or treat?

ETA - After reading your first post again, and seeing that the dog doesn't do this with you often (only once in awhile) perhaps this is an issue with an "outsider" on the bed touching him, not just in general? Maybe not "resource guarding" but a much more dumbed down version of "owning" a piece of the house, bed, and being upset that he has to share it? Just a quick thought.


----------



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

She hasonly growled at people a few times: this, my three year old cousin (That couldn't of been resource gauding. We were in HER house and had only been there for a bit) and used to at my cat when he joinde us. That stopped, though. She has grolwed at me very slightly TWICE, but then realized it was just me. Another thing, she didn't growl wqhen she as fully awake with treats on the bed. And this has been in six months, so it don't come up that often.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

katthevamp said:


> She hasonly growled at people a few times: this, my three year old cousin (That couldn't of been resource gauding. We were in HER house and had only been there for a bit) and used to at my cat when he joinde us. That stopped, though. She has grolwed at me very slightly TWICE, but then realized it was just me. Another thing, she didn't growl wqhen she as fully awake with treats on the bed. And this has been in six months, so it don't come up that often.



What kind of dog is this?

Has it been examined by a vet?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Chris_Texas

*Now that story time is over, let me be blunt. You don't know anything about my training philosophy, but I will gladly tell you and the original poster. Here it is: It's a DOG. It's not your spouse, it's not your mom, it's not your best friend, and it's not even a kid. It's a DOG. If your five year old kid refused to go to bed and threatened to bite you for "bugging him" you wouldn't be here saying leave the tyke alone. You would be reaching for your belt with one hand and the brat with the other. While dogs require a bit more subtlety and communications skill, the foundational principle remains the same. If you wouldn't tolerate that crap from a kid, a relative, a friend, or a houseguest, then you damn sure shouldn't be tolerating it from a DOG.*

I got to go along with you on this, I will fight for the right that everybody can elevate their dog to whatever heights/position that makes them happy. In my home the dog is a dog. When a dog does something as the OP described I really do not look for psychological ramifications, I solve the problem immediately and get on with life. I'm not telling anybody else to handle the problem as I would. TooneyDogs has a different approach, that's fine. We all got to do, what we got to do.


----------



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

Mutt, and I am bringer hetr into the vet as soon as possible. 

I just realized something, though. She's stiff whenever she's been sleeping (We plan on taking her to the vet soon for that).


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

katthevamp said:


> Mutt, and I am bringer hetr into the vet as soon as possible.
> 
> I just realized something, though. She's stiff whenever she's been sleeping (We plan on taking her to the vet soon for that).



Yeah, see what the vet says. In the meantime I would say nip it in the bud by being more assertive yourself. Not mean or violent, but in charge.


----------



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

Vet said she has early hip dysplasia. Yikes!


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

katthevamp said:


> Vet said she has early hip dysplasia. Yikes!


I'm sorry to hear this.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

I'm so sorry to hear about your dog. 



TooneyDogs said:


> For the life of me I cannot understand why folks will not listen to their dogs, recognize a problem early on or do the appropriate training.


This is frustrating to me too. But I think it's more than recognizing a problem and changing it. The things people use to reason a training protocol seems even more ridiculous. 

Just take the recommendations the OP was given. Instead of empowering the dog as you suggested (which I believe is fundamentally correct), her bed is being stripped away, the OP's presence is dictated to be inflexible, the dog is lessened as a learning/behaving creature.

It really is........I don't have any "nice" terms for it.


----------



## Sugar Daddy Otis (Jan 9, 2008)

Could the reason the dog growled be that it is in pain from the hip dysplasia? I can understand not wanting to be bothered then.


----------



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

Sugar Daddy Otis said:


> Could the reason the dog growled be that it is in pain from the hip dysplasia? I can understand not wanting to be bothered then.


So could I. Poor pup.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I'm so sorry to hear about your dog.
> 
> 
> This is frustrating to me too. But I think it's more than recognizing a problem and changing it. The things people use to reason a training protocol seems even more ridiculous.
> ...


*Well I'm going to eat a little crow*, I went with OP's 1st post that did not mention any stiffness/pain etc. I do not tell anybody they should do physical corrections of any kind on forum. But I do believe in the Chris_Texas reply as I stated in my home it would be the same attitude, dog is a dog. That being said in my home we would know of stiffness/pain attitudes etc.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

I believe the OP knew something was out of sorts, otherwise, she wouldn't have been so concerned. 

I also believe "trainers" dump their tool bag out and grab the tool they are most familiar with. This is dangerous craft work. 

Whether the animal is a human, a pig, a goat, a slug, a goldfish, or a lowly dog, all we can change is the antecedent and the consequence to effectively change the behavior. This doesn't call for grabbing our favorite tool. 

We have to place our tools in order. You aren't going to hammer a 2x4 in without first using a tape measure to make your first cut. Right?

So, IMO, Toney was correct in asking why was it important to disturb the dog. As it turned out the importance wasn't that the dog had to be a dog, or had to sleep off the bed, or the OP had to change her demeanor...the OP noticed a unique change. 

You can't see pain, so I'm sorry, you wouldn't know. You can only reason that it's pain, and you do so by laying out your tools, and choosing the right one.

What I find frustrating, as I'm sure Toney does too, is when we ask a simple question like _why is it important? _Others assume we're asking _why do you have rules?_ This is so ridiculous that it's just...again, I don't have any "nice" words for it.


----------



## TooneyDogs (Aug 6, 2007)

Curb, Thank you. I just wish that more dog owners would understand that dogs rarely test or challenge their owners. Most dogs will never do that in a lifetime and even the very rare dog might do it only once or twice.
In the old days owners viewed any resentment or protest as a need to put the dog in their place. Sadly, they didn't know how to read body language and the training tools, knowledge were very limited.


----------



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

In my defense, it's only just now that I put two and two together. I realized she was stiff, but I'm slow sometimes. 

Anyway, now that I have put two and two together (And a situation whee she would be disturbed sleeping happens so rarely), I think I'll leave her be.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

katthevamp said:


> In my defense, it's only just now that I put two and two together. I realized she was stiff, but I'm slow sometimes.


In your defense, you got the prognosis you needed, and I thank you.


----------



## bella's Mum (Apr 1, 2008)

I think possibly bot sides of the camp should agree however that prevention is beter than a cure, i was told by my vet to just handle belle all the time so she wouldnt fuss or growl at a later date and the vet was right bella would probably be content if i started waxing her at 3am.
KATTTHEVAMP- i know many people who's dogs have had hipd and only been diagnosed at a late age, at 10 months you picked up on it really fast- how is she doing?


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

I dunno if any dog would really be happy with being waxed


----------



## bella's Mum (Apr 1, 2008)

well its just good to know that options available to me if i need it


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

CP

*What I find frustrating, as I'm sure Toney does too, is when we ask a simple question like why is it important? Others assume we're asking why do you have rules? This is so ridiculous that it's just...again, I don't have any "nice" words for it.*

1st off yes it was a simple question. The OP made it simpler by not mentioning the stiffness etc that she knew about but did not include in her post. With the rules in my home, none of the OP's problem would have occurred because we have the sleep in crate rule and the other when strangers are in home, the dog is crated rule. I try always to make a point that if I make a reply it's only something I think is proper for me.
Now pain is something you cannot see, but in some cases you can as the OP admitted. This you can trust me on or not, in my home I would have seen a dog in pain. I myself did not assume anybody was asking why we have rules. Any rules in life are personal choices. 

