# Didnt realise so many people believed in Alpha nonsense.



## mashlee08 (Feb 24, 2012)

So I have moved areas and become part of a face book group for the local dog park.

There are quite a few members who post, asking how do I get my puppy not to be the alpha over the older dogs and blah blah blah she needs to know she is at the bottom.

I REALLY did not realize how many people bought into that BS.

Sigh.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

I know eh? I cant talk to anyone here without hearing about dominance theories and alpha this submissive that... not to mention the people that fawn over a certain celebrity dog trainer


----------



## mashlee08 (Feb 24, 2012)

Oh my goodness I just got a reply from someone I gave advice too. Told me I was stupid for telling them that the older dog won't correct a 12 week old puppy. And why would I give such dangerous advice. Argh!


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

Well, I got called stupid the other day by someone telling me I needed to let my dog sniff the other dog he was reacting to. long story, but his issues aren't normal issues and the polite bum sniff isn't going to work with him... she called me stupid, cuz she knows that it always works!


----------



## mashlee08 (Feb 24, 2012)

Sometimes I just want to crawl into a whole with my dog and stay there lol...


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

ha ha ha. too true!


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

I don't know what works with other dogs and if your dog will kill you in your sleep if you let it out the door before you, but as for Carmen, she is a sweetie pie and adores our family. We dote on her and she dotes on us. She'd follow us over hot coals just for a tummy rub. She doesn't try to boss me just because I feed her first or let her out the door first. Neither of us "dominates" the other--I'm not really even sure what that means. My dog is nice to me and I'm nice to her. If she jumps up on the couch we make room for her. If we don't want her on the couch we tell her to get off (hardly ever) and she does. I guess if you have a problem dog then maybe you need the alpha stuff but my dog likes me.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

Far too many people are willing to fight tooth and nail over something they heard on TV or the first thing they read on the internet.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

*read sarcasm here* I didnt realize so many people bought into the anti-alpha, postive only BS. 

its called an opinion, people having an opinion different from yours doesnt make it BS.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

mashlee08 said:


> Oh my goodness I just got a reply from someone I gave advice too. Told me I was stupid for telling them that the older dog won't correct a 12 week old puppy. And why would I give such dangerous advice. Argh!


An appropriate older dog won't seriously correct a 12 week old puppy. But there are an awful lot of inappropriate dogs out there. It's not something I would depend on. Tell me there aren't really 12 week old puppies at your dog park?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

IF three dogs are in a room and you put three bones in the center of the room and one dog takes control of all three bones, what do you call that? 

If your dog takes orders, follows instructions, and commands given by you, what do you call that?


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Miss Bugs said:


> *read sarcasm here* I didnt realize so many people bought into the anti-alpha, postive only BS.
> 
> its called an opinion, people having an opinion different from yours doesnt make it BS.


It does is the BS in question is antiscientific nonsense repudiated by numerous studies.

In other words, you can have the opinion that the sky is green, but it's not. It's blue.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> IF three dogs are in a room and you put three bones in the center of the room and one dog takes control of all three bones, what do you call that?


I call that Kabota. Well, to be fair, Muggsy would have done that, too, after killing the other two dogs. Which is why he was never in a room with any other dogs. What's your point?



JohnnyBandit said:


> If your dog takes orders, follows instructions, and commands given by you, what do you call that?


I call that a well trained dog. Dominance ain't in it.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> IF three dogs are in a room and you put three bones in the center of the room and one dog takes control of all three bones, what do you call that?


How do you know if the other two dogs are "submitting" to the will of the first? What if they just don't like bones as much, aren't hungry, don't enjoy chewing etc.? Did the dog who got the bones just get to them first? Is he actively defending them? What if after he is done chewing on them one of the other dogs takes over "control" of all three?



JohnnyBandit said:


> If your dog takes orders, follows instructions, and commands given by you, what do you call that?


What do you call it when your dog whines/scratches at the door to be let out and you take him out?


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

> IF three dogs are in a room and you put three bones in the center of the room and one dog takes control of all three bones, what do you call that?


Carmie would take the bones and run away hoping the other two would chase her, but only if they have shown an interest in the bones first. She loves to play.

She does what I say, mostly, b/c she thinks I am the bringer of good things, food, treats, toys, affection. She thinks it rains food when I'm around. She gives me her paw when I ask b/c she has received treats for that in the past. She has been trained and learned to associate good behaviors with rewards and is now accustomed to behave a certain way. It's not submission at all. She associates me and my "commands" as a good thing and a rewarding experience.


----------



## workerant (Feb 28, 2011)

My dog's unofficial office nickname is Alpha Dog. My dog comes with me some days to my part time job. She's thoroughly trained and has excellent manners. A yutz I used to work with had an utter meltdown (IN THE OFFICE!) that I didn't believe in alpha dogs and being dominant over my dog. One of my officemates witnessed the whole thing and started calling my pup Alpha Dog.

It's especially wonderful when we call her, "Come here, Alpha Dog!" and she comes over with her ears back and tail wagging. She's real tough - a natural born killer... of cookies.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> How do you know if the other two dogs are "submitting" to the will of the first? What if they just don't like bones as much, aren't hungry, don't enjoy chewing etc.?


Yes and 2 of the dogs might be waiting for a bus.



> If your dog takes orders, follows instructions, and commands given by you, what do you call that?





> What do you call it when your dog whines/scratches at the door to be let out and you take him out?


Both of the above denote very well trained dogs. I suppose we have to label it or something but I surely am not gonna touch it.


----------



## melundie (Aug 2, 2011)

This one is though and I'm hesitant to even write this. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the breeder who we got Ace from subscribes to the "dominance" theory and all that it entails..."alpha rolls" when the need arises and all. Her dogs absolutely revere her and from my limited experience would do anything she asked them to. Her dogs are extremely well trained and well behaved. She has 14 intact dogs, all of which she shares a relationship with that I have yet to see _anywhere _else. She did not physically restrain or discipline a single dog while we were there. With that said, not a single one shied away or flinched when she moved, they just obeyed her. They also constantly wanted to be around her. When she said "come" they came. When she said "go outside" they went. Without a second of hesitation.

Again, I'm not saying I agree, but it's really hard to completely dispute when I saw how beautifully and harmoniously they all live together.

On the flip side, despite the fact that dogs share many biological traits with wolves, they've been domesticated for 15,000 years. I have a hard time convincing myself that either of my dogs think that I'm a dog. I also don't think I need to eat first to walk in front of them on leash at all times...but then again, my dogs are not as well behaved as hers.

Just a thought.


----------



## workerant (Feb 28, 2011)

melundie said:


> Again, I'm not saying I agree, but it's really hard to completely dispute when I saw how beautifully and harmoniously they all live together.


I suspect it's a lot like kids. Some kids need a firm hand, some thrive with lots of independence. You don't have to buy the entire hierarchy model of canine social structure to be firm with your dog.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Call it whatever you want, but a dog the regularly controls resources is above the other dogs in hierarchy. 


And yes a dog that obeys commands is trained. He obviously understands what you want when you give a command. But what motivates him to obey? 

Commands always roll downhill. At work, in family, society, in animals. They never go up hill and equals do not command each other. 
The dog whining at the door is not a valid comparison. The dog is not commanding you to get up and let it out. You have a choice. You can sit there and ignore the dog. But hopefully everyone is intelligent enough to realize if they don't let their dog out, the dog is going to pee on their floor. 

But when you tell a dog to sit. You are not ASKING it to sit. You EXPECT it to sit. IF the dog chooses not to sit do you say to yourself, oh well, and walk away? ( probably a lot of folks do that) But if the dog refuses and knows the command it was given, most people are going to work on that. But either through reward and repetition, or whatever method a person choose use. The goal is to have a dog obey. And if it obeying you even when it does not want to ( Example - you put the dog in a stay in front of two dogs running and playing) then you have control and are socially higher than the dog. If you were not, the dog would blow you off and run out and play with the other dogs. And why are you dominant at the end of the day.... Because YOU control the resources. That is exactly why NILIF works so well. 
That is the same reason you listen to your boss... He or She controls the check book. 


Now.... I DO think folks get way way too wrapped up in Alpha, Dominance, etc.... When I hear someone talking about it, I roll my eyes....... They caught the Cesar Fever..... I NEVER talk about dominance or Alpha when I am training people. We didn't talk about it 35 years ago. But we knew it was there. But just because people go overboard with it, does not meant it does not exist. 

And just because there are "experts" that have discounted it exists in canines..... Does not make it so. For every "expert" that says it does not exist, there is an "expert" that says it does.

It is there.... Not just in dogs, but people, all higher animals. The only question is.... How big a part does it play in a given animals life. You don't have to be an "expert" to see it. It is there right in front of you. If there are five doe deer in a field and in season, and three bucks walk into the field, one buck is going to run the other two off and breed the does. Pick any animal and you do not have to look far to find some social aspect of that species in which dominance does not play a roll. 

Now someone is going to say but dogs and deer are VERY different. Yes they are.... But if you see a stray dog in heat in a vacant lot and three male dogs come into that lot... One is going to run the other two off and breed the female. I have a feral cat feeding station outside my office window. Every day, when the lady comes and dumps the food, all the cats rush in to feed. But there is this big biscuit headed Tom that takes his sweet time. When he gets there, all the other cats back off the food and stand clear. He eats his fill and they wait, sometimes he lays down by the food and rests before eating more. They all wait. Whenever he decides to move off the rest of the cats feed. Is that cat not dominant?


----------



## tirluc (Aug 29, 2006)

what do you call it when younger dog walks up and "looks" at the older dog when the are laying somewhere or have something younger dog wants and older dog gets up and walks away....Kilt does this to Saoirse all the time.....

and i very seldom go out the door 1st and when walking 5 dogs there is no room to walk beside them and i want them where i can see them (in front)....who has control? me, cuz i say _*when*_ they go out the door and i say _*when*_ to stop, walk, turn, etc......and they all listen....not so much well trained as knowing who's in charge....alpha? i don't think so, but i wasn't _alpha_ to my kids, either....

people ask me all the time which of my dogs is the alpha.....i tell them it depends on the circumstance....e.g. we do a "gate run" at the dog club (or out the door of the building when inside)...when they're at the gate/door and we're not doing a "run" i have to remove Titch to get all the other dogs to stop the excitement; once out the door when we do a "run", if TirCeo don't run, nobody runs more then about 20 ft (long enuff for them to realize Tir ain't there); and if Saoirse don't go out the door b/4 TirCeo? TirCeo don't run.....so, who leads the "run"? who's the alpha in the pack? and when it comes time for bones? anyone of them can walk up to another and look hard enuff and the other will walk away and go to a different bone.....or not, as they choose.....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

How do dogs "control resources" for other dogs? Is a dog that's cranky and possessive really dominant, or do the other dogs just kind of roll their eyes (so to speak) and give that dog whatever she wants in order to avoid a fight?


----------



## denise3099 (Apr 3, 2012)

> Call it whatever you want, but a dog the regularly controls resources is above the other dogs in hierarchy.


I only have one dog. Most domesticated dogs are not asserting dominance for resources. I suppose dominance may be more of a factor when resources are scarce but then pack are smaller or not at all in those dire circumstances.

As far as me controling the resuorces, there may be a fine line between my dog doing what I ask b/c she has associated me with great things, like food, or my dog doing what I ask out of fear that she won't get the food or even reverence for the bringer of food. I just don't think dogs are that smart. I think they learn to associate you with great things and think the sun sets on you. Carmen does not think for a minute that she _won't_ get treats if she doesn't obey. But she does think that she _might_ get treats if she _does_ obey so she's now in the habit of giving me her paw when I ask. She sees me come trhough the door and it's all butt wagging happiness for my "resources" not tentative observation of whether I'm going to start passing out treats or not.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I've said it before never heard any of this dominance/alpha stuff in old school trainer talk and DF was 1st dog forum I joined and it was my very first adventure into dominance/alpha word training.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> IF three dogs are in a room and you put three bones in the center of the room and one dog takes control of all three bones, what do you call that? ?



Resource guarding (and often the worst offenders are dogs very lacking in skills and confidence)



JohnnyBandit said:


> If your dog takes orders, follows instructions, and commands given by you, what do you call that?


Trained.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> But if you see a stray dog in heat in a vacant lot and three male dogs come into that lot... One is going to run the other two off and breed the female. I


Orrrr, the litter ends up with three different papas (not uncommon at all)


----------



## chubby (Aug 18, 2011)

I think we should all leave it to the academias to hash this one out


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> How do dogs "control resources" for other dogs? Is a dog that's cranky and possessive really dominant, or do the other dogs just kind of roll their eyes (so to speak) and give that dog whatever she wants in order to avoid a fight?


In your scenario...... Yes the Crankly dog is dominant. Avoidance is submission.....


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Orrrr, the litter ends up with three different papas (not uncommon at all)


Well I do not think I want a pup because mom's moral values are suspect. (kinda trampy)


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Orrrr, the litter ends up with three different papas (not uncommon at all)


Quite possible.... But pappa two and three will wait until Pappa one leaves. When puppy litters end up with multiple sires, it happens often over days. They are not standing in line to take turns.



wvasko said:


> Well I do not think I want a pup because mom's moral values are suspect. (kinda trampy)


Very trampy...... Lie down with dogs and wake up with fleas...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> In your scenario...... Yes the Crankly dog is dominant. Avoidance is submission.....


But, once she's not looking (I'm thinking of Shug ), all the other dogs will go behind her back and chew on her toys and pee on her spots and eat her food, and it seems like they hold her in contempt to some extent. Humans expect their dogs not to do these things when nobody's looking.

I dunno. I guess I don't think the way the dogs interact with each other is useful for how I interact with them.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Quite possible.... But pappa two and three will wait until Pappa one leaves. When puppy litters end up with multiple sires, it happens often over days. They are not standing in line to take turns.
> ..


I've seen them do so - in the neighborhood.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

I have too, actually. I used to rescue on reserves, and would often see a female in heat with multiple males around her taking turns...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Deaf Dogs said:


> I have too, actually. I used to rescue on reserves, and would often see a female in heat with multiple males around her taking turns...


I've seen cats doing that, but they're quick. I would think that dogs being tied for so long, the other males would get bored and wander off. . .


