# Is this bad behavior?



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

Please lock this thread.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

You know what?

If this doesn't bother the people who own him? No. If it does, then yes.

The only exemption from that statement is the food aggression/resource guarding (includes guarding mome) and that's not bad behavior but IS something that needs to be managed for safety. 

Otherwise? If the dog is happy, measures are taken to prevent the dog from pestering the crap out of visitors (with noses being stuffed places, or begging) then I kinda consider every last one of those non issues.

Basically, the people who live with the dog get to define what well behaved is and isn't, and what they bother to work on. We've had entire threads here about what does/doesn't fly in our homes, and there's always a lot of variation. So, basically I think if you aren't living there with the dog, and you aren't left having to deal with behavior you don't like, then tou don't get a vote in defining if that's 'bad' behavior or not.

**ETA:*** (And agreed with Gingerkid - dominance theory is junk science, has been disproven, and is no way to train or have a relationship with a dog - and before you start, my dogs don't do a THING that anyone would consider bad behavior (except beg because, lol, I don't care). Matter of fact, some of them have titles on both ends, and some more of them are engaged in competitive dog sports. So, yeah. No. You're just wrong.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

There isn't a universal definition of what constitutes "rudeness" in dog/people relationships. Different people can't stand different behaviors in dogs, so most of your questions aren't really yes/no questions.

1) While people are eating, he will roam from person to person laying his head on their lap or pushing legs with his nose. If that does not get him food, he will start whining and barking very loudly. Is this rude and inappropriate behavior? *Only if it bothers his people.*

2) When somebody tries to hug my mother, he becomes very defensive, barking loudly and continually inserting his nose between her legs and buttocks. Is this rude and possessive behavior? Furthermore, he is very persistent with women on their periods, inserting his nose in places much to private for a dog's nose. Is this also intrusive/rude? *

3) He expects a dog treat promptly at 7pm every night. If he does not get this treat, he will NOT stop whining or barking until he gets this treat or is put in his crate. Is this a sign of entitlement? No. Entitlement is a human concept - dogs know schedule and how they've been reinforced to behave.

4) He becomes extremely aggressive if you go after any dog treats or dog food he has, as well as any objects he may have stolen that are not his to have. In one instance, he had grabbed some pieces of a ham package and I pushed him onto his back and held his head back in a submissive position. He immediately bit my hand and drew a large amount of blood, leaving me with a very painful bruise for weeks. My family is convinced I called this onto myself, yet I argue with them I can literally stick my fingers into my own dog's mouth and take things he shouldn't have from him, and he has never bit me. Am I wrong in assuming that their dog should display the same behavior? Physical force is one of the worst ways to interact with a dog. Yes, you are wrong in assuming that their dog should display the same behavior as your dog - their dog is NOT your dog. Food guarding absolutely is an issue that should be addressed, but it is not logical to assume that all dogs will act the same. Plus, how would you feel if someone tried to grab your chocolate bar out of your hand and then shoved you on the ground and started yelling at you for having a chocolate bar? You'd probably be angry.

5) In regards to the previous question, on a scale of one to ten, how dangerous/aggressive would you rate their dog? How urgent is it that they seek rehabilitation? Does it bite people when they're not trying to alpha roll it and take a very high value treat? If no, then like, a 2 or a 3. Rehabilitation? Are there small children around frequently, who may inadvertantly try to steal some of the dog's food? No? Then there's no need to "seek rehabilitation". You can counter condition most food-guarding dogs in a much shorter period than other dogs - it is one of the most common issues in dogs and also one of the easiest to work with. 

6) They are convinced it's impossible to rehabilitate their dog due to his age. Is this true? No. Old dogs learn new tricks all the time, just ask Snowball who learned to roll over at age 9. 




7) These are my expectations for a dog: stops barking when commanded, releases any object they are holding on command, will stop bothering people or begging for attention/food on command, will roll over and remain calm while being dominated by their master etc. They have expressed the opinion I am too strict; would you agree? Yes. I would be very sad to have that kind of relationship with my dog, where it has to be "Dominated". Relationships (ALL relationships) should be built on trust, not domination.