Now the question, why is it important. I think anytime a dog growls for no apparent reason it's important. (Murphy's law) This does not mean you get the baseball bat out and beat vigorously about the head and shoulders of the dog. It means you calmly take the dog off the bed away from the new person in home etc. I'm not in any way trying to be argumentative, I just look at things differently.


----------



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

Good. It's the really early stuff, and the vet said it wasn't that uncommon to find the signs this young. But still, it must be painful.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

My vets have done surgery on dogs with HD that releaves their pain and allows them a reasonably normal life. 

What has your vet recommended you do for Fry? 

I am sorry this is going on with your Puppy!


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> With the rules in my home, none of the OP's problem would have occurred because we have the sleep in crate rule and the other when strangers are in home, the dog is crated rule. I try always to make a point that if I make a reply it's only something I think is proper for me.


How you manage your dog does not exclude you from the difficulties the OP experienced, or how it should be addressed. Had her dog been in your crate, and the dog refused to be touched in your crate, how does your crate rule change the behavior?



> Now pain is something you cannot see, but in some cases you can as the OP admitted.


No, you can't see pain. Pain is a chemical transaction in the brain. What you see are behaviors common when a dog is in pain. 



> This you can trust me on or not, in my home I would have seen a dog in pain.


I believe the OP saw the behaviors associated with pain too, but didn't know what to make of them. 



> I myself did not assume anybody was asking why we have rules. Any rules in life are personal choices.


Then what are suggestion like, a dog that growls should be corrected? Or, a dog that growls should be treated as nothing more than a dog? Or, a dog that growls on your bed is a dog that should sleep in it's own bed? Or, a dog that growls is a sign of a weak owner? What are these if they are not rules?

Some of these suggestions where in response to Toney's comment. There's a difference in what Toney was trying to accomplish and what those with rules were trying to accomplish.


----------



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

She said, since it's such an early stage, to give joint supplements, and that surgery was too drastic at this point.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

CP
*Had her dog been in your crate, and the dog refused to be touched in your crate, how does your crate rule change the behavior?*

If she magically gets her dog in my crate then I can view the dog and make whatever choices necessary. If it were one of my own personal dogs, I would open the crate and let dog walk out at it's leisure.

*Some of these suggestions where in response to Tooney's comment. There's a difference in what Tooney was trying to accomplish and what those with rules were trying to accomplish.*

In my original post I was not trying to accomplish anything except that I agreed with Chris_Texas's reply to a post that did not have full disclosure. 

*Then what are suggestion like, a dog that growls should be corrected?* 

I did not mention any corrections as rules or suggestions.

*Or, a dog that growls should be treated as nothing more than a dog?* 

What would you suggest I treat a dog that growls as, I would treat it as a dog. Is it a sick dog, Is it an injured dog, is it an aggressive dog. Would I not have to be there to see what I should treat it as. I did not see the OPs dog so naturally I made no suggestions or rules for her.

*Or, a dog that growls on your bed is a dog that should sleep in it's own bed?* 

A dog would not growl on my bed, our personal dog has 2 couches and her own recliner that she can lounge on during daylight hours. No dogs are allowed on our bed. So that doesn't apply. It would never happen.

*Or, a dog that growls is a sign of a weak owner?* 
In some cases I suppose it could mean that, would I not need to meet the owner, but as already discussed it could mean all kinds of things.

*What are these if they are not rules?*

Whose rules? Again anything I post, I clarify that it's something I do and not to be done by others. The dog I do it on, I can see, touch, read etc. How silly would I be to advise somebody to do the same on a dog I can't see, touch, read etc. My outlook is different because each day I am training dogs. I don't teach people how to train dogs, until I have finished the training of their dogs. This by no means is meant to say that this is the best way or I am the best whatever. It's just the way I get through life a day at a time.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasco, it's true, you are not arguing with me. It seems you don't understand that I'm not directing my comments at you but in general. So I'll address only what you stated.


wvasko said:


> What would you suggest I treat a dog that growls as, I would treat it as a dog. Is it a sick dog, Is it an injured dog, is it an aggressive dog. Would I not have to be there to see what I should treat it as. I did not see the OPs dog so naturally I made no suggestions or rules for her.


*I* would suggest you treat the dog as a behaving creature. I too believe you should treat a *well behaved* dog as a *well behaving* dog, but the implication in saying you should treat a *misbehaving* dog as just another dog, connotes a punitive set of rules. I don't believe that was your intention, but in speaking generally, many people do choose this approach, and it can be detrimental to the dog.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> wvasco, it's true, you are not arguing with me. It seems you don't understand that I'm not directing my comments at you but in general. So I'll address only what you stated.
> 
> *I* would suggest you treat the dog as a behaving creature. I too believe you should treat a *well behaved* dog as a *well behaving* dog, but the implication in saying you should treat a *misbehaving* dog as just another dog, connotes a punitive set of rules. I don't believe that was your intention, but in speaking generally, many people do choose this approach, and it can be detrimental to the dog.


CP
No that was not my intention, My behaving dogs and misbehaving dogs are equal, with the exceptions that the misbehaving dogs require a lot more work. When I say just another dog, it means a lot more. It's just that I don't explain things properly.

**I* would suggest you treat the dog as a behaving creature. I too believe you should treat a *well behaved* dog as a *well behaving* dog, but the implication in saying you should treat a *misbehaving* dog as just another dog, connotes a punitive set of rules. I don't believe that was your intention, but in speaking generally, many people do choose this approach, and it can be detrimental to the dog.*


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

katthevamp said:


> She said, since it's such an early stage, to give joint supplements, and that surgery was too drastic at this point.


Yes. At ten months old, your dog is too young to determine if the HD is going to progress or if it can be managed with pain meds or even therapy (like swimming and walking up hills etc.). Time will tell and so you have to give your dog time to finish growing and then x rays and they way the dog acts will add up to your choices. Some dogs with bad hips act fine and other dogs with better hips can exhibit a lot of pain symptoms.. it is very individual to the dog. 

The supplements can't hurt and they might help. Has your vet recommended anything to help manage the pain in the mean time? Has anything like a therapeutic bed been considered? These offer support and may actually help you dog to be more comfortable (some are heated too). 

Dogs that hurt can be grumpy just like us.. and I am OLD.. and I have a lot of osteo arthritis issues (just goes to prove, it ain't the AGE its the MILEAGE!  ). 

I am grumpy too when someone bothers me when I am stiff and sore.


----------



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> The supplements can't hurt and they might help. Has your vet recommended anything to help manage the pain in the mean time? Has anything like a therapeutic bed been considered? These offer support and may actually help you dog to be more comfortable (some are heated too).
> 
> Dogs that hurt can be grumpy just like us.. and I am OLD.. and I have a lot of osteo arthritis issues (just goes to prove, it ain't the AGE its the MILEAGE!  ).
> 
> I am grumpy too when someone bothers me when I am stiff and sore.


Nu-uh, I'll look into that, thanks. She did say that of these did little good, that we could then we could use rimadyl to manage that (I noticed when she had her bad dew-claw opperation and she was on anti-biotics and it for three weeks, the stiffness was pretty much gone.). She also suggest I do 'Warm ups" with her before geting into anything heavy. I'll look into the theripudic beds, though.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> This is frustrating to me too. But I think it's more than recognizing a problem and changing it. The things people use to reason a training protocol seems even more ridiculous.
> 
> Just take the recommendations the OP was given. Instead of empowering the dog as you suggested (which I believe is fundamentally correct), her bed is being stripped away, the OP's presence is dictated to be inflexible, the dog is lessened as a learning/behaving creature.
> 
> It really is........I don't have any "nice" terms for it.