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

melundie said:


> This one is though and I'm hesitant to even write this. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the breeder who we got Ace from subscribes to the "dominance" theory and all that it entails..."alpha rolls" when the need arises and all. Her dogs absolutely revere her and from my limited experience would do anything she asked them to. Her dogs are extremely well trained and well behaved. She has 14 intact dogs, all of which she shares a relationship with that I have yet to see _anywhere _else. She did not physically restrain or discipline a single dog while we were there. With that said, not a single one shied away or flinched when she moved, they just obeyed her. They also constantly wanted to be around her. When she said "come" they came. When she said "go outside" they went. Without a second of hesitation.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying I agree, but it's really hard to completely dispute when I saw how beautifully and harmoniously they all live together.
> 
> ...


thats how i trained Izze (sans alpha rolling) i was not a big treater... still am not really unless i am teaching a special case, like Buddy or a youngster. i use more praise then anything else... mind you i am not training for competition in anything nor am i asking my dogs to do things that would be consider outlandish by dogs & require the reward to be fitting for the deed (in the dog's mind) but i dont ask 'outlandish' things from my dogs LOL... i really dont ask much of them but what i do i expect to be obeyed (after they are taught mind you)


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Deaf Dogs said:


> I have too, actually. I used to rescue on reserves, and would often see a female in heat with multiple males around her taking turns...


 Must not have been very dominant males 

I do believe dominant dogs exist. Yet dynamics are always changing. For instance, in my dogs, the old male eats when he wants, lies where he wants, moves the others, or corrects the dogs as he sees fit. Then normally the others fall sort of numbered on down. I have brought in others that challenge some, replace positions, etc. Every once in awhile a fight may break out, usually the lesser dog backs down.

Usually dogs that live together have a structure, dogs just meeting go through all sorts of positions. It's not as simple as a stance or one rolling over. One dog may display lots of dominant or submissive actions, and then there is fear, insecurity, aggression, many number of things play a part.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> IF three dogs are in a room and you put three bones in the center of the room and one dog takes control of all three bones, what do you call that?


I would call that person an idiot if he instagated that type of behavior !


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Roloni said:


> I would call that person an idiot if he instagated that type of behavior !


IT was theoretical..... But every night I watch one dog pull all the toys out of the toy bin, just to have another dog take them and stack them up.

Explain this.....

Two dogs meet.... One dog immediately goes on its back and gives its underside to the other dog.....


----------



## zeronightfarm (Jun 15, 2011)

I'll probably get tomatoed for this but oh well.

I believe that dogs live in a "pack state of mind" (that sounded like CM, no beter words are comming to mind.) I believe that there is a domanant dog and the followers. I also believe dogs don't look to humans for dominance, we are not dogs, they know we aren't dogs. Just like a horse isn't going to go live with cattle, and treat them like horses. Yes they are herd animals, they live to live in a "herd" but they know that cows are not horses, and they never will treat them as such.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Explain this.....
> 
> Two dogs meet.... One dog immediately goes on its back and gives its underside to the other dog.....


Hattie does that sometimes... but will also snarl and growl at every other dog and person when she's eating and they come too close to her bowl. She will claim a crate or bed for the night. She likes to pull on the leash and *gasp* walk ahead of me.

Is she "dominant"? I dont think so.... I think she's sort of like the weird kid that had a crappy upbringing and doesn't have good social skills.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Rescued said:


> Hattie does that sometimes... but will also snarl and growl at every other dog and person when she's eating and they come too close to her bowl. She will claim a crate or bed for the night. She likes to pull on the leash and *gasp* walk ahead of me.
> 
> Is she "dominant"? I dont think so.... I think she's sort of like the weird kid that had a crappy upbringing and doesn't have good social skills.


I am not saying that social heirarchies rule every facet of dog behavior. All I am saying is tht they exist...


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Rescued said:


> Hattie does that sometimes... but will also snarl and growl at every other dog and person when she's eating and they come too close to her bowl. She will claim a crate or bed for the night. She likes to pull on the leash and *gasp* walk ahead of me.
> 
> Is she "dominant"? I dont think so.... I think she's sort of like the weird kid that had a crappy upbringing and doesn't have good social skills.



Im sorry that your dog behaves like this..


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I don't routinely make my dogs wait at the door while I walk out first. I am not neurotic..... But I can if I want to....


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Rescued said:


> Hattie does that sometimes... but will also snarl and growl at every other dog and person when she's eating and they come too close to her bowl. She will claim a crate or bed for the night. She likes to pull on the leash and *gasp* walk ahead of me.
> 
> Is she "dominant"? I dont think so.... I think she's sort of like the weird kid that had a crappy upbringing and doesn't have good social skills.


Your dog really needs help...Have you read the sticky posts?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Must not have been very dominant males
> 
> I do believe dominant dogs exist. Yet dynamics are always changing. For instance, in my dogs, the old male eats when he wants, lies where he wants, moves the others, or corrects the dogs as he sees fit. Then normally the others fall sort of numbered on down. I have brought in others that challenge some, replace positions, etc. Every once in awhile a fight may break out, usually the lesser dog backs down.
> 
> Usually dogs that live together have a structure, dogs just meeting go through all sorts of positions. It's not as simple as a stance or one rolling over. One dog may display lots of dominant or submissive actions, and then there is fear, insecurity, aggression, many number of things play a part.


I agree that dogs who live together tend to have a hierarchy, though it is frequently in flux. I just think that posturing like dogs is a rather silly model for humans to follow.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I agree that dogs who live together tend to have a hierarchy, though it is frequently in flux. I just think that posturing like dogs is a rather silly model for humans to follow.


That is all I am saying.... Dogs have a heirarchy.... Some are dominant and some are submissive....

I do believe it plays a role in dogs obeying your commands.... But all that alpha rolling,etc is crap....

I met a guy once that would bite his dogs on the neck and ear.... Loony toons.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> IT was theoretical..... But every night I watch one dog pull all the toys out of the toy bin, just to have another dog take them and stack them up.
> 
> Explain this.....
> 
> Two dogs meet.... One dog immediately goes on its back and gives its underside to the other dog.....


That would be Alice. But I would not consider her submissive, as she is very manipulative and uses it to get what she wants. I believe she is what Patricia McConnell calls "aggressively obsequious"


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> That is all I am saying.... Dogs have a heirarchy.... Some are dominant and some are submissive....
> 
> I do believe it plays a role in dogs obeying your commands.... But all that alpha rolling,etc is crap....
> 
> .


I agree 100%..............


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I also believe that some owner/dog relationships are much more casual than others. 
I think the higher the drive dog, less affable, less biddable, the dog the more heirarchies MAY come into play. That is a bit of THEORY on my part. 

But keep in mind, I come from 30 years of looking at the litter and seeing the MOST OFF THE WALL, PICKING ON ITS LITTER MATES, NOT BIDDABLE BREEDS, and saying.... That is the ONE I want.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

mashlee08 said:


> Oh my goodness I just got a reply from someone I gave advice too. Told me I was stupid for telling them that the older dog won't correct a 12 week old puppy. And why would I give such dangerous advice. Argh!


And to comment on this.... IMO that is NOT good advice... Having been around dogs and puppies for all of my nearly 45 years, an adult dog most certainly will correct an over enthusiastic puppy. As PawzK9 mentoned it should not be a serious correction... But depending on the dog it can be HARSH. Young puppies should only be around VERY Reliable dogs and with supervision. An Adult dog can hurt a puppy in a flash.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

@ rescued i feel you, i have a little girl like this & i love her, but she is very stressful when it comes to other dogs sometimes, ppl she is great with, but having to watch her with other dogs is a full time job LOL.

just today all the dogs were playing fetch (well a few two... Buddy & Yumi were just laying down & watching, Buddy ran with the other dogs for a bit, but hes an older guy who tires easily) she got a tad overzealous & bit Bear, my folks JRT, making him yelp. since she is consiterably larger then Bear, 'ouching' other dogs is a no no & warrants a loss in play privlages for the rest of the duration of the play session (Bear is 12, so its never long LOL).

those instances are getting fewer & fewer but every once & a while she forgets LOL.


----------



## mashlee08 (Feb 24, 2012)

Oh wow, wasn't expecting that many replies to come to this morning! 
I do believe that a "pack" hierarchy exists, that's for sure. But when people believe so strongly in something just because they have seen it from a certain someone on tv rather than going out and doing research of their own bothers me. Fine they can have an opinion if they have looked into it themselves and looked into other methods and found whats best for them. And also for someone to think that a 12 week old puppy is trying to get one up over all the other dogs is ridiculous. (that's what this person believes) 

Social structure in a multi dog situation is about as far as I will take any of that stuff. I feel like people forget that dogs have personalities some are outgoing, some are couch potatoes and that they aren't robots who will conform to the "pack" structure because that's "how it is". My dog just doesn't care to argue and that's her. If people choose to see that as submissive then fine. I certainly wont look into her eyes or alpha roll her, ever. 



JohnnyBandit said:


> And to comment on this.... IMO that is NOT good advice... Having been around dogs and puppies for all of my nearly 45 years, an adult dog most certainly will correct an over enthusiastic puppy. As PawzK9 mentoned it should not be a serious correction... But depending on the dog it can be HARSH. Young puppies should only be around VERY Reliable dogs and with supervision. An Adult dog can hurt a puppy in a flash.


Ah i didn't word that properly, that does sound stupid. I believe my exact words were "As the puppy is only 12 weeks old, you wont find your other dogs correcting the younger dog seriously until it gets older" I don't know if that's right either im not an expert it is probably as you said JB the older dogs arent reliable enough, but ill take that over the puppy is trying to be alpha anyday. I could have given a better answer, but when you go on a big spiel on a fb page you seem like a bit of a nut job. :S


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And to comment on this.... IMO that is NOT good advice... Having been around dogs and puppies for all of my nearly 45 years, an adult dog most certainly will correct an over enthusiastic puppy. As PawzK9 mentoned it should not be a serious correction... But depending on the dog it can be HARSH. Young puppies should only be around VERY Reliable dogs and with supervision. An Adult dog can hurt a puppy in a flash.


 Ahh, one of my ten week old pups had to have surgery twice on her face from an adult.correcting her :/

High drive, reactive dogs. The pups are also high drive, and dont take corrections appropriately. So the normal growls and snaps didn't work. 

That said, normally corrections are mild from adult dogs, and normally the pups learn to listen. Even this instance was much milder than it would have been for an older dog/pup.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Roloni said:


> Your dog really needs help...Have you read the sticky posts?


Okay I just read what I wrote and I definitely overdid it. She's not at all a bad dog- and keep in mind she was rescued from a high kill shelter, heartworm positive, had given birth in the shelter and all pups died by two weeks, and we've only had her since april. She's come a long way.

I exaggerated, a lot. Should've re-read what I typed. She growls at our other dogs when eating but she was STARVED when we got her, so I dont blame her. I don't have any reason to take away her food but if I needed to it wouldn't be a problem.

She does like to claim a crate or bed, but seeing as she's very social and had previously been chained up outside, I don't blame her. Again, if I need to pick her up and move her its not a problem.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Roloni said:


> Im sorry that your dog behaves like this..


Don't be sorry! We're working on it, and shes improving a ton. I'm glad I rescued her.... she was due to get the needle the next day, and I can't imagine our house without her. Knowing where she came from, I think she's turned out awesome so far.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Hierarchies are a construct. That means they are whatever you want them to be. From culture, from what you've likely been fed from birth, you have some sort of projection of what it is, or should be. In our culture it's pretty much accepted as true without proof. 

Nevertheless... It has no use whatsoever. You either want more behavior or less. In either case, there are ways to get to 'it' without useless constructs. My apology to the lycanthropes out there.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> IF three dogs are in a room and you put three bones in the center of the room and one dog takes control of all three bones, what do you call that?
> 
> *A fight*
> 
> ...


Answers in bold.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Rescued said:


> Don't be sorry! We're working on it, and shes improving a ton. I'm glad I rescued her.... she was due to get the needle the next day, and I can't imagine our house without her. Knowing where she came from, I think she's turned out awesome so far.


Same here, Josefina makes life here very lively lol


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I think the higher the drive dog, less affable, less biddable, the dog the more heirarchies MAY come into play. That is a bit of THEORY on my part.


I'm gonna jump on that with you.

Yes as Julie says sometimes accidents just happen, guess that's why they are called accidents. All it takes is a misguided snarl and snap and you have a one-eyed pup, am I exaggerating, a bit but stuff happens.

I shudder sometimes with some of the stories owners have on DF, they do silly dangerous stuff that just makes no sense. If you give them a heads up they think your picking on them.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

sometimes its hard to get a sensitive point across on an internet forum since in text (no matter how well we word it) there is no true emotion, punctuation, or facial expressions to clue the reader in on what the true meaning behind it is, so understandably, mistakes are made in inturpration (spelling???)


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

I think when people think "alpha" they think of all the abuse owners do to their dogs to get them to listen. And in some alpha cases, it's not abuse at all. It's just you want your dog to listen to you. In my opinion, owners are above their dogs because their dogs listen to them. If you weren't above them (or the alpha) then they'll ignore you. Luke will listen to my father on every command. My mother? Not so much. Me? Sometimes. And I know it's because he thinks he's over us and I have to work on him better and work on myself. 

That being said, I just want to point out (since I know some will get firey or shoot back at my response) that I do not agree with hitting, slapping, biting, or any other abusive trait to get your dog to listen. It's inhumane to do that. I believe in positive training and training with rewards/praise. Dogs obey you because you're the leader. 

Did I get this info from CM? No, I didn't. My father had an Irish Setter, loved him and never abused him, but he was the boss. I got my info from another trainer on tv and in a book she wrote. I know I'm going to get criticism for what I said (and I don't believe it's BS as some of it is true). If you go back to page one to see what melundie and Johnny Bandit said, I agree with that completely. That is all I'm trying to say and I will not check back. I said my piece and that's it.


----------



## Jenness (May 7, 2012)

Wow, very interesting discussion. This is the kind of stuff that really interests me about dogs. They are not human and we are not dogs, yet we have this strong will and ability to live together, and it can truly be a beautiful thing. Bella has been the first dog I am raising on my own and it has been a learn-as-you-go experience. I researched a lot on the internet, and there is a TON of both useful and just plain crazy advice out there.

When it comes to the Alpha/dominance theory, I think that is really people trying to treat their dogs as if they were a dog themselves. I think it can work for some very experienced and confident trainers, who really understand how to be a dog. However, we aren't dogs, and and it's not easy to be something that you are not...

From what I have learned with Bella is that dogs just need structure. That doesn't mean you have to dominate you dog. You just have to give them rules and a routine. They thrive off of this and they choose to follow you and respect you.

Are there dominant and submissive dogs? Yes absolutely! Just go to a park and observe for an hour or so. However, just because you go to a park and your dog is the most dominant dog there, it doesn't mean that you need to be "extra dominant" in your relationship with your dog. If you truly have a good structured relationship with your dog, he will respect that you house him, feed him, walk him, love him, and he should be putty in your hands no matter how "dominant" he is....

Dog's relationships with people are different than their relationships with other dogs. That is why you have some dogs that are dog aggressive yet LOVE people. That is proof right there...