8) Anytime the dog begins to whine or bark loudly, either my mother or father will give him what he wants or will pet him until he's quiet. Is that the wrong choice to make? Does it bother your parents that he barks until they give him a treat/pet him? (that's your answer)

Honestly, from these questions, I think you've vastly overestimated the behavioral problems of this dog. He sounds spoiled and poorly trained, sure... But I have a hard time sympathizing with people who get bit while physically forcing dogs into submission through alpha-rolling and other displays of dominance. Sorry.*


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

1) While people are eating, he will roam from person to person laying his head on their lap or pushing legs with his nose. If that does not get him food, he will start whining and barking very loudly. Is this rude and inappropriate behavior? *I would consider it rude personally but if it doesn't bother his owners then I don't see it as a problem. You should ask them how they feel about it.*

2) When somebody tries to hug my mother, he becomes very defensive, barking loudly and continually inserting his nose between her legs and buttocks. Is this rude and possessive behavior? Furthermore, he is very persistent with women on their periods, inserting his nose in places much to private for a dog's nose. Is this also intrusive/rude? *It sounds like he might be resource guarding your mother? This behavior is based on fear. They could work on building his confidence with training and teaching him that people being near your mother is a good thing, not something to fear. As for the inappropriate nosing, the dog just needs to be taught some boundaries with guests, giving him a counter cue such as sit when he is trying to do this and reinforcing him (treats/toys/praise etc) for the appropriate action should help start a new habit.*

3) He expects a dog treat promptly at 7pm every night. If he does not get this treat, he will NOT stop whining or barking until he gets this treat or is put in his crate. Is this a sign of entitlement? *No. It's a sign that this dog knows the routine and his owners have reinforced him for this behavior. If the owners don't like it they could train him out of it with a quiet command and varying the treat times or only providing treats with training sessions.*

4) He becomes extremely aggressive if you go after any dog treats or dog food he has, as well as any objects he may have stolen that are not his to have. In one instance, he had grabbed some pieces of a ham package and I pushed him onto his back and held his head back in a submissive position. He immediately bit my hand and drew a large amount of blood, leaving me with a very painful bruise for weeks. My family is convinced I called this onto myself, yet I argue with them I can literally stick my fingers into my own dog's mouth and take things he shouldn't have from him, and he has never bit me. Am I wrong in assuming that their dog should display the same behavior? *No, you are wrong. Your dog is not this dog, what your dog will tolerate is not what you should expect from other people's dogs. Alpha rolling a dog is not appropriate in any situation imo. There are ways to work with resource guarding such as the "trading up" game and other positive reinforcement based techniques but physical force is not the solution.*

5) In regards to the previous question, on a scale of one to ten, how dangerous/aggressive would you rate their dog? How urgent is it that they seek rehabilitation? *If this dog has only bitten in the situation of being alpha rolled then I would say it really depends how much the owners are bothered by the dogs behavior. Training for resource guarding should be a priority but I wouldn't be overly concerned about the dog showing aggression in other situations, just based on what you have told us.*

6) They are convinced it's impossible to rehabilitate their dog due to his age. Is this true? *Age has little to do with training. They could train this dog now if they wanted to.*

7) These are my expectations for a dog: stops barking when commanded, releases any object they are holding on command, will stop bothering people or begging for attention/food on command, will roll over and remain calm while being dominated by their master etc. They have expressed the opinion I am too strict; would you agree? *No I don't agree. Teaching your dog good manners like not begging is great but mostly these things are up to the owners personal preference. I never agree that a dog should be forced into submission. Dominance theory as it applies to the dog human relationship is simply false and you shouldn't base your relationship with your dog or your training around it.*

8) Anytime the dog begins to whine or bark loudly, either my mother or father will give him what he wants or will pet him until he's quiet. Is that the wrong choice to make? *If the whining/barking doesn't bother them then I wouldn't worry about it. In some situations, such as if my dog needs to go outside to potty badly (usually if he's got an upset stomach), then I am happy that he alerts me by whining or barking. Some forms of vocalization I consider productive because my dog can indicate to me what he needs/wants or that something is wrong. *


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

As above, what is "bad and inappropriate" behaviour is decided by the owner. If it doesn't bother the owner, then the behaviour is fine. Provided of course that the behaviour doesn't harm other people and isn't dangerous etc.