Empowering the dog? I know this sounds like a hip new-age thing to say, but what EXACTLY do you mean? And in any case, the Dog is already so "empowered" that it is growling at guests and claiming the bed as it's own. The HD might contribute to this, but I am sceptical that at 10 months old the dog is so crippled up that its growling in pain -- and certainly not if the owner had not noticed it before.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Chris_Texas said:


> Empowering the dog? I know this sounds like a hip new-age thing to say, but what EXACTLY do you mean?


Simply that the dog discovers confidence on her own. Or in this case, the dog *learns* that when the owner cues her to move, it *will* benefit him. Tell me how you can empower a dog with punitive measures? You can't. 



> And in any case, the Dog is already so "empowered" that it is growling at guests and claiming the bed as it's own. The HD might contribute to this, but I am sceptical that at 10 months old the dog is so crippled up that its growling in pain -- and certainly not if the owner had not noticed it before.


Actually, there's no empowerment in growling in this scenario. I seriously doubt the OP taught, even inadvertently taught the dog to growl while on the bed. The dog has a reason for the innateness of her behavior to precede any other learning...she's in pain. And I actually don't know exactly how to respond to this. I'm upset at the implication that HD "might" contribute to a growling dog. Can you explain the logic in this? It's not like a dog can indicate she's in pain like we humans do, so please explain.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Simply that the dog discovers confidence on her own. Or in this case, the dog *learns* that when the owner cues her to move, it *will* benefit him. Tell me how you can empower a dog with punitive measures? You can't.


This is a dog that has claimed the bed. It doesn't need to discover confidence, it's got plenty. 



> Actually, there's no empowerment in growling in this scenario. I seriously doubt the OP taught, even inadvertently taught the dog to growl while on the bed. The dog has a reason for the innateness of her behavior to precede any other learning...she's in pain. And I actually don't know exactly how to respond to this. I'm upset at the implication that HD "might" contribute to a growling dog. Can you explain the logic in this? It's not like a dog can indicate she's in pain like we humans do, so please explain.


A dog owner does not need to teach a dog to growl or behave aggressively, often all they need do is step aside. And in any case I very much doubt this puppy with an HD potential diagnosis was growling in pain. Not saying its impossible of course, but I don't think so.

Anyway, I understand that you reject the whole pack idea and aggression theory and all that, and you have done a great job defending your views and attacking those theories. However, don't let the fact that those theories sometimes fail, blind you to the fact that they also often succeed in explaning and predicting and (most important) controlling dog behavior.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Chris_Texas said:


> This is a dog that has claimed the bed. It doesn't need to discover confidence, it's got plenty.


I wasn't privy to the fact that you knew the dog or the owner. Otherwise, your assumptions are dangerous. 



> A dog owner does not need to teach a dog to growl or behave aggressively, often all they need do is step aside.


I don't recall the owner stating that the dog has always done this, or that it was a predictable and escalating problem. Regardless, the approach would be no different.



> And in any case I very much doubt this puppy with an HD potential diagnosis was growling in pain. Not saying its impossible of course, but I don't think so.


I once thought pastrami came from a bird...my father teased me with untruths. But now I know better.



> However, don't let the fact that those theories sometimes fail, blind you to the fact that they also often succeed in explaning and predicting and (most important) controlling dog behavior.


Actually, I've never seen a case where learning theory has failed. I've seen protocols that were difficult to construct and apply, but I've never seen it fail. I know of situation where learning theory has failed due to genetic problems in the dog, but if the learning processes in the dog's brain are faulted to begin with, you'd expect it to fail. So I'm sorry, I have no reference to what you're speaking to. Remember, the pack idea applied for dogs is a hypothesis, and not a theory.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

Okay then, I will leave you with the last word.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

How about we let Taylor have the last word.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Esoterics (is that spelled right???) aside, I am going to add one thing:

It was stated the puppy was sore and stiff a bit. She has been diagnosed with early HD. It was recommended by a vet to do some warm up before a lot of activity. The dog only growled when she had been resting for a bit.

Now, none of us are there except the OP and her words are here and that is all we have to go on. 

IMO (and this is OPINION only with conjecture), the dog is suffering some pain. The pain is more severe when she has been inactive for awhile. When asked to move, she hurt and does not want to. Because she can't say, "Look, I hurt.. can I just NO MOVE so I won't HURT" she growls. It is all the dog has to work with. 

I suspect it is that simple. 
If not, then the whole resource guarding and the rest comes into play. 

Rather than get into all of that, if it were me, I would see if using something (like food or a toy) to get the dog moving after a prolonged period of inactivity would get the dog up w/o growling. I would also watch to see if the dog growls other times and places to try to ascertain whether or not it is resource guarding or not. 

FWIW as to the rest of the discussion here, I prefer CP's approach to Chris' approach. This is not to say Chirs' approach never works or is never valid. It might be. I don't subscribve to it, but that is me and my limited experince. 

I believe you should always try the way of least resistance first and foremost setting aside the whole dominance thing. So far, on this dog, a GSD, it is working beyond my wildest dreams. One dog does not a study make so my experience is anectdotal. My experience, however, has been launched off the shoulders of those who did take the time to do the studies and write them down so I could read them. It was further enhanced by the guidance of positive training dog school insructors with vast experience lending me guidance on my own dog.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Everybody is right if that makes any sense at all. OP's original post mentioned no stiffness/pain at all. Chris_Texas's 1st post was I'm sure based partially on no pain mentioned. My 1st post agreeing with Chris was also based on the no pain. Then CP and I exchanged replies for a short time, we received a 2nd OP post explaining possible pain/stiffness etc. I will say if I read a dog and decide it is growling for a reason other than pain, a reason that I deem it necessary to handle with a physical correction used at the proper time, the problem may disappear never to emerge again. Please do not take this to mean I am advising people to use corrections to eliminate their dog problems. There are many problems that can be started with mishandled physical corrections. I tried to do some plumbing once and I won't bore you with the results except bathing suits were the uniform of the day when I finished.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

wvasko said:


> I tried to do some plumbing once and I won't bore you with the results except bathing suits were the uniform of the day when I finished.


Now THIS is something I can Identify With.... Sooooo been there and done that. 

ROFLMAO


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

I never suggested that the correct response was to grab the dog and body slam it off the bed. I never suggested kicking its butt or beating it with a shovel. I will quote the advice I gave word for word:

_"To the OP, I would suggest continuing to work on socializing the dog at every opportunity, and get the dog used to sleeping in her crate at night. It's not HER bed, it's yours, or it ought to be anyway."_​
To which I got the usual shocked "_don't control your dog, nurture it_" new-age sillyness. I shouldn't be surprised to see this philosophy seeping into the dog world. You can see it with some so-called child development experts as well. The same experts who, for the last couple decades, have insisted that parents not discipline Children, and that the raising a child's self-esteem is more important than raising a child that can function in society.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Chris_Texas said:


> To which I got the usual shocked "_don't control your dog, nurture it_" new-age sillyness.


Well I think your misunderstanding of it leads you to calling it new-age silliness. Learning theory has been around for a very long time, and I believe it's the flaws with the dominance hypothesis why it's coming back to the forefront. 