On the subject of the internet. There is a lot of nonsense out there, but there is also a lot of information that is helpful to the new owner. You just have to go into it with the thought that it is the internet and not everything is fact. Always check your sources. Most of what I know now is from observation...


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Hierarchies are a construct. That means they are whatever you want them to be. From culture, from what you've likely been fed from birth, you have some sort of projection of what it is, or should be. In our culture it's pretty much accepted as true without proof.
> 
> Nevertheless... It has no use whatsoever. You either want more behavior or less. In either case, there are ways to get to 'it' without useless constructs. My apology to the lycanthropes out there.


I don't explain to the pups about pack leaders, structure, or any role they are expected to play. The adult dogs do that. When adult dogs come here, they work it out, without my help unless something gets out of hand.

I don't use many corrections, little punishment, don't make them wait to eat, or go out the door after me UNLESS they.begin to be rude, then they wait. It's called manners, they have to learn, and there are rules, otherwise it would be impossible to live with 8 malinois. 

Call it what you will, dominant, submissive, order, etc, some dogs are just pushy, and have no issues asserting themselves.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Jenness said:


> Wow, very interesting discussion. This is the kind of stuff that really interests me about dogs. They are not human and we are not dogs, yet we have this strong will and ability to live together, and it can truly be a beautiful thing. Bella has been the first dog I am raising on my own and it has been a learn-as-you-go experience. I researched a lot on the internet, and there is a TON of both useful and just plain crazy advice out there.
> 
> When it comes to the Alpha/dominance theory, I think that is really people trying to treat their dogs as if they were a dog themselves. I think it can work for some very experienced and confident trainers, who really understand how to be a dog. However, we aren't dogs, and and it's not easy to be something that you are not...
> 
> ...


 So agree with this post.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Hierarchies are a construct. That means they are whatever you want them to be. From culture, from what you've likely been fed from birth, you have some sort of projection of what it is, or should be. In our culture it's pretty much accepted as true without proof.
> 
> Nevertheless... It has no use whatsoever. You either want more behavior or less. In either case, there are ways to get to 'it' without useless constructs. My apology to the lycanthropes out there.


This is basically how I feel about it. My dog listens to me, not because she acknowledges my dominance, but because she has learned through training that doing what I ask results in the most positive outcome. I can't remember who it was, but I had an epiphany a while back with regards to training from something someone here on the forum. The gist of the statement was that the beauty of training is teaching your dog that choosing to do what your owner wants, as opposed to behaving impulsively, can still get them what they want. When I train these days, that's exactly what my goal is to communicate. Maybe she could choose to steal a cookie, but if she sit/stays for me, she'll get two. If she doesn't obey, well I just haven't made it sufficiently rewarding to her yet. It's got nothing to do with dominance.

And while I of course understand that dominance/submissiveness is an important everyday part of behavior between dogs, I also think that it's much more contextual than is understood by the general public, and that is where I take issue. There are dogs that _tend to_ interacts submissively with other dogs, but with the right dog and situation they can no longer be the case. And a dog that tends to express their dominance over other dogs will, if they have good social skills, give in sometimes too. What the average person understands of dominance is not useful at all. And it makes people tend towards explaining every behavior their dog does as a dominance related problem, and this often ignores important underlying issues.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

juliemule said:


> Call it what you will, dominant, submissive, order, etc, some dogs are just pushy, and have no issues asserting themselves.


Yes. My belief is that these dogs are just like every other dog, and much like ourselves...they have preferences. Nothing mysterious about that or controversial. Perhaps as useless, but I do prefer the KISS protocol anyway.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Jenness said:


> Wow, very interesting discussion. This is the kind of stuff that really interests me about dogs. They are not human and we are not dogs, yet we have this strong will and ability to live together, and it can truly be a beautiful thing. Bella has been the first dog I am raising on my own and it has been a learn-as-you-go experience. I researched a lot on the internet, and there is a TON of both useful and just plain crazy advice out there.
> 
> When it comes to the Alpha/dominance theory, I think that is really people trying to treat their dogs as if they were a dog themselves. I think it can work for some very experienced and confident trainers, who really understand how to be a dog. However, we aren't dogs, and and it's not easy to be something that you are not...
> 
> ...


Wow...Thats exactly my thoughts. Excellent Post!


----------



## Jenness (May 7, 2012)

kafkabeetle said:


> What the average person understands of dominance is not useful at all. And it makes people tend towards explaining every behavior their dog does as a dominance related problem, and this often ignores important underlying issues.


YES. So often I think people interchange the terms fear/aggression with dominant/submissive. These are not the same!


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> IF three dogs are in a room and you put three bones in the center of the room and one dog takes control of all three bones, what do you call that?


....Insecure


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Keechak said:


> ....Insecure


I concur. My singleton . . . smallest girl with somewhat poor canine communication skills, is our only dog that will attempt to resource guard. She is our most insecure. Our others who are confident dogs happily share (and as we have taught her now, so does the smallest girl . . . just not so happily).

SOB


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Jenness said:


> YES. So often I think people interchange the terms fear/aggression with dominant/submissive. These are not the same!


Yes, when I was a kid we had a Jack Russel terrier that bit two people in my family. We called in a trainer and she told us that he had a dominance problem. She read specifically into the fact that he would often roll over to have his belly rubbed (if anything, considered a submissive gesture). She claimed that he was actually being dominant when he did this, because he thought we should be petting him whenever he wanted on his terms. She said this was evidence that his biting problem was him trying to take over and become the alpha, so we needed to teach him to stay in his place. Obviously, she was not equipped to help us with the problem we had, and she may have been well-meaning, but what she said made no sense. 

Years late I can reflect on the situation and clearly see that our dog had major fear aggression problems and virtually no bite inhibition. Too much emphasis on dominance (by a completely unqualified trainer) blinded us the real issues and failed our dog. After a third, seemingly unprovoked bite with no warning, my dad dropped that dog off at the pound, where he was most likely put down. All because of an over-emphasis on (and misapplication of) dominance theory. Maybe it would have worked out for us or maybe the result would have been the same, but I can't help but wish I had known what I know now then.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Keechak said:


> ....Insecure




Could be but not in many cases....


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Some breeds of dogs are as a general rule not insecure, the ACD is one of those dogs. they by nature are very confident dogs that know who they are & what they want. Even Buddy, who is very sensitive in his relations with ppl (he loves to please to the point where he is afraid of disappointment) but with other dogs he is very confident, not dominant, but confident.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Could be but not in many cases....


 Yes, I have seen many labeled insecure or fear based, when its not at all. Then some labelled aggressive when it is fear.


----------



## EdDTS (May 30, 2012)

I don't really believe being Alpha is nonsense. I think rolling your dog on it's side, and hitting it is all nonsense. Being alpha plain and simple is just being a leader, when you're a leader you don't have to control anyone or anything with force, you control the mind and then the body will follow.
I think there are dogs that are dominant, but that doesn't mean in every case they are dominant over people. My own dog is very dominant over other dogs and he's been socialized properly, but there's never been a dog he'd back down to, or show submission to, his presence alone sends a dog that I know of into a very insecure state. He's never shown any signs of dominance towards people, or trying to control people, just dogs. Luckily a quick, "HEY" snaps him out of his dominant behavior, so fights rarely break out.
I've never met a dog that was really dominant towards people, except for one BUT I attribute it's "dominance" more to it's lack of training in the 2 years of it's life, no rules, no boundaries, no exercise. And all it lived with was a not fixed female, who was also untrained. Once I came in and started training, the "dominance" started to disappear.


----------



## mashlee08 (Feb 24, 2012)

kafkabeetle said:


> And while I of course understand that dominance/submissiveness is an important everyday part of behavior between dogs, I also think that it's much more contextual than is understood by the general public, and that is where I take issue. There are dogs that _tend to_ interacts submissively with other dogs, but with the right dog and situation they can no longer be the case. And a dog that tends to express their dominance over other dogs will, if they have good social skills, give in sometimes too. What the average person understands of dominance is not useful at all. And it makes people tend towards explaining every behavior their dog does as a dominance related problem, and this often ignores important underlying issues.


I like this point very much. (lol that sounds like spam)


----------



## bgmacaw (May 5, 2012)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> II got my info from another trainer on tv and in a book she wrote.


Barbara "Choke Chain" Woodhouse, perhaps?

When I think of 'alpha nonsense' I think of the borderline abusive techniques that she, the Monks of New Skete and a certain reality TV show star use and teach. While there may be some workable ideas within their methods, they're easily misapplied by the public and can quickly step into the realm of abuse. That's why you'll find a lot of 1 to 2 year old anxious, neurotic, dogs in shelters that have been put through this training/abuse ringer by someone trying to copy these techniques.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

mashlee08 said:


> I like this point very much. (lol that sounds like spam)


Haha, it did. xD Those silly spammers.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

juliemule said:


> Yes, I have seen many labeled insecure or fear based, when its not at all. Then some labelled aggressive when it is fear.


Interesting, then need opinions on the trainer/behaviorist who makes a diagnosis on what dog's problem's are in anywhere from 15 minutes to 60 minutes. 

I made the statement that it took me 2 weeks to get into a dog's head, maybe it was cause I was just slower than most.

Next question is where the diagnosis is done, at home or in a neutral/strange area. Curious and curiouser. Need opinions please.


----------



## Merlin's Mom (May 21, 2012)

workerant said:


> My dog's unofficial office nickname is Alpha Dog. My dog comes with me some days to my part time job. She's thoroughly trained and has excellent manners. A yutz I used to work with had an utter meltdown (IN THE OFFICE!) that I didn't believe in alpha dogs and being dominant over my dog. One of my officemates witnessed the whole thing and started calling my pup Alpha Dog.
> 
> It's especially wonderful when we call her, "Come here, Alpha Dog!" and she comes over with her ears back and tail wagging. She's real tough - a natural born killer... of cookies.



Hahaha ..... Of cookies . Made my day


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Interesting, then need opinions on the trainer/behaviorist who makes a diagnosis on what dog's problem's are in anywhere from 15 minutes to 60 minutes.
> 
> I made the statement that it took me 2 weeks to get into a dog's head, maybe it was cause I was just slower than most.
> 
> Next question is where the diagnosis is done, at home or in a neutral/strange area. Curious and curiouser. Need opinions please.


The evaluation needs to be where the problem is - which could be in the home, or could be outside the home. I won't claim I can get "inside a dog's head" in 60 minutes. But between taking a thorough history and observing the dog in the problem environment, it's possible to get a start on understanding what is going on with the dog, and coming up with a plan. History is important, because a lot of what the owner thinks is happening might be something else. And, people often either over estimate or under estimate their problem. Sometimes asking the right questions makes it clearer.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> The evaluation needs to be where the problem is - which could be in the home, or could be outside the home. I won't claim I can get "inside a dog's head" in 60 minutes. But between taking a thorough history and observing the dog in the problem environment, it's possible to get a start on understanding what is going on with the dog, and coming up with a plan. History is important, because a lot of what the owner thinks is happening might be something else. And, people often either over estimate or under estimate their problem. Sometimes asking the right questions makes it clearer.


Yes, and then add to the mix the owner's verbal description with all that entails and the hope that behaviorist can understand just what the owner is trying to describe.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Yes, and then add to the mix the owner's verbal description with all that entails and the hope that behaviorist can understand just what the owner is trying to describe.


Often people don't know which details are important. That's why it's necessary to get a history and ask the right questions. It doesn't tell you everything, but it probably tells you more than the client's description


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Often people don't know which details are important. That's why it's necessary to get a history and ask the right questions. It doesn't tell you everything, but it probably tells you more than the client's description


Yes indeed how's that sayin go something about "you're preaching to the choir"


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Yes indeed how's that sayin go something about "you're preaching to the choir"


Yes, I realize that! It's amazing how sometimes they "remember" additional incidents that were not mentioned at first.


----------



## Aeradalia (Aug 27, 2012)

Just a humble newbie here, but my views on the "alpha" nonsense has come down to the idea that dogs simply like a secure environment. Many of my dogs (past and present) have been content once they knew resources were available and what the rules of the house were. Much like children, some could say. However, that's about the extent in which dogs resemble children. Dogs are a watered down, friendlier version of a wolf. After thousands of years of selective breeding, dogs have an acute awareness of human facial and body gestures - particularly with paying attention to hand signals. Undoubtedly, a dog does not mistake a human for a dog - as they seem to use certain gestures only for other dogs and certain cues (some seemingly instinctive and some learned) just for their human masters. I have seen the roles of my dogs as they interact change from moment to moment - much too often to make the assumption there is a fixed hierarchy. It seems more likely that the dogs simply push the boundaries all the time either out of curiosity, or if they are opportunistic, to see if they can gain more than their fair share. I would have to say that dogs seem less interested in maintaining a hierarchy, and more concerned with getting what they want - hence training being so effective. I've seen dogs take orders from small children - with small stature, squeaky voices, and seemingly submissive body posturing - which would be unlikely if the dog felt it was entitled to more resources afforded to its rank in the pack. However, this behavior is more conducive to a dog that knows it can get what it's wants by simply sitting when the squeaky tiny human says so. Much like many animals, dogs have an understandably selfish side. With dogs, they love to have all sorts of things for themselves - like treats, praise, exercise, games, or other rewards. Much like many social animals, dogs have an empathetic side and genuinely care for their "pack." Even though dogs are not as intelligent as humans, it would seem they share some fundamental drives as humans. Many of these drives can be taken advantage of during training and forms the basis of a rudimentary communication between dogs and humans.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Call it whatever you want, but a dog the regularly controls resources is above the other dogs in hierarchy.


I am not so sure about this. I use to believe in dominance with dogs a few years back. When we first adopted Ma'ii, he layed claim to the dog bed. Charlotte couldn't get near it without him growling. It would have been believed that he was an alpha male and had dominance over her... Accept he wouldn't even dream of touching the good toys while in her precense. After we moved out of our apartment and into our RV, the claims were reversed. Charlotte got the dog bed and Ma'ii hogged the toys. So who's above who in hierarchy? As far as I'm concerned, neither. They are equals, it's just they each have laid claims to one specific resource.

Then again, Ma'ii also has big issues with other intact male dogs. Is friendly with females and neutered males, but will rip into another male if he's still intact, so.... I don't know. Maybe dominance in dogs does exist, atleast to some degree.


----------



## A-Blue-Roan (Aug 21, 2012)

Lots of it in my area I had terrible time teaching my parents not use these methods to train my Millie they almost ruined her untill I bored them into submission, does that make me alpha?

People see it on TV and believe it so badly they don't realise their are better methods of training out. I shouted at someone to shut up last week across the park they were having such a go at their dog the only reason I knew they were doing things to their dog they shouldn't be doing was because the child with with them was shouting at their parents to stop hurting the dog! Gosh what a fuss it worked all went silent.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

I LOVE this article/blog post! It's awesome and is a fantastic way to try to change CM fans opinions without offending them 

http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/why-i-love-cesar-milan-fans


----------



## Bear2010 (Aug 21, 2012)

I have not had time to read all these posts but I will comment on what I have read.

The idea of an older dog teaching a young 12 week puppy is a farse.....My older dogs could care less and will run off and ignore or either maul the puppy for being annoying.When we brought Dakota home we introduced him to the pack at about 13 weeks...bad idea and no they didnt teach him a thing.

I do not believe my dog thinks I am a dog.I have 4 dogs..our old cocker spaniel is not well trained but he listens, its a difference.Our Amstaff is well trained in obiedence not from intimidation or abuse to teach him that I am the alpha dog,He respects me from months and hours upon hours of working with cues and positive reinforcement.Treats..pats..good boys when he has done what we have asked.Dakota is also hand signal trained and even watches facial expressions for the next command.(amstaffs are awesome dogs to train they are attentive and quick to respnd to their owners needs,they are a pleaser and will go to no ends to please their owners).


----------



## hamandeggs (Aug 11, 2011)

Bear2010 said:


> The idea of an older dog teaching a young 12 week puppy is a farse.....My older dogs could care less and will run off and ignore or either maul the puppy for being annoying.When we brought Dakota home we introduced him to the pack at about 13 weeks...bad idea and no they didnt teach him a thing.


I think that's an overgeneralization. Sure, your older dogs aren't interested in teaching your puppy. But plenty of dogs would be, and I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that, for example, puppies learn from their mothers. My parents' dog came home at 14 weeks already housetrained by his mother.

As for the dominance crap...just this morning I was out walking my dog on a bike/jogging trail and some lady came from the other direction with some sort of pointer, lunging and straining on a prong collar. Biscuit has learned from experience to be leery of such dogs, and she refused to get any closer. So I told her to sit down, off to the side of the trail, and gave her treats for behaving nicely as this other pair passed by. The other dog snapped and lunged for Biscuit as they passed, but unfortunately that's nothing unusual. The other lady asked if my dog was a puppy (um...no) and then said "It's called dominance!"

Like, what? Your unsocialized bird dog is showing my dog dominance by trying to eat her? Maybe, but I don't think that's the usual meaning of the word. Or maybe you think I should alpha roll my dog for refusing to get near a much bigger, reacting dog? Hm. I think I'll just keep doing what I'm doing. Blech.


----------



## Bear2010 (Aug 21, 2012)

Like I said I havent read all the posts...of course puppies learn from mother dogs..I thought we were talking about just any older dog teaching a puppy.


----------



## Aeradalia (Aug 27, 2012)

Bear2010 said:


> Like I said I havent read all the posts...of course puppies learn from mother dogs..I thought we were talking about just any older dog teaching a puppy.


Hm... I feel something is lacking in the idea of an older dog teaching a younger dog. Quite a bit of what motivates an older dog to even bother with a younger dog is circumstantial. The mother dog teaches her pups because she is instinctively driven to have them around, and therefore has to teach them to respect her (I've seen what happens to mother dogs who lack a maternal instinct, and it can be horrifying in some cases). 

Any old dog will typically try to chase off a young pup it doesn't know, especially if it has no motivation to tolerate its presence. However, when there is an incentive to tolerate the pup's presence, then an older dog will take extra steps to teach the pup basic boundaries and respect - usually in regards to what the older dog considers their property. 

For example, I had a 10 year old Akita named Amy, and I had introduced a 10 week old Rottweiler pup named Tank. Initially, Amy wanted nothing to do with Tank. However, once she realized Tank wasn't leaving and that he was accepted by his/her human masters, she slowly started to tolerate the pup. She'd play with him, correct him when he bit too hard, and insisted that he stay away from her food, toys, and crate with a quick growl. I do need to emphasize that we helped to teach Tank to respect Amy's rules within reason. When Amy was too pushy with Tank, we intervened - often by removing the toys or food from both dogs. Over time, Tank began to leave Amy's stuff alone and became more interested in his own items. 

So, yes, an older dog can teach a younger dog. However, this isn't so much a sign of a hierarchy as it is a sign of "don't mess with my stuff, don't play too rough with me, and generally stop annoying me." Furthermore, the older dog needs to be interested in teaching the young pup to begin with.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

I believe I remember, from "The Other End of The Leash", by Patricia McConnell, that she made a distinction between social hierarchies and dominance. There's a differerence. Dominance seems to imply some kind of force, be it physical or otherwise. BUT, position in a hierarchy isn't really about force. And, I think Patricia McConnell also discussed that it depends on what each dog in the hierarchy finds to be of value.

For instance, Harper really wants to be even the tiniest bit out in front of Abby and Oscar when we walk. But, when they play, Abby is always the rougher of the three. Oscar chooses the foot of the bed, and doesn't like anyone to interfere with his spot. They each have something they consider valuable, and may assert themselves to be in charge of what they find valuable, but, they are not fighting over anything, it's more of a give and take. Kind of like, yeah, Harper, you can walk in front, but then I get my spot on the bed.......

Of course, I don't mean to say that dogs in a family sit down and hash it out, agreeing on who gets to be in charge of what. Just that it's more of "picking your battles" so to speak. 

As for using the terms alpha, dominance, etc., I don't like using those terms, mainly because of the misunderstandings many people have over what they really mean and how to achieve dominance/alpha state over dogs. For instance, the example someone gave a few posts back about the woman with the lunging dog, saying "It's called dominance," NO, that wasn't called dominance, it was a rude, aggressive dog.

If you ask people, in general, to do a word association and start with the word dominance, I bet you'd get lots of alpha rolls, pinning, aggression, show your dog your the boss, types of responses. That's my problem with using dominance, as a term, in regards to giving advice or having a discussion. How many people will think they should be pinning their dog on his back, rolling him, going through doors first (not to be practical, but just to assert that you're the boss), that type of thing. 
Really, there are other ways to get the point across without using words that many people misunderstand.


----------



## lovejc (Aug 28, 2012)

I feel that most people humanize their dogs and anthropomorphize. This does plenty more harm then dominance. 
I don't believe in Cesar Milan or Ian Dunbar. I do use touch to train my dog and I refuse to click, treat, repeat. 
I think there is a happy medium. Dogs don't need to be babied and treated all the time, nor do they need to be choked and smacked all the time. 
I use my personal method and my dog is very well trained. She is a stubborn soul too (never getting a bitch again, all males for me!)


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

lovejc said:


> Dogs don't need to be babied and treated all the time, nor do they need to be choked and smacked all the time.


If the dog is treated all the time, this is poor training. If the dog is smacked all the time, this is poor training. If you believe either of those things are representative of clicker training, or dominance theory, this is poor understanding.


----------



## lovejc (Aug 28, 2012)

Curbside Prophet said:


> If the dog is treated all the time, this is poor training. If the dog is smacked all the time, this is poor training. If you believe either of those things are representative of clicker training, or dominance theory, this is poor understanding.


 I know there is much more to it. I dont use either method. Maybe a combination of positive reinforcement and dominance.


----------



## Aeradalia (Aug 27, 2012)

lovejc said:


> I feel that most people humanize their dogs and anthropomorphize. This does plenty more harm then dominance.


People do tend to anthropomorphize their dogs, however whether in positive or negative intentions, there is much harm that can come of it. If a person believes their dog thinks in ways that a human does, they may misunderstand the dog and may encourage poor behavior leading to at best a bratty dog, or at worst, a dog that bites humans to prove a point. Adversely, a person who considers their dog stubborn or spiteful might abuse the dogs to the point of creating a distrusting and fearful dog. 

Dominance theory in dogs is often combined with antropomorphizing dogs, which can often lead to abuse. 



lovejc said:


> I don't believe in Cesar Milan or Ian Dunbar. I do use touch to train my dog and I refuse to click, treat, repeat.


I tend to use what works best for dogs in regards to them obeying without jeopardizing their well-being. This often involves taking advantage of pre-existing behaviors and instincts. Food-drive just happens to be one of the easiest to use. 



lovejc said:


> I think there is a happy medium. Dogs don't need to be babied and treated all the time, nor do they need to be choked and smacked all the time.
> I use my personal method and my dog is very well trained.


I tend to use both positive and negative reinforcement when training. Although, admittedly, I lean more towards positive. The "nothing in life is free" seems to work best, in that dogs earn their reward/resources. So they are "babied" only if they obey and are only disciplined for disobeying commands they had demonstrated to understand (of course, taking into account that distraction training is required first). 



lovejc said:


> She is a stubborn soul too (never getting a bitch again, all males for me!)


I hope this was simply light humor. Each dog has their own personality irregardless of their gender. I've had equal success with males as well as females. Conversely, I've had bad experiences with males and females too. Some breeds of dogs have a sharper difference in the behavior of the genders, and some have almost no superficial behavioral differences. 

Rather than base my preferences for dogs solely on gender, I try to choose a dog that compliments my own personality and life style. Requires a little more work, but it does prevent me from overlooking otherwise good potential pets which are excluded by such sweeping generalizations.


----------



## lovejc (Aug 28, 2012)

Aeradalia said:


> People do tend to anthropomorphize their dogs, however whether in positive or negative intentions, there is much harm that can come of it. If a person believes their dog thinks in ways that a human does, they may misunderstand the dog and may encourage poor behavior leading to at best a bratty dog, or at worst, a dog that bites humans to prove a point. Adversely, a person who considers their dog stubborn or spiteful might abuse the dogs to the point of creating a distrusting and fearful dog.
> 
> 
> Dominance theory in dogs is often combined with antropomorphizing dogs, which can often lead to abuse.
> ...


 ^^^^ my responses in bold!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lovejc said:


> I feel that most people humanize their dogs and anthropomorphize. This does plenty more harm then dominance.
> I don't believe in Cesar Milan or Ian Dunbar. I do use touch to train my dog and I refuse to click, treat, repeat.
> I think there is a happy medium. Dogs don't need to be babied and treated all the time, nor do they need to be choked and smacked all the time.
> I use my personal method and my dog is very well trained. She is a stubborn soul too (never getting a bitch again, all males for me!)


Really? So CM and Dr. Dunbar are sort of like the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus? I've seen with my own eyes that Ian Dunbar does, indeed, exist and I accept NG channel's assertions that CM is a real person. Personally, I wouldn't claim either of them as the absolute truth of dog training, though. Can you explain exactly how you use touch for training? I gotta say, I adore my girl dogs (and my boy dogs as well) and have never met a stubborn dog. Just dogs that people haven't discovered how to motivate (and no, that's not either babying and a steady stream of treats, or choking and smacking.)


----------



## lovejc (Aug 28, 2012)

Dog training is not a topic worth attacking someone over. You know what I meant when I said I dont believe in "them". I meant their methods. No need to be flip.
What I call stubborn you call "unmotivated". Potato , potato. My female is either- stupid, stubborn or "unmotivated". I'm still not going to give her treats to "motivate" her. Maybe I'm stupid, stubborn or unmotivated lol! I don't care. I know what works for me. It's worked with over 200 fosters/rescues and 10 personal dogs.


----------



## Jenness (May 7, 2012)

These kind of topics always get so heated! I already stated how I feel about it a few pages back, but I just wanted add that I don't think it's fair for people to refer the dominance theory as "bunk" as I have heard it referred to so many times before on this forum. I certainly understand why many people don't use it, I know why I don't use it, but that doesn't mean that it is garbage and anyone that uses it is a moron either. If the dog and human have a good, healthy, happy relationship with each other, than that is all that should matter. Don't judge people by what methods they use, judge them by what kind of relationship they have with their dog!


----------



## lovejc (Aug 28, 2012)

Jenness said:


> These kind of topics always get so heated! I already stated how I feel about it a few pages back, but I just wanted add that I don't think it's fair for people to refer the dominance theory as "bunk" as I have heard it referred to so many times before on this forum. I certainly understand why many people don't use it, I know why I don't use it, but that doesn't mean that it is garbage and anyone that uses it is a moron either. If the dog and human have a good, healthy, happy relationship with each other, than that is all that should matter. Don't judge people by what methods they use, judge them by what kind of relationship they have with their dog!


 Exactly! It's not as big of a deal as people make it. There are much more worthwhile arguments to be had lol


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lovejc said:


> Dog training is not a topic worth attacking someone over. You know what I meant when I said I dont believe in "them". I meant their methods. No need to be flip.
> What I call stubborn you call "unmotivated". Potato , potato. My female is either- stupid, stubborn or "unmotivated". I'm still not going to give her treats to "motivate" her. Maybe I'm stupid, stubborn or unmotivated lol! I don't care. I know what works for me. It's worked with over 200 fosters/rescues and 10 personal dogs.


Woah! So you saw my attempt at humor as an attack? Is Mercury in retrograde or something? I just found it a very funny way to put it and couldn't resist. You mentioned that your dog was stubborn. I just wondered if she might be less so with better motivation. Many dogs are. And again, what does your "touch" method entail?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Jenness said:


> ...I don't think it's fair for people to refer the dominance theory as "bunk" as I have heard it referred to so many times before on this forum. I certainly understand why many people don't use it, I know why I don't use it, but that doesn't mean that it is garbage and anyone that uses it is a moron either.


I believe dominance theory is bunk, garbage, useless, and flawed. But I also don't believe anyone who uses it is a moron - using flawed logic isn't exclusive to morons.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

Jenness, I think most people who say it's "bunk" are referring to studies done a very long time ago, studies which have been proven to have been flawed, and studies that have included erroneous information. Many things that were, in the past, believed to be accurate, have been found to be inaccurate.

As for "dominance" as a whole, if people mean being a leader to your dog, teaching, being clear with your boundaries and expectations, I am all for that. I am not for using force or making myself out to be the "boss". My dogs know I am the way they get the good stuff, I don't have to flaunt it over them.


----------



## lovejc (Aug 28, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> Woah! So you saw my attempt at humor as an attack? Is Mercury in retrograde or something? I just found it a very funny way to put it and couldn't resist. You mentioned that your dog was stubborn. I just wondered if she might be less so with better motivation. Many dogs are. And again, what does your "touch" method entail?


 I'm sorry. I suppose I did not see the humor in it lol. 
She might be less so but it is not an extreme amount of "stubbornness" just occasionally. She IS also only 14 months old! A teenager! So I don't think it's necessarily the training technique but more a teenager pushing her boundaries! Brat!
By touch I mean I will touch her neck to get her attention and yes I raise my voice at her and say things like "quit" "enough" or "down". If she weren't to listen then I would touch her neck to get her attention! Shes actually a pretty good dog considering her age


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Jenness said:


> I don't think it's fair for people to refer the dominance theory as "bunk" as I have heard it referred to so many times before on this forum.