> I shouldn't be surprised to see this philosophy seeping into the dog world. You can see it with some so-called child development experts as well. The same experts who, for the last couple decades, have insisted that parents not discipline Children, and that the raising a child's self-esteem is more important than raising a child that can function in society.


Learning theory is applicable to every animal on the planet. Even lowly golf fish can be taught using learning theory, so certainly a dog or children can learn from it too.

I find this argument a lot, _oh you're just being anthropomorphic with your treats and cuddling, _to be a silly argument in itself. Because those who understand learning theory, understand that the theory is not based on anthropomorphism at all, but scientific evidence on how animals learn. Your idea of treating a dog like a child is simply hearsay to the actual science. 

So the suggestion, your dog should sleep in it's own bed, is a silly one. There's no proof or fact that where a dog sleeps dictates where he is in the pack or even how he learns. It's not like the Alpha wolf runs around telling everyone where to sleep, right? So why would it matter if the dog prefers the bed to a crate? I know how it can matter, but it has nothing to do with what your subscribing to.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

CP
*So the suggestion, your dog should sleep in it's own bed, is a silly one. There's no proof or fact that where a dog sleeps dictates where he is in the pack or even how he learns. It's not like the Alpha wolf runs around telling everyone where to sleep, right? So why would it matter if the dog prefers the bed to a crate? I know how it can matter, but it has nothing to do with what your subscribing to.*

I don't know if Chris is going the dog's own bed as a dominance issue, If he is I don't think the word silly is a good description, by calling it silly there are going to be new forum readers that think if the dog is not sleeping with them on a people bed it's silly or maybe just not proper. I myself am not a cuddler, I am a thrower away type sleeper. For that reason we have a large king size bed to alleviate the program. No room for dogs. Dominance has nothing to do with the dog having his own bed position in our home. Besides I prefer the word silly to be used on dog-man threads. My preferences only not meant to sway anybody else's views.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Well I think your misunderstanding of it leads you to calling it new-age silliness. Learning theory has been around for a very long time, and I believe it's the flaws with the dominance hypothesis why it's coming back to the forefront.


I don't think that it has ever left the forefront. I believe that it is a misunderstanding and misapplication of both that lead to confusion. Discipline, regardless of the form, does not preclude love, nurturing, or positive reinforcement; the two are not mutually exclusive. Nor does positive reinforcement preclude discipline. 



> Learning theory is applicable to every animal on the planet. Even lowly golf fish can be taught using learning theory, so certainly a dog or children can learn from it too.


No argument there, the only argument is the assumption that negative reinforcement has no place within your learning theory. 



> So the suggestion, your dog should sleep in it's own bed, is a silly one. There's no proof or fact that where a dog sleeps dictates where he is in the pack or even how he learns. It's not like the Alpha wolf runs around telling everyone where to sleep, right? So why would it matter if the dog prefers the bed to a crate? I know how it can matter, but it has nothing to do with what your subscribing to.


I ONLY care where a dog sleeps when there is a problem. I suggested kicking the pup out of bed because the pup is claiming and guarding the bed, and if the dog needs a place of its own get a crate.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Chris_Texas said:


> I suggested kicking the pup out of bed because the pup is claiming and guarding the bed, and if the dog needs a place of its own get a crate.


We don't know, without seeing the dog and the dog's behavior in other situations, because of the HD diagnosis. 

While I don't let dogs sleep on the bed it has nothing to do with dominance and whether or not anyone lets a dog sleep on their bed is just a personal preference.

In this case, we have no idea of the dog is growling from pain at having to move after getting settled _where ever he is settled down_ or if he is growling out of guarding. _ *We really don't know *for certain do we?_

I would give the dog and the OP an opportunity to find out if the dog is resource guarding or is just plainly _in pain._ The response to one scenario is vastly different than the response to the other, regardless of training theory. 

BTW I don't think anyone here is suggesting you would support beating a dog with a shovel... That is certainly the furthest thing from MY mind when I read all of this.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Chris_Texas
*I don't think that it has ever left the forefront. I believe that it is a misunderstanding and misapplication of both that lead to confusion. Discipline, regardless of the form, does not preclude love, nurturing, or positive reinforcement; the two are not mutually exclusive. Nor does positive reinforcement preclude discipline.* WELL SAID. 

You know what it also does not preclude, that even properly schooled dog trainers that do not have love affairs going on with whatever dogs they are working, would automatically disrespect or abuse the dogs they train. I devoutly believe positive/negative motivation training is the only way to train dogs. I also believe there is a lot of goody, goody two shoes brain washing being pushed about training methods. My opinion only.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Chris_Texas said:


> I don't think that it has ever left the forefront. I believe that it is a misunderstanding and misapplication of both that lead to confusion. Discipline, regardless of the form, does not preclude love, nurturing, or positive reinforcement; the two are not mutually exclusive. Nor does positive reinforcement preclude discipline.


Again, how do you apply the pack hypothesis? You seem to have a definition of it, what is it? There is no evidence to a hypothesis, but if you're saying learning theory can be misapplied too...this is true. But what you're saying, really, is not that the theory is flawed but that training using learning theory is a mechanical skill. Some people are better than others in applying the skill, nothing more. If you want to call someone with great mechanical skill "calm and assertive", fine, but this has nothing to do with that person's status in the pack, they just have better skill. So it would be prudent, IMO, to point out how one can improve their skill, instead of reaching for an unproven hypothesis that closes the door to options. 



> No argument there, the only argument is the assumption that negative reinforcement has no place within your learning theory.


I don't recall making this assumption. What I do recall stating is that punitive measures are not necessary when a dog simply growls. In fact, I would argue that the empirical evidence says it is the least effective choice. Perhaps you need a definition of punitive measures? Physical corrections, and aversion are examples. If you want to say "come", and repeatedly say "come" until the dog does come (this is negative reinforcement by it's definition), I don't have a problem with that. I don't particularly find saying "come" repeatedly all that aversive. But the dog has to know what come means and demonstrated it in training. Certainly if your dog has demonstrated this ability, but doesn't in a specific situation, you should wonder what is wrong. But I still don't know why you would reason to use punitive measures. 



> I ONLY care where a dog sleeps when there is a problem. I suggested kicking the pup out of bed because the pup is claiming and guarding the bed, and if the dog needs a place of its own get a crate.


This is an assumption on your part. I don't recall the OP saying the dog sleeping on the bed was a problem. I recall the OP wondering about the growling. 

What you're really speaking to is priority access to resources. We don't know that to be the problem here.



wvasko said:


> You know what it also does not preclude, that even properly schooled dog trainers that do not have love affairs going on with whatever dogs they are working, would automatically disrespect or abuse the dogs they train.


You're making the same error you're trying to imply in others. Who said anything about a "love affair". I'm speaking to a methodology that keeps options available. If you make a statement such as _your dog must do this or else..._I'm wondering about that "or else". That sounds pretty defined, and IME "or else" has caused a lot of misunderstanding between dogs and their owners. There's no reason to force dogs to do the things we want them to do. They are very capable, and it has been proven, that dogs can learn why one behavior is preferable over another without "or else". It has also been proven in learning theory that "or else" has to be severe and perfectly timed to be effective. I don't know any dog trainer who's willing to test how severe a punishment should be with good reason. Where would the severity end when it didn't work? With all the abuses animals have suffered in the lab, I would think we know enough that punitive measures are difficult to simulate in the field, especially in the hands of a novice. If I'm wrong and your "or else" is to lure the dog off the bed, and not because he "thinks" he owns the bed, then clearly I'm reading such statements wrong.