I think it's completely fair, considering that it's been disproved by many scientific studies and that none of the true experts believe in it (I don't count TV personalities with no formal training as experts; they can be okay trainers, and they can even be great with dogs, but they should refrain from spouting "scientific" info if they don't actually understand it). Here are some interesting reads (all contain links to/discussion of/cites from good studies):

Hey, have you heard the one about climate change and dog training?

Outmoded notion of the alpha wolf (and the in-depth study)

(The above is interesting because it's by the guy who helped really popularize the "alpha" stuff in the first place; now he realizes that much of what he wrote was wrong.)

De-Bunking the "Alpha Dog" Theory

AVSAB Position Statement on the Use of Dominance Theory in Behavior Modification of Animals

I don't think that everyone who believes in the Cesar Millan type of stuff is an idiot. I think that most of them are just uninformed. 



> Don't judge people by what methods they use, judge them by what kind of relationship they have with their dog!


I agree with this, but I do find that many people who use the "dominance" techniques end up with dogs who obey, but seem to be obeying more from fear of correction than because they want to please their owner. Tails and ears are lower; the dog looks unsure when asked to do something new, or put into an unfamiliar situation, because it's not sure what the owner wants it to do and is afraid of a correction (I see this with my brother's dog fairly often). It's stuff that most dog owners (who don't read forums or books or know much about dog body language) don't notice -- they just see a "good dog."

(I should add that I'm not completely anti-correction. I _am_ anti-alpha rolling, harsh corrections with prongs, stuff like that. And I just think the whole idea of not letting your dog walk out the door before you or get up on your furniture or eat when you're eating because he'll start thinking he's your boss is silly. Mostly harmless, but just of no use whatsoever. NILIF works so much better.)


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> As for "dominance" as a whole, if people mean being a leader to your dog, teaching, being clear with your boundaries and expectations, I am all for that.


I agree.



> I agree with this, but I do find that many people who use the "dominance" techniques end up with dogs who obey, but seem to be obeying more from fear of correction than because they want to please their owner. Tails and ears are lower;


That's because of a poor read of the dog and then the training that followed the poor read. Now I can understand amateur owners not able to read their dog properly, but there is absolutely no excuse for a trainer to do the bad read thing. Body style is very 1st thing lost when harsh techniques are applied by an idiot.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I would never lump you in with the "dominance" trainers, wvasko.  I know you use some old-school techniques, but you've said yourself that "alpha rolling" was never a part of that, and that all of this Cesar Millan "alpha dog" stuff came along later! It's the studies on captive wolves, misinterpreted and misapplied to dogs, that really messed things up.

I also agree that people need to be good leaders to their dogs, and that a good trainer of any sort understands body language and doesn't ask for anything that a dog hasn't already been taught how to give.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I know you use some old-school techniques, but you've said yourself that "alpha rolling" was never a part of that,


Yes indeed I always thought alpha rolling puppies destroyed them because pups and babies can do no wrong. Then adding to that I thought alpha rolling the big dogs might destroy my body.


----------



## lovejc (Aug 28, 2012)

I think I have been too harsh with my dog at times. I am improving but I still will not use a clicker. I am not coordinated enough anyway!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Bear2010 said:


> I have not had time to read all these posts but I will comment on what I have read.
> 
> The idea of an older dog teaching a young 12 week puppy is a farse.....My older dogs could care less and will run off and ignore or either maul the puppy for being annoying.When we brought Dakota home we introduced him to the pack at about 13 weeks...bad idea and no they didnt teach him a thing.
> 
> I do not believe my dog thinks I am a dog.I have 4 dogs..our old cocker spaniel is not well trained but he listens, its a difference.Our Amstaff is well trained in obiedence not from intimidation or abuse to teach him that I am the alpha dog,He respects me from months and hours upon hours of working with cues and positive reinforcement.Treats..pats..good boys when he has done what we have asked.Dakota is also hand signal trained and even watches facial expressions for the next command.(amstaffs are awesome dogs to train they are attentive and quick to respnd to their owners needs,they are a pleaser and will go to no ends to please their owners).




This post is a farse.... 
The practice of sending a pup out with older experienced dogs has been used for thousands of years in certain jobs with dogs. Herding dogs in real life working situations, hounds in hunting situations, etc. It is standard practice to send the pup out with older experienced dogs. Whether the older dogs intentionally teach the pup is debatable. But the pup learns and the older dogs cover the pups mistakes and allow him to learn from his mistakes.... It is one thing to do herding trials with a pup or hunt birds with a pup. But Putting a pack of pups on a sounder of wild hogs or a herd of wild woods cattle will cause you to end up with dead pups quick.....



wvasko said:


> Yes indeed I always thought alpha rolling puppies destroyed them because pups and babies can do no wrong. Then adding to that I thought alpha rolling the big dogs might destroy my body.


 But Alpha rolling looks good on TV.....


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> But Alpha rolling looks good on TV.....


Yeah, but I think I would flunk the look good on TV


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Yeah, but I think I would flunk the look good on TV


You are a reality tv star in waiting


----------



## Jenness (May 7, 2012)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I believe dominance theory is bunk, garbage, useless, and flawed. But I also don't believe anyone who uses it is a moron - using flawed logic isn't exclusive to morons.


So is there a scientific study that has observed both types of dogs? Dogs that were trained using dominance method vs. dogs trained using reward based methods? Has a scientist or doctor actually observed large numbers of both these dogs and determined some type of results? For example are there some type of statistics out there that actually prove at large that reward based methods produce more happy, healthy, obedient dogs? Now that would be interesting!

I looked over some of the articles and they are just referring to scientific studies and mentioning doctors but the articles don't really delve into any specific scientific findings. They are just saying general things like "scientific findings show that there is no proof that dominance methods work"

For me, I will have to see more research before I call it "bunk"...I'm seriously NOT trying to defend or advocate dominance training, but I'm just not yet convinced that there aren't non-abusive dominance based trainers out there who produce happy, healthy dogs...


----------



## EdDTS (May 30, 2012)

Jenness said:


> So is there a scientific study that has observed both types of dogs? Dogs that were trained using dominance method vs. dogs trained using reward based methods? Has a scientist or doctor actually observed large numbers of both these dogs and determined some type of results? For example are there some type of statistics out there that actually prove at large that reward based methods produce more happy, healthy, obedient dogs? Now that would be interesting!
> 
> I looked over some of the articles and they are just referring to scientific studies and mentioning doctors but the articles don't really delve into any specific scientific findings. They are just saying general things like "scientific findings show that there is no proof that dominance methods work"
> 
> For me, I will have to see more research before I call it "bunk"...I'm seriously NOT trying to defend or advocate dominance training, but I'm just not yet convinced that there aren't non-abusive dominance based trainers out there who produce happy, healthy dogs...


Think of it this way, "scientific findings and studies" also say getting your dog fixed produces a happier, healthier, more well-behaved dog, but this obviously is not the case. "Scientific findings and studies" also say getting your dog fixed will not affect the way the dog grows as he gets older, which is not the case.
People fight so much over Dominance based training vs Positive training and I really don't see the point. It's like putting a Democrat and a Republican in the same room and telling them to argue over issues, there's a constant argument because one side always has an answer for another side's point.
Take what you want from both styles and use it to help the dogs gets better. If a dog gets a correction once it's not going to become a nervous wreck, or fearful of their owner forever, even if it gets the correction 1000 times. There are fighting dogs and dogs trained to attack people that get successfully rehabilitated despite all their experiences, which just shows how trusting and willing dogs are.

Here's a little video, 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WulqN17XoUQ

Ignore the title of the video and how it's aimed to put Stillwell in a negative light, but instead look at the dog. The man used a "dominance based technique", according to Stillwell, to make the dog wait and let some dogs catch up. Look at the dog after the flash back, or when it is asked to wait, does the dog look fearful, insecure, etc? No. If used correctly a bit of dominance here and there isn't gonna kill a dog, it's not gonna break his confidence, or make him fearful. I'm all for being positive, but I don't think we should just throw out all of the older techniques right away, there are some little things here and there we can still use from it to help our dogs.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> *If used correctly* a bit of dominance here and there isn't gonna kill a dog, it's not gonna break his confidence, or make him fearful. I'm all for being positive, but I don't think we should just throw out all of the older techniques right away, there are some little things here and there we can still use from it to help our dogs.


The 3 words bold area says a bunch. Through the years I have had customers return with a new pup/dog to train because of the 10 or so years spent with the 1st dog trained and even a few times with a 3rd dog. 

I have never said I was more than an old school yank and crank trainer, but and a big *but* is knowing when, how and who to yank and crank and who not to. In the 4 years I have been on DF there have been PM inquiries about prong collar use (my tool of choice) all have been told that I won't help them because online advice can indeed end up with some dog abuse.

You know whether its our PCs or our cars, many products/services through the years have huge jumps in improvements. Guess what, dog training also has jumped forward.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> I would never lump you in with the "dominance" trainers, wvasko.  I know you use some old-school techniques, but you've said yourself that "alpha rolling" was never a part of that, and that all of this Cesar Millan "alpha dog" stuff came along later! It's the studies on captive wolves, misinterpreted and misapplied to dogs, that really messed things up.
> .


Actually, I think CM probably found a copy of the Monks of New Skete book, which was written - what? in the 1970s? 80s at the latest. Job Michael Evans later said that he was sorry he'd written it as it got a lot of people bitten.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

1978 was publish date I found.

Actually even I read the book (one of the few) and disregarded the alpha roll immediately for self survival reasons. It was a no-brainer. Same with the Koehler book on Guard Dogs while there are some good things there are some totally out of whack. The fun for all is the separating of the good from the bad.

It's one of the reasons I am on the anti dog training book list. Most of the old school books were about training old Ace and I never had a dog named Ace


----------



## Canaqua (Sep 27, 2011)

Bear2010 said:


> The idea of an older dog teaching a young 12 week puppy is a farse.....My older dogs could care less and will run off and ignore or either maul the puppy for being annoying.When we brought Dakota home we introduced him to the pack at about 13 weeks...bad idea and no they didnt teach him a thing.


Might depend on the dog. My older female, ACD mix, most certainly did teach the 12 week old BC mix puppy we got a year ago. ACD has all kinds of rules, most of them ours, but some she made up herself. And, she enforces them (fairly gently, mostly just barking and scolding) with the BC mix. Most importantly, she taught the young dog how to approach another dog politely...pays off big time in situations with strange dogs. ACD is very grumpy, but she is very interested in puppies for some reason, she always has been. Now that BC mix is bigger than she is and 15 months old, she's mostly just an annoyance to the ACD, but when she was a puppy, the old dog really "took her under her wing"...protected her from other dogs, the cat and strange people and taught her all kinds of rules for how to be a dog in our house. 

I use positive training methods myself...treat/play rewards, I'm not a dog. ACD didn't particularly dominate the young dog, she just scolded her with growling and barking.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

I kinda agree that "*if used correctly*" plays a big part in the problem with "dominance" stuff. The reason I avoid it, and try to offer alternatives, is because the average person _isn't going to use it correctly_. The average person _isn't going to get the timing right_. The average person is going to hear "dominance" and put their own spin on it, not doing enough research, and _assume that alpha rolls, pinning, eating first, going through a door first, are all necessary parts of "dominance."_

How many posts/threads have we read where the OP says they realized their mistakes, they didn't know, they thought they had to dominate their dog, but, oops, now what do they do to fix the problem? It isn't because those people are horrible dog owners, or cruel people, it's because they were either given bad advice, or they assumed they knew what dominance stuff was about, and went with it.


----------



## outlaw_blues (Aug 23, 2012)

doxiemommy said:


> I kinda agree that "*if used correctly*" plays a big part in the problem with "dominance" stuff. The reason I avoid it, and try to offer alternatives, is because the average person _isn't going to use it correctly_. The average person _isn't going to get the timing right_. The average person is going to hear "dominance" and put their own spin on it, not doing enough research, and _assume that alpha rolls, pinning, eating first, going through a door first, are all necessary parts of "dominance."_
> 
> How many posts/threads have we read where the OP says they realized their mistakes, they didn't know, they thought they had to dominate their dog, but, oops, now what do they do to fix the problem? It isn't because those people are horrible dog owners, or cruel people, it's because they were either given bad advice, or they assumed they knew what dominance stuff was about, and went with it.


I have had my dog Molly for two months, and although I knew a fair amount about dogs before hand I had never owned or trained a dog. I'm new to the whole 'dominance theory approach but im starting to read into it.
I went out in the first week we got Molly, got as many books from the library that I could carry and read through them, as well as looking on line and watching training programmes and in the majority of cases issues of 'dominance' were addressed, its only when you dig deeper that you learn more about it. I think its very easy to get the wrong angle on it and become involved in teaching/training methods that focus on dominance because the information on it is so widely avaliable and due to this it has become part of everyday vocabulary. 

Working in a pub you get very used to hearing people talking complete nonsence but sound like they know exactly what they are on about and talk with such conviction that no-one questions them, its not difficult to understand how people can be given the wrong advice or apply the knowledge in the wrong way from listening to people who sound they they know what they mean and from reading official published books, its not always easy to question what you read or hear especially when it's reinforced, its very 'God model' of knowledge. I think the more post-modern 'there is no one truth' approach is far more helpful, if research has shown that feral dogs do not form long term packs and wild wolf packs consist of parents and their young then the terms 'alfa-dog' 'submisive' 'dominant' and even 'pack' seem mis-used and in cases inappropriate and deffinatly over-used, ( I think in the example given at the start of this thread about the bones and the three dogs, the answer may lie more in survival of the fitest, I guess there still maybe some dominance in that but less pack heiachy based??) meaning that other emotions, issues etc are over looked but if there are owners, trainers and dogs which can successfully and safely utilise a dominance based training technique I dont see how it can be wrong (I do, however, feel some techniques seem a bit much), but it doesnt mean it will work for every owner or every dog, its about relationship between owner and dog, the saftey of everyone, and the health and happiness of the dog in question...which is a point made already in this thread.

I use positive reinforcement with molly because she reponds very well to it and I have no reason to use any other method, she is very curious but can be very anxious at the same time, when I first read about dominant behaviours it confused me because she showed both very submissive behaviour with oother aspects of dominant behaviour...now I think she's just being a dog adjusting to a new home, I think if I used certain dominant techniques on her it would have brought out her anxieties more rather than teaching her anything, it took me a few days to show her that doing a poo was not a bad thing she would get punished for while we were outside, I dont think she will respond well to various dominant techniques. I did however read another thread on another forum were one individual pointed out that he used a shock collar on his dog while out as a last resort to stop the dog trying to attack other dogs and animals, using it just twice was enough to 'train' the dog, I don't judge this person, but would never use this on Molly, in fact I would have to give a dog like that away, there is no way I could physically restrain a dog that agressive, and who knows what wll happen to the dog then, but this works for this person and the dog has not suffered any negative reprocussions.