----------



## TooneyDogs (Aug 6, 2007)

I thnk we're all dancing around the central issue: What is the proper response when a dog growls at you? I think most owners/handlers immediately try to curb that kind of reaction without trying to understand the WHY? 
My response would be/is to immediately stop what I'm doing and try to answer that question....why is the dog having a problem with this...what's going on?
I'm not going to reach into my tool kit and grab the 1st tool that I find until I have a better understanding. 
This is not silly new age, goody two shoes or giving up pack leader status and I have a hard time understanding why those labels are being attached.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

CP
*You're making the same error you're trying to imply in others. Who said anything about a "love affair". *

Well I could have just said even liked the dogs, point was methods *proper* trainers use being objective are not doing harm to dogs.

*I'm speaking to a methodology that keeps options available.* 

I am also talking about open options. I think anybody training anything horses dogs whatever, I had a pair of Oscars that when feeding time came they would come to top of tank and you could stroke their backs. No I wasn't training just got behavior out of them I liked without a prong collar.

*If you make a statement such as your dog must do this or else...I'm wondering about that "or else". *

Who says or else, I love fast recalls, I mean front knees hitting dogs chins fast, pickin em up and layin em down fast. Get the message. Now I can beat up a dog to get a recall or fry em with a collar to get a recall. Guess what, they are not going to come fast. But they will come. So I have to use positive motivation to con the dog into thinking I'm the very best thing since bubble gum. No or else involved just good training.

*It has also been proven in learning theory that "or else" has to be severe and perfectly timed to be effective. I don't know any dog trainer who's willing to test how severe a punishment should be and be effective. With all the abuses animals have suffered in the lab, I would think we know enough that punitive measures are difficult to simulate in the field, especially in the hands of a novice.*

I think when you constantly use the terms severe and punishment that it is misleading, it is not daily occurrence nor it may not even be a yearly occurrence that severe measures are used for training or maybe for the trainer to protect himself from a extremely rough dog. I don't even know how Lab animal abuse applies to dog training, that's a stretch I don't know how to even answer that. Do I care what the novice dog trainer does, there are some things in life I can change. What the novice dog trainer does I cannot. I only can make sure that I myself do not give any severe training tips to novice dog trainers.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> point was methods *proper* trainers use being objective are not doing harm to dogs.


And my point was, has been, will always be, that non-scientific methods or assumptions *do* do dogs harm. I've never witness a dog being surrendered at the shelter because his recall wasn't fast enough. I have witnessed dogs being surrendered because they were "stubborn". This too, like the pack model, is an assumption. And if you deny this to be true, well, you're disconnected with the problem. 



> No I wasn't training just got behavior out of them I liked without a prong collar.


You weren't training, but the animal did learn the behavior. This too can be explained with learning theory. 



> I think when you constantly use the terms severe and punishment that it is misleading, it is not daily occurrence nor it may not even be a yearly occurrence that severe measures are used for training or maybe for the trainer to protect himself from a extremely rough dog.


I defined these punishments as physical corrections or aversion. And no, I'm not being misleading in the empirical evidence that physical punishments or aversion must be severe to be effective. This isn't my conclusion. This is the conclusions of Skinner and Thorndike. I don't particularly feel qualified to argue with those two, do you?



> I don't even know how Lab animal abuse applies to dog training, that's a stretch I don't know how to even answer that. Do I care what the novice dog trainer does, there are some things in life I can change. What the novice dog trainer does I cannot. I only can make sure that I myself do not give any severe training tips to novice dog trainers.


This statement is a symptom of what you do as a *dog* trainer. How do you think the learning hypothesis became a theory? It certainly wasn't by inferences on the observation of wolves. Animals were abused to provide evidence to the laws of learning theory. And if this evidence does not suggest an applicable way to approach our dogs, please tell me what evidence is there to the pack hypothesis. Certainly I'm not turning to Millan for this evidence, am I?

However, dog trainers of today must do more than influence the dog. They must also influence owners, and give them a better education. I can prove learning theory by simply showing them how to teach the dog sit. I can't teach them how they must be "alpha" to influence how their dog learns sit. I'm a complete stranger in their home and new to their dog, yet, I can teach this dog sit. Why? Why waste words on a useless explanation. I know you don't waste your time with this, but some of us are trying to do more than influence dogs. The dog is the easy part after all.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

CP
*This is the conclusions of Skinner and Thorndike. I don't particularly feel qualified to argue with those two, do you?*

I'm not qualified to argue this stuff with you. You are rich with the scientific/theoretical studies, evaluation studies, behavior studies, books, articles, TV programs.(I did watch Cesar once) I can't even properly explain to my wife what I do. I just don't have the tools in my dog tool bag to handle life in CPs world. I do enjoy the banter back and forth though. 

*I know you don't waste your time with this, but some of us are trying to do more than influence dogs. The dog is the easy part after all.*

Oh I do explain training to the dog's owners, as I said before I'm on DVD with their dog showing and explaining what I do and why I do and how I do it. A week/month/year later they can view it again when dog might need a refresher course. But I view them as owners looking for peace and quiet from their dogs, I don't even classify them as novice dog trainers. See, (my opinion only) talking to a lot of owners through the years I have discovered one thing. It is a lot easier to talk to a wall. They pay me to train their dogs and with the movie making of their trained dogs and the on DVD instructions I don't have to talk to the walls anymore. Dogs are the easy part.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> I just don't have the tools in my dog tool bag to handle life in CPs world.


All you need is good logic and common sense.



> See, (my opinion only) talking to a lot of owners through the years I have discovered one thing. It is a lot easier to talk to a wall. They pay me to train their dogs and with the movie making of their trained dogs and the on DVD instructions I don't have to talk to the walls anymore. Dogs are the easy part.


And IMO the explanation doesn't have to be so complicated or trivial to be easily understood by the owner.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Chris_Texas
> *I don't think that it has ever left the forefront. I believe that it is a misunderstanding and misapplication of both that lead to confusion. Discipline, regardless of the form, does not preclude love, nurturing, or positive reinforcement; the two are not mutually exclusive. Nor does positive reinforcement preclude discipline.* WELL SAID.
> 
> You know what it also does not preclude, that even properly schooled dog trainers that do not have love affairs going on with whatever dogs they are working, would automatically disrespect or abuse the dogs they train. I devoutly believe positive/negative motivation training is the only way to train dogs. I also believe there is a lot of goody, goody two shoes brain washing being pushed about training methods. My opinion only.


Which is really why I waded back into this thread. I doesn't have any problem with "positive motivation only" training under any name -- train your dog however you like -- my problem is with the sanctimonious attitude of some of its proponents, an attitude that flies in the face of history, experience, and even observable nature. Somehow Rin Tin Tin and Lassey got trained, as did tens or hundreds of thousands of other dogs, many using some variation of mixed negative/positive reinforcement and (in many cases) pack theory. Twenty and thirty years ago Paul Lobe was teaching movie dogs using pack theory, and (apparently shockingly) the dogs were responding. 

In my mind I see the canine compassion card played much the way that the human compassion card is played in political debate, and it bothers me. "Do it for the children" has become something of a blank check to do anything at all, and the same thing applies here.

In short I refuse to surrender the moral, ethical, or even practical high ground.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

CP 
I'm on dialup a very antiquated system (in the Boonies)could not get into the movie. It would have taken me more years than I have left. I do have plans to either go Wi Fi or Satellite dish shortly and I will let you repeat when I am more modern.



Chris_Texas said:


> Which is really why I waded back into this thread. I doesn't have any problem with "positive motivation only" training under any name -- train your dog however you like -- my problem is with the sanctimonious attitude of some of its proponents, an attitude that flies in the face of history, experience, and even observable nature. Somehow Rin Tin Tin and Lassey got trained, as did tens or hundreds of thousands of other dogs, many using some variation of mixed negative/positive reinforcement and (in many cases) pack theory. Twenty and thirty years ago Paul Lobe was teaching movie dogs using pack theory, and (apparently shockingly) the dogs were responding.
> 
> In my mind I see the canine compassion card played much the way that the human compassion card is played in political debate, and it bothers me. "Do it for the children" has become something of a blank check to do anything at all, and the same thing applies here.
> 
> In short I refuse to surrender the moral, ethical, or even practical high ground.


Chris
I have said on many threads that I am 90% negative but will use positive where necessary. CP knows this but she is fighting the good fight. A trainer at a time. I would rather banter back and forth with her than dog-man. She has what I lack, Book Learning.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Chris_Texas said:


> In short I refuse to surrender the moral, ethical, or even practical high ground.


That's interesting since the pack model hasn't been established in any species of animal in the first place. And if you were going to assume there is some sort of hierarchy, appeasement is something that is offered by the subordinate, it is not something that is enforced by a superior to an inferior. So there's a moral/ethical/practical problem with your model in the first place.

Really what your trying to speak to is the use of aversives in training, and the only models available are those studied in learning theory. Reasoning the use of aversion *out of the blue*, would be an example of a non-contingent aversive. I have a problem with that, and everyone should. But what you seem to miss is that everything in the pack model can be explained with learning theory. It doesn't work the other way around, however.



Chris_Texas said:


> my problem is with the sanctimonious attitude of some of its proponents, an attitude that flies in the face of history, experience, and even observable nature.


Since you like history, experience, and the observable nature, I have this model to propose to you that explains my "sanctimonious attitude". 

I would like to propose a different way of looking at what our dog-human relationship is about. As it seems you’re taking my position to an assumed extreme. And I would like to propose to you that no animal is born looking for a leader. The idea that dogs are looking to control us I believe is better walked away from, and left behind with the wolf model. 

Let’s look at what’s true about animals, and what’s true about our dogs, and the fact that dogs are not like wolves in any way shape or form. It starts out when wolf puppies are weaned. At that time during their critical socialization period those puppies rehearse over and over again social, physical contact, for the purpose of initiating regurgitation by adult wolves. Also you need to understand that researchers have changed the dynamics in what they believe constitutes a wolf packs. Researchers have come to the conclusion that wolf packs are in fact family units. This means they consist of a breeding pair of adults and the progeny, until the progeny is old enough to disperse and form a pack of their own. So now the entire concept of a wolf pack has been changed because for the first time in recorded history we’ve been able to track wolves from birth to death. 

So let’s go back to our wolf puppies and understand that during the critical socialization period they are rehearsing physical contact for regurgitation. This is extremely important because these puppies *need* to be social with one another, they need to have this physical contact in order to harvest their environment. 

But now if we take ourselves to dogs, as scavengers, in villages, where they are not influenced by human beings... As soon as that puppy is weaned, regurgitation is *not* a trigger in a dog. There are exceptions, but I would challenge any breeder to depend upon a bitch regurgitating for the puppies’ survival. That’s simply not what dogs do. So as soon as puppies are weaned, the puppy is no longer looking for close, physical contact because the bitch is constantly saying _get away from me_. 

So what does the bitch become? She becomes an aid. We need to start looking at human beings as an aid, because that’s what dogs are looking for. That’s why dogs can become guarding dogs for sheep, because the sheep aid their behaviors. Why our dogs can be attached to cats, because cats can aid their behavior. And why our dogs can become attached to people, because we aid their behavior. And so if we look and stop expecting our puppies to be social, to stop expecting our dogs to let us touch them, taking it for granted that our dogs should let us be physical with them, to grab their feet, and grab their food away from them, we should understand that we aid their behavior. 

As aids we can teach them that good things come from us when the dog allows us to touch them. I will aid good things for you when you trade with me. I will aid good things for you when you pay attention to me. So it takes the idea of the wolf model, and it takes the idea of us to control a dog, and changes it to the fact that we need to be our dog’s guide, our dog’s manager, and our dog’s educator. We need to love our dogs for what they are, not what we assume them to be, or at least use a model that's better and accurately defines what our relationship should be with dogs.

What I hope to prove by this is that anyone can create a model to train dogs, and have it stem from what is observed in nature. That's all well and good, and if it helps someone's training, great. But what happens when it fails? The dog is blamed and he's the innocent one. Learning theory is flexible enough to include this dog in atraining program, and it keeps the blame where it belongs. With you.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> That's interesting since the pack model hasn't been established in any species of animal in the first place. And if you were going to assume there is some sort of hierarchy, appeasement is something that is offered by the subordinate, it is not something that is enforced by a superior to an inferior. So there's a moral/ethical/practical problem with your model in the first place.


Huh?

Many animals, including man, generally operate in packs. And in any pack appeasement and deference are absolutely offered from inferiors to superiors. 



> Really what your trying to speak to is the use of aversives in training, and the only models available are those studied in learning theory. Reasoning the use of aversion *out of the blue*, would be an example of a non-contingent aversive. I have a problem with that, and everyone should. But what you seem to miss is that everything in the pack model can be explained with learning theory. It doesn't work the other way around, however.


Perhaps because what you call learning theory is an attempt at an all encompassing universal theory. The "pack model" is not a learning theory so much as an effort to create an environment conducive to learning. While I am no expert, in my understanding it says: Dogs who are members of a pack or family tend to be healthier, calmer, and more responsive than the alternative, and it is your job as the owner / leader to proivide them with direction, discipline, and consistent leadership.

Everything beyond that, whether you backflip first through every door or even pre-chew their food for them, is secondary and pretty much irrelevant. 



> Since you like history, experience, and the observable nature, I have this model to propose to you that explains my "sanctimonious attitude".
> 
> I would like to propose a different way of looking at what our dog-human relationship is about. As it seems you’re taking my position to an assumed extreme. And I would like to propose to you that no animal is born looking for a leader. The idea that dogs are looking to control us I believe is better walked away from, and left behind with the wolf model.
> 
> ...



Interesting.

Since you took the time to write all that, I am going to take the time to carefully consider it.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

CP

*All you need is good logic and common sense.*

Whose logic and common sense, I think logic and common sense are shaped by your travels through life. Let us drop a block of wood into raging rapids 71 miles long (my age) as it travels down the rapids It is constantly hitting rocks sandy bottoms submerged stumps whatever. At the end of trip it's an entirely different block than when it started. We won't get into the discussion as to what kind of wood that's another thread. Much earlier in life I went through my Don Quixote years,(trying to talk to owners etc.) in my youth. I found out I was not going to conquer the then known world of dogs. I may be a bit presumptuous but I believe your a young lady, well educated, loves dogs and positive motivational training. If I am correct you are in your Don Quixote years and very early, in your down the rapids trip through life. It's your turn. 