----------



## Jackiejp (Aug 31, 2012)

I have found this thread very interesting. After years (too many to mention) of being out of training dogs it is amazing how attitudes have changed. After spending years training and trialing in herding both ACDs and BC's I fell out of the dog training scene got a pet dog seven years ago (mini poodle) and enjoyed a non competitive relationship with a dog that reads my wants and needs very well so I ask very little of him other than be a well behaved pet. I have recently got a puppy and have started to think that I should spend some time doing some training on her so started reading up on forums and have found this thread eye opening. 
Although I do believe that positive training methods are preferred I have had some personal experience with dogs in the neighborhood that have been totally out of control and the owners seem to be afraid to take control of the dog. One dog that lives next to us (a pit bull cross) is extremely aggressive mostly towards people. Whenever this dog sees anyone that it has not approved (it seems if you make friends with the dog he does not try to kill you) it lunges at that person and shows it's teeth. I have run into this dog several times in close situations and it really is pretty scary. I have no desire to make friends with a aggressive dog (nor would most people I believe). The owners of this dog are very sweet and try with all there might to distract the dog, praise the dog when for a moment it looks away from it's target or stops lunging even momentarily and avoiding meeting people that the dog has not preapproved but after years this dogs is still very unreliable and I believe it is only getting more aggressive with age. The owners really are trying to handle this dog with encouragement and praise but honestly as a outsider (that may one day get bit by this dog) they are not getting anywhere. So I am curious how people feel this dog should be handled? I know from my past in dog training that this dog needs some serious rehabilitation before a incident happens and I truly feel sorry for the dogs owners because they are very nice people (maybe too nice for this dog?). I guess I am just looking to find out how folks that believe only in positive training would handle this kind of situation. I am afraid this dogs fate will end in tragedy the way things are going. 
Jackie


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Jackiejp said:


> I have found this thread very interesting. After years (too many to mention) of being out of training dogs it is amazing how attitudes have changed. After spending years training and trialing in herding both ACDs and BC's I fell out of the dog training scene got a pet dog seven years ago (mini poodle) and enjoyed a non competitive relationship with a dog that reads my wants and needs very well so I ask very little of him other than be a well behaved pet. I have recently got a puppy and have started to think that I should spend some time doing some training on her so started reading up on forums and have found this thread eye opening.
> Although I do believe that positive training methods are preferred I have had some personal experience with dogs in the neighborhood that have been totally out of control and the owners seem to be afraid to take control of the dog. One dog that lives next to us (a pit bull cross) is extremely aggressive mostly towards people. Whenever this dog sees anyone that it has not approved (it seems if you make friends with the dog he does not try to kill you) it lunges at that person and shows it's teeth. I have run into this dog several times in close situations and it really is pretty scary. I have no desire to make friends with a aggressive dog (nor would most people I believe). The owners of this dog are very sweet and try with all there might to distract the dog, praise the dog when for a moment it looks away from it's target or stops lunging even momentarily and avoiding meeting people that the dog has not preapproved but after years this dogs is still very unreliable and I believe it is only getting more aggressive with age. The owners really are trying to handle this dog with encouragement and praise but honestly as a outsider (that may one day get bit by this dog) they are not getting anywhere. So I am curious how people feel this dog should be handled? I know from my past in dog training that this dog needs some serious rehabilitation before a incident happens and I truly feel sorry for the dogs owners because they are very nice people (maybe too nice for this dog?). I guess I am just looking to find out how folks that believe only in positive training would handle this kind of situation. I am afraid this dogs fate will end in tragedy the way things are going.
> Jackie


I too would like to know. I am currently working a DA bitch, and we have made enough strides for her to be offlead working with different dogs. I did have to use some.corrections though, as her threshold was a dog in sight, even across a football field. Nothing major, just a few leash corrections and harsh no! Then huge reward when she focused on me, not the dog.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

juliemule said:


> I too would like to know. I am currently working a DA bitch, and we have made enough strides for her to be offlead working with different dogs. I did have to use some.corrections though, as her threshold was a dog in sight, even across a football field. Nothing major, just a few leash corrections and harsh no! Then huge reward when she focused on me, not the dog.



I think, sometimes, people who are touting all positive, all the time, training are thinking mostly of preventing issues, not resolving them. I am very, very pro-positive - just to be exceedingly clear. I firmly believe that there are very few dogs, where - trained absolutely consistently, perfectly reenforced for good behavior and never reenforced (or allowed to self-reenforce ie: distraction) for undesirable behavior, have any need of corrections/punishment/aversives. That situation is exceedingly rare, if not downright impossible. Most people, when a dog develops an issue, can manage distraction/replacement/ignoring from that negative behavior - and still get a really good god, with really good behavior. I would say that applies for 99% of the dogs on this forum - pets and competing dogs alike. 

However, I am not purely positive. I recognize that sometimes, you have a dog who is endangering their OWN LIVES, or the safety and lives of others (dogs or people). The point when techniques like socialization, distraction, or replacement would be effective is gone. At that point a harsh 'no' and a leash correction may be what it takes for the dog to GET IT. Or, as the case may be, to stop what they are doing. 

There is no reason, in my own life, with pet dogs who have no major issues, for me to use punishments or corrections. It's simply not necessary. If, however, there was a situation -for whatever reason- that one became a danger to itself or someone else (aggression is what I am thinking - and dogs get put down for that), I would be all over whatever it took to make it stop. No apologies for it, either. I would however, probably think that I did something, somewhere, to make the issue happen - and regret the heck out of it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Jackiejp said:


> I have found this thread very interesting. After years (too many to mention) of being out of training dogs it is amazing how attitudes have changed. After spending years training and trialing in herding both ACDs and BC's I fell out of the dog training scene got a pet dog seven years ago (mini poodle) and enjoyed a non competitive relationship with a dog that reads my wants and needs very well so I ask very little of him other than be a well behaved pet. I have recently got a puppy and have started to think that I should spend some time doing some training on her so started reading up on forums and have found this thread eye opening.
> Although I do believe that positive training methods are preferred I have had some personal experience with dogs in the neighborhood that have been totally out of control and the owners seem to be afraid to take control of the dog. One dog that lives next to us (a pit bull cross) is extremely aggressive mostly towards people. Whenever this dog sees anyone that it has not approved (it seems if you make friends with the dog he does not try to kill you) it lunges at that person and shows it's teeth. I have run into this dog several times in close situations and it really is pretty scary. I have no desire to make friends with a aggressive dog (nor would most people I believe). The owners of this dog are very sweet and try with all there might to distract the dog, praise the dog when for a moment it looks away from it's target or stops lunging even momentarily and avoiding meeting people that the dog has not preapproved but after years this dogs is still very unreliable and I believe it is only getting more aggressive with age. The owners really are trying to handle this dog with encouragement and praise but honestly as a outsider (that may one day get bit by this dog) they are not getting anywhere. So I am curious how people feel this dog should be handled? I know from my past in dog training that this dog needs some serious rehabilitation before a incident happens and I truly feel sorry for the dogs owners because they are very nice people (maybe too nice for this dog?). I guess I am just looking to find out how folks that believe only in positive training would handle this kind of situation. I am afraid this dogs fate will end in tragedy the way things are going.
> Jackie


There are ways of working with some HA dogs. It requires not only changing behavior but changing the dog's perception of the situation. The perception is seldom "improved" more than temporarily with aversives. I don't know that it is possible for every dog in ever situation (sometimes the home is a big part of the problem). And I also think it is a problem outside the scope of a forum like this. Requires professional intervention


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> This post is a farse....
> The practice of sending a pup out with older experienced dogs has been used for thousands of years in certain jobs with dogs. Herding dogs in real life working situations, hounds in hunting situations, etc. It is standard practice to send the pup out with older experienced dogs. Whether the older dogs intentionally teach the pup is debatable. But the pup learns and the older dogs cover the pups mistakes and allow him to learn from his mistakes.... It is one thing to do herding trials with a pup or hunt birds with a pup. But Putting a pack of pups on a sounder of wild hogs or a herd of wild woods cattle will cause you to end up with dead pups quick.....
> 
> But Alpha rolling looks good on TV.....


I think it depends on what you are trying to teach the dog. Certainly dogs are better at instinctive behaviors (like herding) than I am. I teach sit better.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> I think, sometimes, people who are touting all positive, all the time, training are thinking mostly of preventing issues, not resolving them. I am very, very pro-positive - just to be exceedingly clear. I firmly believe that there are very few dogs, where - trained absolutely consistently, perfectly reenforced for good behavior and never reenforced (or allowed to self-reenforce ie: distraction) for undesirable behavior, have any need of corrections/punishment/aversives. That situation is exceedingly rare, if not downright impossible. Most people, when a dog develops an issue, can manage distraction/replacement/ignoring from that negative behavior - and still get a really good god, with really good behavior. I would say that applies for 99% of the dogs on this forum - pets and competing dogs alike.
> 
> However, I am not purely positive. I recognize that sometimes, you have a dog who is endangering their OWN LIVES, or the safety and lives of others (dogs or people). The point when techniques like socialization, distraction, or replacement would be effective is gone. At that point a harsh 'no' and a leash correction may be what it takes for the dog to GET IT. Or, as the case may be, to stop what they are doing.
> 
> There is no reason, in my own life, with pet dogs who have no major issues, for me to use punishments or corrections. It's simply not necessary. If, however, there was a situation -for whatever reason- that one became a danger to itself or someone else (aggression is what I am thinking - and dogs get put down for that), I would be all over whatever it took to make it stop. No apologies for it, either. I would however, probably think that I did something, somewhere, to make the issue happen - and regret the heck out of it.


 I agree with you. I like training without using corrections or punishing the dog. The dog I mentioned above has every aspect of a great detection dog, even at one year old, but the dog aggression had to go. Granted it isn't cured, ems I don't believe you can cure actual aggression, but can manage it. 

She isn't afraid of other dogs, but when she looks at a reactive dog, and I say leave it she totally refocuses and gets back to work. This is even working with very aggressive acting dogs, she will work right beside them and ignore them.

I tried only positive at first, and if there is a way to not use a correction in a situation like this, or human aggression, I would rather, I just haven't seen it work in every situation.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

CptJack said:


> I think, sometimes, people who are touting all positive, all the time, training are thinking mostly of preventing issues, not resolving them. I am very, very pro-positive - just to be exceedingly clear. I firmly believe that there are very few dogs, where - trained absolutely consistently, perfectly reenforced for good behavior and never reenforced (or allowed to self-reenforce ie: distraction) for undesirable behavior, have any need of corrections/punishment/aversives. That situation is exceedingly rare, if not downright impossible. Most people, when a dog develops an issue, can manage distraction/replacement/ignoring from that negative behavior - and still get a really good god, with really good behavior. I would say that applies for 99% of the dogs on this forum - pets and competing dogs alike.
> 
> However, I am not purely positive. I recognize that sometimes, you have a dog who is endangering their OWN LIVES, or the safety and lives of others (dogs or people). The point when techniques like socialization, distraction, or replacement would be effective is gone. At that point a harsh 'no' and a leash correction may be what it takes for the dog to GET IT. Or, as the case may be, to stop what they are doing.
> 
> There is no reason, in my own life, with pet dogs who have no major issues, for me to use punishments or corrections. It's simply not necessary. If, however, there was a situation -for whatever reason- that one became a danger to itself or someone else (aggression is what I am thinking - and dogs get put down for that), I would be all over whatever it took to make it stop. No apologies for it, either. I would however, probably think that I did something, somewhere, to make the issue happen - and regret the heck out of it.


I do not agree. I rehab aggressive dogs too, but I use totally and completely positive methods (Click to Calm, BAT Training, LAT training, etc). Corrections would only ruin the strides I've made with my seriously aggressive (HA, DA, FA, and any other types of aggression you can label) dog, Oliver. Sometimes corrections can be used without making things worse, but positive methods will do the same job, with ALOT less stress on the dog.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Deaf Dogs said:


> I do not agree. I rehab aggressive dogs too, but I use totally and completely positive methods (Click to Calm, BAT Training, LAT training, etc). Corrections would only ruin the strides I've made with my seriously aggressive (HA, DA, FA, and any other types of aggression you can label) dog, Oliver. Sometimes corrections can be used without making things worse, but positive methods will do the same job, with ALOT less stress on the dog.


How do you get an aggressive dog to focus on you, with positive only, that is determined to attack another dog in sight?

I feel most can be easily redirected, but I have had a few that really were not going to be distracted, no matter what. A few handler aggressive dogs especially. They don't care about treats, toys, and if you attempted to pet them.. well you wouldn't do it twice lol. 

The DA pup I'm working now, loves praise, and treats, but her ultimate reward is the ball. After a few corrections, the reward has worked well. 
I have had a couple that there just wasn't anyway to be near the dog besides a catch pole. They would just wait, as collar.smart dogs will, and once the opportunity arose would really hurt you. On these types, I haven't been able to find a positive only solution. 
I would like to learn, or depending on your area even send them to you on the handler aggressive dogs if you can work them positive only, and have experience dealing with seriously aggressive dogs. Keep in mind most have been trained to bite, so its not a bluff or fear aggression issue.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

Yes I do, because I do not let the dog I'm working with go over threshold, and if it does accidentally happen, we just get away. I do not correct any aggression, as it can make the dog fear/hate the offending dog/person even more. If corrections have worked for you, great, but it's certainly a crapshoot if it works, and can often make the situation worse (or suppress it until the dog explodes). Clicker training and positive training will not cause worse reactions, but correcting them can!

I was working with Oliver one day at Petsmart, a couple of years ago. We came across a little ACD puppy quite suddenly (I didn't know another dog was in the store!) but Ollie was ok with puppies. at this point, using LAT training, I'd got Ollie's threshold down to 10-15 feet (which was a miracle considering he was a "kill on sight" kindof boy when I first got him) so we were about 20 ft away, and Ollie was calmly watching the puppy. The "trainer" who believes in CM came up to us and said "you gotta break his concentration" I said, nope, he's not staring, he's watching, and that's a good thing! I was periodically clicking and feeding him. She then said no he's staring and you gotta break his concentration, like this!" and proceeded to poke him in the side, just a poke, but Ollie leaped back and flipped around, looked at her, then looked back at the puppy. This time he was staring!. I didn't do anything for a second, cuz I was shocked she actually touched my dog! Then she proceeded to poke him again, this time harder... Ollie Exploded! he lunged at the puppy, lunged at her and just generally freaked right out! thank goodness he was wearing a muzzle!!! I got really mad, told her off and left the store, as Oliver was so upset, that there would be no more learning done that day!