*And IMO the explanation doesn't have to be so complicated or trivial to be easily understood by the owner. *

And IMO where I differ, I believe it's probably because I have dealt with many, many, many owners through the years and have found all kinds. Some good, some bad and all the variables in between. You can see how this might make us quite different in the dog/owner training relationships.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

* I would like to propose to you that no animal is born looking for a leader.* 

I could not disagree more. Even people -- with the theoretical ability to think and plan and anticipate the future consequences of actions -- crave leadership. Social animals, by definition, need a social structure, and Dogs are actually happiest when they have a stable human leader to guide them. Dogs are not made to lead us, they lack the proper skills to lead humans, and when they are forced or allowed into that position problems inevitably result.

*The idea that dogs are looking to control us I believe is better walked away from, and left behind with the wolf model. *

In my limited experience, the more aggressive breeds will tend fill any void you leave. In this they are like teenagers, many will exploit every weakness, and they will do so without even being consciously aware of it. And if they were aware, deep down I suspect they often wish those weaknesses weren't there. 


*Let’s look at what’s true about animals, and what’s true about our dogs, and the fact that dogs are not like wolves in any way shape or form.* 

You mean, outside being the same species and being able to interbreed, right? Saying Dogs and Wolves are not the same species is like saying Chinese people aren't human -- it's silly. 

And for the record, I owned and trained a 3/4 artic wolf GSD mix. It was a VERY odd dog, it was shockingly gentle, you could not force it to put it's mouth on you; it preferred to hunt it's own food -- usually lizards and mice and little critters; and when it did fight it did not stop the way normal dogs do, it was always trying to kill whatever it was fighting. 

It was a very special animal, but it was still a dog.

*It starts out when wolf puppies are weaned. At that time during their critical social period those puppies rehearse over and over again social, physical contact, for the purpose of initiating regurgitation by adult wolves. Also you need to understand that researches have changed the dynamics in what they believe about wolf packs. Researchers have come to the conclusion that wolf packs are in fact family units. This means they consist of a breeding pair of adults and the progeny, until the progeny is old enough to disperse and form a pack of their own. So now the entire concept of a wolf pack has been changed because for the first time in recorded history we’ve been able to track wolves from birth to death.

So let’s go back to our wolf puppies and understand that during the critical social period they are rehearsing physical contact for regurgitation. This is extremely important because these puppies *need* to be social with one another, they need to have this physical contact in order to harvest their environment.*

Interesting, but let me ask the obvious question: just because wild wolves do this behavior, what makes you think that they NEED this behavior? In fact, they don't need it at all, they do it because it works well in their natural environment. 

*...So what does the bitch become? She becomes a facilitator. We need to start looking at human beings as facilitators, because that’s what dogs are looking for. That’s why dogs can become guarding dogs for sheep, because the sheep facilitate them. Why our dogs can be attached to cats, because cats facilitate them. And why our dogs can become attached to people, because we facilitate them. And so if we look and stop expecting our puppies to be social, to stop expecting our dogs to let us touch them, taking it for granted that our dogs should let us be physical with them, to grab their feet, and grab their food away from them, we should understand that we are facilitators.

As facilitators we can teach them that good things come from us when you allow me to touch you. I will facilitate good things for you when you trade with me. I will facilitate good things for you when you pay attention to me. So it takes the idea of the wolf model, and it takes the idea of us to control a dog, and changes it to the fact that we need to be our dog’s guide, our dog’s manager, and our dog’s educator. We need to love our dogs for what they are, not what we assume them to be, or at least use a model that better and accurately defines what our relationship should be with dogs.*

It's interesting.... I see you above stating all the important things that a pack leader must be, the foundation of leadership, yet I know that you reject the concept of human leadership. And now, from your very clear canine animal rights statements I think I can see why that would be.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> Whose logic and common sense, I think logic and common sense are shaped by your travels through life.


 My experiences in life, although sometimes useful for others, are purely anecdotal. So the logic is simply that of the scientific community and the common sense is in applying it…nothing as arbitrary as he said she said. 



> Much earlier in life I went through my Don Quixote years,(trying to talk to owners etc.) in my youth. I found out I was not going to conquer the then known world of dogs. I may be a bit presumptuous but I believe your a young lady, well educated, loves dogs and positive motivational training. If I am correct you are in your Don Quixote years and very early, in your down the rapids trip through life. It's your turn.


 Yes, you presume too much. I’m neither a she nor a positive motivational trainer…I use all four corners of the quadrant like any well intentioned man would. I may be young and I may be well educated, but that’s all relative. 



> And IMO where I differ, I believe it's probably because I have dealt with many, many, many owners through the years and have found all kinds. Some good, some bad and all the variables in between. You can see how this might make us quite different in the dog/owner training relationships.


 I’ve been an avid athlete pretty much all my life. I was warming up for a 10K not long ago, and there was a gentleman about your age doing the same. He was wearing a t-shirt that I think defines my approach to life…the t-shirt read, _I’d rather wear out than rust out!_



Chris_Texas said:


> Even people -- with the theoretical ability to think and plan and anticipate the future consequences of actions -- crave leadership.


 There are examples even in this forum of people who don’t crave leadership but are leaders. You’re statement is an assumption, so was mine. You can’t negate a premise simply because you disagree. You can negate a premise, however, if there’s no empirical evidence as such. 



> Social animals, by definition, need a social structure, and Dogs are actually happiest when they have a stable human leader to guide them. Dogs are not made to lead us, they lack the proper skills to lead humans, and when they are forced or allowed into that position problems inevitably result.


 Again, this is assumed. Dogs are actually solitary animals, they are scavengers, and they are independent. The only time they need a social structure is to rear their young, otherwise, they spend more time on their survival. Not to mention how gene survival is dependent on the selfish nature of its vessel. 



> In my limited experience, the more aggressive breeds will tend fill any void you leave. In this they are like teenagers, many will exploit every weakness, and they will do so without even being consciously aware of it. And if they were aware, deep down I suspect they often wish those weaknesses weren't there.


 Are some dog’s more assertive than others?…absolutely. Does that change how they behave and learn?...no. The dog’s assertiveness may diminish your ability to teach this animal, and the results may not be as lasting, but this is not to suggest the animal needs a leader. It suggests the animal needs a better skilled handler, nothing more. Training is a mechanical skill. If I can change an aggressive animal where you can’t, that’s not saying I’m a better leader than you. It just means I employ learning theory better than you. 



> You mean, outside being the same species and being able to interbreed, right? Saying Dogs and Wolves are not the same species is like saying Chinese people aren't human -- it's silly.


 The argument that dogs are direct descendants of wolves has not yet concluded. And the best biological view that segregates the breeding of dogs from wolves is to look at what niche they fulfill. Because it’s against all the biological laws of nature that two animals occupy the same niche. And certainly you’re not going to say our dogs have the same niche as wolves. That would be, using your words, silly. 



> And for the record, I owned and trained a 3/4 artic wolf GSD mix. It was a VERY odd dog, it was shockingly gentle, you could not force it to put it's mouth on you; it preferred to hunt it's own food -- usually lizards and mice and little critters; and when it did fight it did not stop the way normal dogs do, it was always trying to kill whatever it was fighting.


 I’m not sure how this applies to your argument. You’ve got a hybrid…of course his behavior can’t be predetermined. 



> It was a very special animal, but it was still a dog.


 Not to the scientific community, but only by your definition, which is anecdotal. 