After that, he was no longer fine, and his threshold went back to on site! I have spent the last 2 years trying to get him back to where he was before those 2 pokes! They weren't hard, they didn't hurt him, but they were at an AWFUL time, and he never forgave that trainer (he used to be friends with her) afterwards, he wouldn't let her anywhere near him!

So yes, corrections can make the situation WAAAAYYYY worse! 

ETA the pokes were not timed wrong according to CM and other correction based trainers that advocate doing it. it was not bad timing (according to their theories)


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

juliemule said:


> The DA pup I'm working now, loves praise, and treats, but her ultimate reward is the ball. After a few corrections, the reward has worked well.
> I have had a couple that there just wasn't anyway to be near the dog besides a catch pole. They would just wait, as collar.smart dogs will, and once the opportunity arose would really hurt you. On these types, I haven't been able to find a positive only solution.
> I would like to learn, or depending on your area even send them to you on the handler aggressive dogs if you can work them positive only, and have experience dealing with seriously aggressive dogs. Keep in mind most have been trained to bite, so its not a bluff or fear aggression issue.


I have never worked with a dog trained to bite, I've only worked with Feral, Reactive, Fear Aggressive and DA dogs, so as far as working with a dog like that, I would have to do some research. But I dont imagine it would be much different than working with ferals...


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> I think it depends on what you are trying to teach the dog. Certainly dogs are better at instinctive behaviors (like herding) than I am. I teach sit better.


Well I'm not sure of pups learning from older dogs, but with bird dogs a pup that hunts with and follows an older dog is gonna get into an area that bird scent is rampant. Now my personal theory is that when a pup is in the right place mental trap doors are opening. The older dog is the guide to the area needed but the pup basically has to have the instincts/breeding etc (trap doors) or nothing happens. Even this work has to be done properly or you build a pup that just follows other dog and does not learn to hunt independently. Instead of 2 dogs hunting you just have one dog with a tail, so to speak. Sometimes my explanations are lacking.

I know I have mentioned the trainer I knew that had the 5 kennels on each side and clients would put dogs in them and then he would work his dog in obedience between the runs. The owners actually believed that their dogs were being trained by the watching of such work. When done he would collect money and retreat to the nearest tavern to muse about how he had parted the customers from their money. Just sayin'...


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Deaf Dogs said:


> I have never worked with a dog trained to bite, I've only worked with Feral, Reactive, Fear Aggressive and DA dogs, so as far as working with a dog like that, I would have to do some research. But I dont imagine it would be much different than working with ferals...


Yes I definitely agree with fear based issues corrections make things worse. I do thonk, especially with handler aggressive dogs, there is a very fine line. Harsh corrections probably caused this type to be aggressive. 

The example of Libby being dog aggressive, had I have let her watch the dog, poked her, and kept standing there, it would have escalated her aggression as well. With the correction, given at appropriate time, and.physically redirected her by walking the other direction, as soon as she put focus on me, I reward. I give opportunity to redirect to me using voice, of course I try a treat or toy, if that fails, a leash correction with either a leave it or sharp hey! Soon we can remain in place with the correction, then just the word. 
I try to stay under threshold, but with some, any dog in sight is over threshold, as Libby was. She would still have aggression if we don't manage it properly, but now, if she gets uncomfortable she looks to me, I reinforce with a good dog, or a leave it depending on the dogs posture and reaction, and its worked wonderful. 

I believe human aggression is much easier to deal with, as the threshold is usually much better, with almost any dog. Plus you can control the persons reaction in training situations, to downplay their threat. 

I would just like to train without corrections period if possible. I will choose to correct though, if it can help a dangerous dog, or help a working dog continue to work. As with libby, I had to opt out of working her as a live find dog, and put her in cadaver, as the scene is more controlled and we can wait if there is another dog that may be too reactive to work beside. Even though she is working well off lead passing other off lead dogs, it is still a possibility, and I don't want to fish another dog, her, or a persons life by missing a buried victim because the dog may he too focused on another dog and not the job.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Well I'm not sure of pups learning from older dogs, but with bird dogs a pup that hunts with and follows an older dog is gonna get into an area that bird scent is rampant. Now my personal theory is that when a pup is in the right place mental trap doors are opening. The older dog is the guide to the area needed but the pup basically has to have the instincts/breeding etc (trap doors) or nothing happens. Even this work has to be done properly or you build a pup that just follows other dog and does not learn to hunt independently. Instead of 2 dogs hunting you just have one dog with a tail, so to speak. Sometimes my explanations are lacking.
> 
> I know I have mentioned the trainer I knew that had the 5 kennels on each side and clients would put dogs in them and then he would work his dog in obedience between the runs. The owners actually believed that their dogs were being trained by the watching of such work. When done he would collect money and retreat to the nearest tavern to muse about how he had parted the customers from their money. Just sayin'...


 That reminds me of a few trainers I know lol. I will often do bite training near the young dogs, it builds their confidence and drive up, but doesn't.teach grips or obedience.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

juliemule said:


> That reminds me of a few trainers I know lol. I will often do bite training near the young dogs, it builds their confidence and drive up, but doesn't.teach grips or obedience.


Exactly what I was trying to explain. Working on the innards then when time is correct working on the outers. The breeding is what makes a bird dog I cannot train a dog to be a bird dog, can only train what is needed to become partners with a bird dog. The handling/retrieving etc. 

Watching the young pups/dogs watching older dogs bite-work tells a trainer much, of course whether it's bird dogs, bite dogs or whatever the trainer watching all this silly stuff is the key. Nobody can train what they can't read.

I have met through the years too many non-reader of dog trainers.


----------



## Jackiejp (Aug 31, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> There are ways of working with some HA dogs. It requires not only changing behavior but changing the dog's perception of the situation. The perception seldom "improved" more than temporarily with aversives. I don't know that it is possible for every dog in ever situation (sometimes the home is a big part of the problem). And I also think it is a problem outside the scope of a forum like this. Requires professional intervention


I agree that this is out of the scope of a forum but I was still curious of how others of the same mindset as this dogs owners handle a problem dog like this. 
I have seriously considered making a call to the authorities because the dog truly is aggressive towards people and I am afraid that someone (perhaps a child) will end up getting bit by this dog but have held off because the owners are so nice. The problem is I would feel terrible if (or maybe I should say when) something does happen. If the owners were able to keep the dog at a safe distance from people maybe they could take the time to do some more training on him but they have the dog on a boat so the scary part of the aggression happens when the dog is going down the dock and meets someone on that dock (which is under 5 ft wide with water on each side). Not a place to get away from a aggressive dog.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, the thing is, with people like that, they're generally clueless about how to handle and train a dog. It's not the methods; it's the trainer. If they clumsily used "corrections" the way they clumsily use non-physical methods, the dog would likely be even more dangerous. They need a professional.


----------



## Jackiejp (Aug 31, 2012)

CptJack said:


> I think, sometimes, people who are touting all positive, all the time, training are thinking mostly of preventing issues, not resolving them. I am very, very pro-positive - just to be exceedingly clear. I firmly believe that there are very few dogs, where - trained absolutely consistently, perfectly reenforced for good behavior and never reenforced (or allowed to self-reenforce ie: distraction) for undesirable behavior, have any need of corrections/punishment/aversives. That situation is exceedingly rare, if not downright impossible. Most people, when a dog develops an issue, can manage distraction/replacement/ignoring from that negative behavior - and still get a really good god, with really good behavior. I would say that applies for 99% of the dogs on this forum - pets and competing dogs alike.
> 
> However, I am not purely positive. I recognize that sometimes, you have a dog who is endangering their OWN LIVES, or the safety and lives of others (dogs or people). The point when techniques like socialization, distraction, or replacement would be effective is gone. At that point a harsh 'no' and a leash correction may be what it takes for the dog to GET IT. Or, as the case may be, to stop what they are doing.
> 
> There is no reason, in my own life, with pet dogs who have no major issues, for me to use punishments or corrections. It's simply not necessary. If, however, there was a situation -for whatever reason- that one became a danger to itself or someone else (aggression is what I am thinking - and dogs get put down for that), I would be all over whatever it took to make it stop. No apologies for it, either. I would however, probably think that I did something, somewhere, to make the issue happen - and regret the heck out of it.


I agree with so much of what you have written. A dog at the point that I describe unfortunately is probably beyond help from any training method unless it was to be taken totally out of his environment which no doubt would break the heart of his owners. I also feel if in the right hands (many years ago) this dog could have been handled in a way that would allow the dog to have a normal life. A very sad situation that I doubt will end well.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Jackiejp said:


> I agree with so much of what you have written. A dog at the point that I describe unfortunately is probably beyond help from any training method unless it was to be taken totally out of his environment which no doubt would break the heart of his owners. I also feel if in the right hands (many years ago) this dog could have been handled in a way that would allow the dog to have a normal life. A very sad situation that I doubt will end well.


I think the very best that can possibly happen with these owners and this dog is down to management. Though they'd have to be able to face the fact that their dog is dangerous to do anything - like proper confinement! - which sounds pretty unlikely. You're right. it is a sad, sad situation.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> How do you get an aggressive dog to focus on you, with positive only, that is determined to attack another dog in sight?
> 
> I feel most can be easily redirected, but I have had a few that really were not going to be distracted, no matter what. A few handler aggressive dogs especially. They don't care about treats, toys, and if you attempted to pet them.. well you wouldn't do it twice lol.
> 
> .


What you describe here is clearly over threshold. I suppose you could shut the dog down with aversives enough to listen - or get more calm and more distance - starting teaching your protocols when the dog is not already in reactive mode. In fact, start teaching the protocols when there is nothing to be reactive about. You also (other than the puppy with a little mis-wiring/issues) seem to be talking about dogs who have already been pretty damaged by aversive methods and see humans as an enemy. Sad..


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> You also (other than the puppy with a little mis-wiring/issues) seem to be talking about dogs who have already been pretty damaged by aversive methods and see humans as an enemy. Sad..


Prefer dogs damaged by stupid humans using aversive methods. Or how many times have you seen one of these stupid humans/morons when the new puppy barks at a stranger think that is the greatest thing happening since the invention of bubble gum. Then comes the statement "Oh yeah I got me a watch dog" usually followed by good puppy/dog etc. 

Now fast forward 2 years and we have a screaming beast pulling his/her owner down the sidewalk trying to eat anything that moves while the owner is whining/venting about the bad dog he/she owns. I'm Just Sayin'...


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> What you describe here is clearly over threshold. I suppose you could shut the dog down with aversives enough to listen - or get more calm and more distance - starting teaching your protocols when the dog is not already in reactive mode. In fact, start teaching the protocols when there is nothing to be reactive about. You also (other than the puppy with a little mis-wiring/issues) seem to be talking about dogs who have already been pretty damaged by aversive methods and see humans as an enemy. Sad..


Completely. Every dog I have seen this hard to deal with was caused by poor handling/abuse. Just a poorly socialized, or poor nerved dog is nothing compared to these. They are smart enough to know that they can be behind a fence or on a catch pole or muzzled and not attempt a bite. May even sit with you a bit, before they see the opportunity to bite. It is sad.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Also, these dogs are specifically bred with little to no self preservation. No fear, huge fight drive towards people, and extremely driven to do so. Combing that with rough handling, and thinking its great that these young pups bite, its no surprise that they turn out this way. With good training, and raising they make unbelievable working dogs, unmatched guardians, and devoted family members.


----------



## EdDTS (May 30, 2012)

What training really comes down to when choosing methods is what resources do you have present. Like when working with a DA dog, do you have another dog that is completely calm that can help you work within threshold or are you just taking the dog out and hoping to see dogs while you're out?
If I have another dog that is completely calm then I would work within threshold, and slowly adjust the dog to ignoring the other dog(I can use my guy only sometimes).
If I don't I probably would use corrections if he was about to react to just another dog on the other side of the street(who also is probably reacting).

Doesn't matter what method you're using when the dog does what you want you have to give him some sort of praise, a good boy and a pet on the head and a scratch under his chin and he'll appreciate it.
My mentor used a lot of choke chains and prongs and stuff like that but when he used it, he was never frustrated or angry, and when the dog did what he wanted he showered the dog with praise and love. Doesn't matter where or what the command was, if you were in a store and you said sit, and the dog sat down, then he'd rub the dog all over giving kisses and praise. When it was teaching a dog to walk properly, he'd use a prong and give corrections. When he gave a correction and the dog heeled right next to him, tons of praise and pets. He always emphasized to me that you have to praise your dog when he does the right thing.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Sorry, the "prong and praise" thing ruined my dog. She now doesn't trust any treats or praise . So not like it works on all dogs. Plus, some dogs don't care about praise. For some dogs, petting is aversive.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Sorry, the "prong and praise" thing ruined my dog. She now doesn't trust any treats or praise . So not like it works on all dogs. Plus, some dogs don't care about praise. For some dogs, petting is aversive.


Why was prong/praise used on your dog.


----------



## EdDTS (May 30, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Sorry, the "prong and praise" thing ruined my dog. She now doesn't trust any treats or praise . So not like it works on all dogs. Plus, some dogs don't care about praise. For some dogs, petting is aversive.


I'm sorry the person who did it ruined your dog. It's very strange that that happened to your dog. Perhaps the person who was training it was correcting while giving praise without knowing it, even slightly tightening the collar is enough for a dog to feel it. Or maybe your dog is just very sensitive.
However, nothing works for every dog, I've said it a million times. Some dogs positive methods work great, others not so much. Sometimes aversives work great, other times not so much.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

> What training really comes down to when choosing methods is what resources do you have present. Like when working with a DA dog, do you have another dog that is completely calm that can help you work within threshold or are you just taking the dog out and hoping to see dogs while you're out?


lol too true! who are all these people that have a bunch of random calm dogs or 10+ random people to help them train their dog? not me, thats for sure, I cant even find one single person to help me out with Gem's Rally training, last person I asked to help me, set her training back months, because apperently slapping her and screaming BOO in her face was much more fun then petting her.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Why was prong/praise used on your dog.


Because that's the method the Kennel Club training classes taught. And I didn't know any better.

She's mostly Husky. I don't know about sensitive but she sure isn't very forgiving!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Because that's the method the Kennel Club training classes taught. And I didn't know any better.
> 
> She's mostly Husky. I don't know about sensitive but she sure isn't very forgiving!


Well it's not the prong that ruined the dog, it's an incompetent trainer that did not have the smarts to know that prong work would damage the dog.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

They sure considered themselves competent trainers, LOL. They all had titled obedience dogs. There was a 2-pound Chihuahua in the class, and they made her owner buy an itty-bitty prong collar, so I guess they were pretty confident in their methods working for all dogs. To be fair, Penny did great in the class--I think she liked performing in front of a group. But at home she wouldn't play the game. Wouldn't train at all, would just go under the table. The instructor said ""correct" her until she'll do what you say; you can't let her get away with that" but I didn't.