> Interesting, but let me ask the obvious question: just because wild wolves do this behavior, what makes you think that they NEED this behavior? In fact, they don't need it at all, they do it because it works well in their natural environment.


 I’m interesting in knowing why you believe they don’t need this behavior. Because any wolf pup that doesn’t get food from his parents is a dead wolf. He doesn’t have the ability to harvest the environment on his own. 



> It's interesting.... I see you above stating all the important things that a pack leader must be, the foundation of leadership, yet I know that you reject the concept of human leadership. And now, from your very clear canine animal rights statements I think I can see why that would be.


 I don’t know if I should be offended or insulted, so I’ll just ignore your attempt. I think the problem is you’re taking what we know (learning theory), and using it only in ways that fit your definition of “pack leader”. This is hardly useful if you know and understand learning theory. 

I came home yesterday and my dog cued me to pet her by sitting. How do I stop her from being the “pack leader”, and where will it end? She just might reassure me about a strange dog by sitting, looking at me and offering a paw raise. How do I keep her from doing this? She’s trying to take over my world!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

CP
*Yes, you presume too much. I’m neither a she nor a positive motivational trainer…I use all four corners of the quadrant like any well intentioned man would. I may be young and I may be well educated, but that’s all relative.*

Sorry, I saw 1st image on U-tube and thought it was you. I could not view anything else because of dial-up. I have never heard you mention using any negative motivation in your replies. But at least I got 2 out of 4 right. 

*I’ve been an avid athlete pretty much all my life. I was warming up for a 10K not long ago, and there was a gentleman about your age doing the same. He was wearing a t-shirt that I think defines my approach to life…the t-shirt read, I’d rather wear out than rust out!*

That's exactly what I'm talking about, The gentleman my age has the earned right (course anybody can) to wear a rust out t-shirt. My approach to life when I was very young was I was going to be a millionaire. Well that ship sailed and I wasn't on it. I guess the point is that the T-shirt gentleman and I have been where you are in life but you have yet to be where we are in life. Things do happen to change your approaches to everything in life.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> CP
> I have never heard you mention using any negative motivation in your replies.


That's because I use the science behind learning theory. You lay people (no offense intended) use the dictionary definition of terms. I use the scientific definitions. Negative punishment for example does not have to be scary, aversive, or physical to be effectively used...it just has to be effective. 



> That's exactly what I'm talking about, The gentleman my age has the earned right (course anybody can) to wear a rust out t-shirt.


No see, that's where you have it wrong. That gentleman wasn't rusting out, doing nothing about his life, he was wearing out his body by doing something he loves...running. I'm no different...I'd rather wear out "fighting the good fight" than give up.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

CP
I did understand the "wear out, not rust out shirt" Trust me, I hope I can work till I die(wear out) I enjoy what I do. Having a heart attack while working a 2 yr old cranky Rottweiler would be the way to go. 

*That's because I use the science behind learning theory. You lay people (no offense intended) use the dictionary definition of terms. I use the scientific definitions. Negative punishment for example does not have to be scary, aversive, or physical to be effectively used...it just has to be effective.*No offense taken on the lay people.

Just a query. Do you realize some of your replies get drawn out with all the scientific definitions when you answer calls for help. I don't believe I'm unique, on some of your answers my eyes start to glaze when I'm half way through the answer. By the time I get all the way through I forgot what the question was. I think there's a lot of us lay people out here. Dumb it down for us so we can enjoy your replies more. Loosen up a bit.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> Just a query. Do you realize some of your replies get drawn out with all the scientific definitions when you answer calls for help.


Actually no. What I've noticed is that many of the methods I *do* offer are opposite the old line of thinking. I don't get into the science until someone else questions my approach. Only then do I choose to offer the science. To some people it makes complete sense...while others need the logic behind it. You may have noticed I don't mind sharing the science. While others would rather rely on unproven constructs. Go figure.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Just a query. Do you realize some of your replies get drawn out with all the scientific definitions when you answer calls for help. I don't believe I'm unique, on some of your answers my eyes start to glaze when I'm half way through the answer. By the time I get all the way through I forgot what the question was. I think there's a lot of us lay people out here. Dumb it down for us so we can enjoy your replies more. Loosen up a bit.


I second this.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> By the time I get all the way through I forgot what the question was. I think there's a lot of us lay people out here. Dumb it down for us so we can enjoy your replies more. Loosen up a bit.


I completely missed this the first time. I'll try to dumb it down, but you'll also have to try and smarten up. I don't know that I need to slow down until you raise your hand.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> Just a query. Do you realize some of your replies get drawn out with all the scientific definitions when you answer calls for help. I don't believe I'm unique, on some of your answers my eyes start to glaze when I'm half way through the answer. By the time I get all the way through I forgot what the question was. I think there's a lot of us lay people out here. Dumb it down for us so we can enjoy your replies more.


I would consider myself a lay person, but I really enjoy Curbside Prophet's posts. I have very similar beliefs on dogs and training, but can't express them half as well as he can. I'd far rather educate myself then to have someone dumb things down for me.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

kuma
I enjoy his replies also otherwise I would not be posting back and forth with him. I have entered more posts on this one thread with CP than I have on all of the infamous dog-man threads. *I do not bother to post on something that has no interest to me and with somebody that I do not respect. *If there's any body could use more book learning it's me(or should that be I) see what I mean. That being said, my personal opinion is that shorter, and more to the immediate point would be more help to some. Trust me I do know a little bit about CPs replies, I think he's a Pitt Bull (compliment) I have only PM-ed 2 people on forum, both are people I respect or I would not deal with them at all. Not that anybody needs my stamp of approval. CP is young and I am trying to mold him a tad.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

I never said you didn't find his posts interesting, you obviously do. I just said I'd rather not see his posts dumbed down. And, I really don't think he needs to be molded.  Seems to be doing just fine on his own.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Kuma
Everybody occasionally could use some constructive criticism or as I put it molding. Now if everybody on the forum is exactly like you, definitely dumbing down would not be necessary at all. Actually it's not necessary now for anybody. It was a suggestion only. I've been training dogs for 45 years, I googled Thorndyke and Skinner yesterday, I had no idea who they were. I did know who Pavlov is, he's even older than me. I just thought this forum was where you put suggestions on dog training or just your thoughts to make things easier on people reading replies. Do you honestly think that CP is going to change his lifestyle on forums because of something I said, I doubt it.


----------



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> I would also watch to see if the dog growls other times and places to try to ascertain whether or not it is resource guarding or not.


At people? I've onlyt seen her growl at them when it wasn't in a fear situation twice, and one of them was a "Dude, leave me alone, you stupid little kid" thing. My cousin had been driving her up a wall all day, she wanted a break. 

She USED to gaurd her food from us, but just today I removed a very tasty peice of meat from her mouth without a growl. I had told her to leave it and she grabbed it anyway, so I had to take it away. Stupid dog, if she had left it I would have given it to her. 

In addition, if I tell her OFF, she gets off the bed, no qustions asked. From me, at least, there is no resource gaurding. Still, 

And as for telling CP to dumb down, I have no problems reading her posts. 

Dangit guys, you made me procrastinate on my project.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

katthevamp said:


> I have no problems reading *her* posts.





Curbside Prophet said:


> Yes, you presume too much. *I’m* *neither a she* nor a positive motivational trainer…


Oh yes you do!


----------



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Oh yes you do!


Gah, I think of you as a she, for some reason. I thought of Durbkat as a she, too, and teddy x Ruxpin as a dude.


----------