I am willing to believe it was clumsy handling on my part. You'd think the instructors would have corrected me if they saw me doing it wrong, though.


----------



## TorachiKatashi (Sep 29, 2010)

The biggest problem with any type of training that uses aversives or corrections is that you're putting blame on the dog when the blame belong solely on your own shoulders. If you haven't shown the dog in a fair, understandable manner what is expected of them in a given situation, then you have no one to blame but yourself when they choose to behave in their own way. If you want to use corrections, start correcting yourself every time your dog does something "wrong," and see how motivated you suddenly are to work on your training.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

TorachiKatashi said:


> The biggest problem with any type of training that uses aversives or corrections is that you're putting blame on the dog when the blame belong solely on your own shoulders. If you haven't shown the dog in a fair, understandable manner what is expected of them in a given situation, then you have no one to blame but yourself when they choose to behave in their own way. If you want to use corrections, start correcting yourself every time your dog does something "wrong," and see how motivated you suddenly are to work on your training.


This isn't always correct. Some come with prior experience, and its not possible to show the dog what is correct if it is reacting inappropriately. 
Starting with a clean slate is much easier to show a dog what is expected. Even then sometimes you have dog aggressive, human aggressive, or fearful dogs that don't follow what you show is an appropriate reaction. Then you have some dogs who don't respond to praise. Every dog is different. Not every method will work for every dog. Most respond best to positive, but there are times when it takes a little more.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Sorry, the "prong and praise" thing ruined my dog. She now doesn't trust any treats or praise . So not like it works on all dogs. Plus, some dogs don't care about praise. For some dogs, petting is aversive.


When you pair pain and praise, you risk making praise aversive. If you pair pain and cue/command, you risk poisoning it. I had one dog (early in my doggie days) whom I taught to become nauseated by freeze dried liver. I used it in the conformation ring, and while she tolerated being handled by the strange judge, she really did not like it so much that she assoicated it with the yummy because the two always happened at the same time.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

EdDTS said:


> I'm sorry the person who did it ruined your dog. It's very strange that that happened to your dog. Perhaps the person who was training it was correcting while giving praise without knowing it, even slightly tightening the collar is enough for a dog to feel it. Or maybe your dog is just very sensitive.
> However, nothing works for every dog, I've said it a million times. Some dogs positive methods work great, others not so much. Sometimes aversives work great, other times not so much.


It's not strange at all. It's a fairly frequent occurrance, though maybe not often to the point of actually "ruining" the dog


----------



## Bear2010 (Aug 21, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> This post is a farse....
> The practice of sending a pup out with older experienced dogs has been used for thousands of years in certain jobs with dogs. Herding dogs in real life working situations, hounds in hunting situations, etc. It is standard practice to send the pup out with older experienced dogs. Whether the older dogs intentionally teach the pup is debatable. But the pup learns and the older dogs cover the pups mistakes and allow him to learn from his mistakes.... It is one thing to do herding trials with a pup or hunt birds with a pup. But Putting a pack of pups on a sounder of wild hogs or a herd of wild woods cattle will cause you to end up with dead pups quick.....
> 
> But Alpha rolling looks good on TV.....



Maybe it will work with your dogs,don't work with mine.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Bear2010 said:


> Maybe it will work with your dogs,don't work with mine.


They have been training free running hounds that way for hundreds of years. It is downright foolish to send out a pup/young dog out without older experienced dogs. With some game it is a good way for the pup to get lost plus the chances of it being successful are not good. With other game, Cats, Bear, Hogs, etc.... It is a good way for a pup to get dead.....

If all a guy has is young inexperienced dogs, he needs to find someone with good experienced dogs to run with until the dogs get some experience...

Back when I was running dogs, my first dogs ran with my father and grandfathers dogs at first. Over the years I ran dogs, I allowed other folks green dogs to run with my dogs many times.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> They have been training free running hounds that way for hundreds of years. It is downright foolish to send out a pup/young dog out without older experienced dogs. With some game it is a good way for the pup to get lost plus the chances of it being successful are not good. With other game, Cats, Bear, Hogs, etc.... It is a good way for a pup to get dead.....
> 
> If all a guy has is young inexperienced dogs, he needs to find someone with good experienced dogs to run with until the dogs get some experience...
> 
> Back when I was running dogs, my first dogs ran with my father and grandfathers dogs at first. Over the years I ran dogs, I allowed other folks green dogs to run with my dogs many times.


I'm seconding this. I'm not saying one dog will each another to sit and stay, but I grew up with hunting hounds (beagles, walkers, black and tans, blue/red ticks, redbones) . It's the one place, in my experience, where you can get a puppy for close to nothing, a young dog cheap, and pay more than a thousand bucks for an old, scarred up dog. There is a reason for this. People? Do not have a hound nose. They are not smelling the trail. They can not teach the dog 'when you smell this, you bark. When you see the animal go up a tree you stay there and KEEP barking. Oh, and that deer (other) smell? Ignore that.'- or maybe they can, but they can't do it as WELL as another dog. 

I went on many a midnight trip with our old dogs and greener dogs learning the ropes of '**** hunting (or, with beagles, daytime trip sand rabbits). Turning a bunch of green hounds lose in the woods is not hunting. It's letting the dogs run in the woods, then four hours of you tracking their butts down because they're HOUNDS, and will follow their nose. Just not always to a ****, a rabbit, or what you're trying to get them to follow. Great way for them to get SHOT when they start chasing deer, too.

So no. Dogs are not obedience training each other, but they sure as HECK learning from each other.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

TorachiKatashi said:


> The biggest problem with any type of training that uses aversives or corrections is that you're putting blame on the dog when the blame belong solely on your own shoulders. If you haven't shown the dog in a fair, understandable manner what is expected of them in a given situation, then you have no one to blame but yourself when they choose to behave in their own way. If you want to use corrections, start correcting yourself every time your dog does something "wrong," and see how motivated you suddenly are to work on your training.


See I believe that to be partly true: in the case of Josefina, who knows what she is supposed to do but doesn't, was very frustrating but got no inhumane treatment, sometimes has to have a negative consequence for disobeying commands (controlling her bite when on other dogs are playing community dog with a fetch toy) if she puts her teeth on a dog that causes them to yelp she gets a time out forthr rest of the play session no ifs ands or buts. 

Doing that has diminished her instances of doing things she knows is naughty being rude = no more fun period


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

This is where I come at the topic as well.

I've not ever had a dog that stretched the limits, but I WAS a child that deliberately disobeyed, and I was gifted with one as pay back.

I believe there has to be dogs like this as well?

To give a for instance - with a child not a dog - my youngest, who was two and knew better, decided to chomp down on his older brothers arm. The older brother was screaming bloody murder and in pain and I said in a firm voice "-his name-stop biting your brother!" The youngest looked at me knowing EXACTLY what I said and gave me a glare that said 'forget you' and bit even harder. He was enjoying a good bite (and I remember doing that exact thing to a sister of mine when I was young).

I used an aversive action called a smack on his behind, at which moment he let go, which was the only goal I had at that time. His brother deserved protection and didn't need to be tortured with teeth clinched onto him while I attempted to convince the little one to do what he already knew was right.

The lead up to the bite was that they were sitting and cutting paper for some kind of a craft project we were doing - supervised the whole time. 

It was the first time he was spanked and spanking was only ever a rare occasion, as I avoid aversives with kids and dogs, but I cannot believe that they are not absolutely necessary some times.

SOB


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> See I believe that to be partly true: in the case of Josefina, who knows what she is supposed to do but doesn't, was very frustrating but got no inhumane treatment, sometimes has to have a negative consequence for disobeying commands (controlling her bite when on other dogs are playing community dog with a fetch toy) if she puts her teeth on a dog that causes them to yelp she gets a time out forthr rest of the play session no ifs ands or buts.


Of course - that's just negative punishment (time outs, withdrawal from the fun/social time). You also know Josefina knows the correct behavior. Of course you can punish a refusal to do a known behavior if you know the dog knows (whew). 

I think what Torachi was saying is that if you have a dog in the learning process, or you just 'expect' the dog to do whatever even though the dog hasn't been taught what that whatever is - correcting the dog is unfair. I know if I ask Wally to get me a blue pillow and he just looks at me like "what are those sounds coming out of your mouth?" and I punish/correct him - that's unfair to him. Who's fault is it that he doesn't know what I'm talking about? Not his.

However, I usually attack from another angle. If Wally does refuse a behavior, I'm more looking at what made him refuse. That changes how I approach any solution. If he was too distracted, then I know more proofing is in order. If he tried to do it, but did it wrong/got mixed up, I need to refine more and/or maybe reteach the other behavior he did (put it on better stimulus control). 

I can also see it as "if the behavior is conditioned strongly enough, would the dog ever refuse?" To me, that's an interesting question. Can a behavior be conditioned so strongly that the dog will almost absolutely (since there's no such thing as 100%, but can I get 99%) perform the behavior first time every time? If so, then is it really the dog's fault a behavior might only be 86% reliable?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> This is where I come at the topic as well.
> 
> I've not ever had a dog that stretched the limits, but I WAS a child that deliberately disobeyed, and I was gifted with one as pay back.
> 
> I believe there has to be dogs like this as well?


I would say there is. 

I can think of times Wally pretty much did that like he was "seeing if I was serious about it". I never hit him, unless it's during play, but I have removed him from whatever he was doing. 

I also think it depends on the scope. If we're talking all dogs ever and everywhere, then sure, aversive is probably necessary as saying 100% of all dogs never need aversive for anything is not something that's likely to be true. If I'm talking about the one that's in my care and am in a day-to-day relationship with - then that answer might be different.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

workerant said:


> I suspect it's a lot like kids. Some kids need a firm hand, some thrive with lots of independence. You don't have to buy the entire hierarchy model of canine social structure to be firm with your dog.


This^^^ Positive or whatever you call it doesnt work on every dog... Just like a firm method doesn't work on every dog the methods I use with buddy (very gentle, as aversive free as possible) would have made Izze laugh. Same with josefina now that she has matured, if there is no negative consequence for her actions she won't take me seriously.

Say what you want about that I'm not applying the technique enough & that dogs do respond to it & they do... But some learn to outsmart the standard CC/OC & click-&-treat procedures.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Say what you want about that I'm not applying the technique enough & that dogs do respond to it & they do... But some learn to outsmart the standard CC/OC & click-&-treat procedures.



I sometimes see dogs ask questions: will this be reinforced? is this allowed? I try to answer those questions clearly, but it tells me the dog is not conditioned to the behavior. Often we take short cuts and skip steps. And by the way, your use of negative punishment (time outs, etc.) is every bit as much an element of operant conditioning as click and treat.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> This^^^ Positive or whatever you call it doesnt work on every dog... Just like a firm method doesn't work on every dog the methods I use with buddy (very gentle, as aversive free as possible) would have made Izze laugh. Same with josefina now that she has matured, if there is no negative consequence for her actions she won't take me seriously.
> 
> Say what you want about that I'm not applying the technique enough & that dogs do respond to it & they do... But some learn to outsmart the standard CC/OC & click-&-treat procedures.


What part of "being firm" falls outside of operant conditioning and classical conditioning?

Likewise, are you saying you never give positive reinforcement to Josefina? Doing her work, as I remember you saying she enjoys it (I believe it was Josefina, sorry if I'm mixed up), is reinforcing and is something you adding to her environment, so it's positive - therefore +R.

Same for negative consequences. How does that fall outside of operant conditioning? Why do negative consequences have to always be aversive?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> And by the way, your use of negative punishment (time outs, etc.) is every bit as much an element of operant conditioning as click and treat.


Exactly. That's why I don't understand what's "outside of OC/CC" that she's mentioning.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

KBLover said:


> What part of "being firm" falls outside of operant conditioning and classical conditioning?
> 
> Likewise, are you saying you never give positive reinforcement to Josefina? Doing her work, as I remember you saying she enjoys it (I believe it was Josefina, sorry if I'm mixed up), is reinforcing and is something you adding to her environment, so it's positive - therefore +R.


You are correct, the reward IS the play, throwing the ball, getting to join in etc... i use treats to train young pups & just ignore as much undesired behavior as i can, then in adolescence i gradually rein in the slack, mine never ask 'will this be renforced' as they know it always is because i never fail to renforce desired behavior, behaviors i want to occur again. 

BUT the difference is i dont simply ignore things like not sitting for the ball to be thrown, breaking stay, not doing a down & more important, not coming when called (which i make sure i teach before & make sure the dog knows it before i chastise them for not doing it)



> Same for negative consequences. How does that fall outside of operant conditioning? Why do negative consequences have to always be aversive?


no, they dont, i dont make my dogs feel bad about themselves for not 'obeying' they just dont get what they want.


----------



## NDpups (Jun 25, 2012)

I think everyone here recognizes that some dogs have tendencies to dominate and some to the degree that their tendency is to fight all perceived challengers. BUT, the main factor as far as I'm concerned is that the dog shows me and my commands respect. Even if the dog has successfully defended his turf over and over, I expect him to follow my rules, which includes not attacking other dogs. Much of the disagreement comes from the terminology. And I too am a little sick of people pulling the theory out and using it as a club to try and beat up other posters. What I call "respect" you may call "submission", but I don't care what you call it. I train my dogs to respect my commands, and I don't really think it's the same thing as a dominant wolf in a wild pack. It is a special situation that does not really translate, IMO. If anything I think we have the role of the pup's mother, showing them what is acceptable and what is not. Especially since domestic dogs have been selected for infantile properties which remain for their whole lives.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Yeah I don't know the official term for it by I practice the "you'll get what you want only IF you do what I want FIRST." lol


----------



## lovejc (Aug 28, 2012)

I think I will have to use more positive reinforcement/treat training with my girl Ruby. She's a bit hard headed and when I use aversives she either doesn't care or she seems to challenge me more. She is just a teenager (almost 15 months) but I'm thinking of using more treats as she is VERY food motivated. I have never trained this way but I am open to it. 
The way I figure it- maybe I've never used this method before but maybe she wont reach her full potential if I don't...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lovejc said:


> I think I will have to use more positive reinforcement/treat training with my girl Ruby. She's a bit hard headed and when I use aversives she either doesn't care or she seems to challenge me more. She is just a teenager (almost 15 months) but I'm thinking of using more treats as she is VERY food motivated. I have never trained this way but I am open to it.
> The way I figure it- maybe I've never used this method before but maybe she wont reach her full potential if I don't...


Thing is it is not just about using "more treats". It's about using the treats thoughtfully and in a way where the dog understands exactly what is being reinforced. That means a marker, and it also means that the treat is not a bribe - I make it a point to not even reach for the treat until the behavior has been performed. I do find it works a lot better than routine aversives.


----------