I let my dogs get away with things that other people find unacceptable, like jumping up on me and staring at me while I eat. I could fix these things if I wanted to, but they don't bother me so there is no reason to spend the time and effort fixing it.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

Thank you all so much for the helpful information! It was a good suggestion to ask them how they feel about these behavioral issues, or what I feel are such.

Unfortunately, they also find the barking in many situations to be extremely annoying, and I feel they are being passive in this situation.

I seem to be getting conflicting information about the aggression and entitlement issues, however. I've spoken to dog trainers in person and they all have expressed deep concern with the food and toy aggression, advising that the situation be remedied immediately before a stranger gets bit. I've seen many dog training videos and shows from world renowned trainers such as Mr. Millan who make use of pinning dogs on their back to show dominance, as well as a general avocation for dominance over dogs. I realize it's not strictly dominance (there is a GREAT deal of respect between me and my dog, but he knows who pack leader is), however I feel in this situation my family is being passive to avoid dealing with the hassles of training. One thing that tells me this is they are a great deal more strict with the dog around strangers than they are around me or other family members who are visiting, which indicates some level of embarrassment of their dog's behavior. I know everybody is more strict with their dogs around strangers, but in this case its a complete change in how they treat the dog; its like they have two completely different sets of discipline depending on who's in the room.

Also, to be clear, I do use negative reinforcement. There is no physical abuse going on, but I do make use of alpha rolls and EXTREMELY light corporal punishment (we're talking literally a two inch pat on the butt, something you couldn't even really consider a spank). I use mostly positive reinforcement and have not had to make use of alpha rolls in a very long time and butt pats are a once a month thing at this point. I think universal positive reinforcement can be effective, but as many as you have said every dog is different. I tried only positive reinforcement with my dog for a very long time and got nowhere with him, and have had many other owners report the same thing. I think ultimately every dog needs what they need and the owner should be willing to react accordingly. 

I know this positive reinforcement thing has really taken off, and I'm not just some skeptic trying to deny it, but I hesitate to agree with the idea that it works with every dog in every situation, especially when I see many dog trainers making use of negative reinforcement, either in person or on video. I will agree that once dominance has been established, negative reinforcement rarely has to be used and positive reinforcement gives much more in terms of obedience. However, I think just like people there needs to be punishments in place for breaking the rules.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

At least their dog isn't so afraid of them that he doesn't act like a dog anymore. My dog used to be what you'd call well behaved. It only took me 2.5 years to get him to demand things he wants. (That's right, kabota totally embarrassed me in front of the delivery guy. It was awesome!)


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Mr. Milan is not a "world renowned trainer" he is a guy with a TV show who gets bitten far more often than he really should. There was a thread on this forum not that long ago dealing with just this subject. http://www.dogforums.com/dog-training-forum/295978-i-dont-feel-love.html Might be worth a read. 

I am going to be the first one to say that sometimes a correction is necessary. I don't train 100% positive with every dog and I have worked with dogs, my own and in rescue, since I was 10 (I'm a good bit older than 10 now). That is a whole lot of dogs. However I never ever ever "alpha roll" a dog or try to show them who the "pack leader" is. I default to positive training until that is proven not to work and use corrections (primarily no treat cues and a "no" command) as sparingly as possible. Your parent's dog has some behaviors that might be considered rude, train accordingly. RG is a very common issue in dogs and unless they are having children over or parties constantly the level of danger in the situation is quite small. Unless of course some one is trying to pry something out of the dog's mouth and alpha roll him, but if that is the case I would say that person is getting what she deserves. RG is fairly easy to remedy with some simple training games. Most of the other things you have mentioned are only issues if they are issues for your parents. A beagle/bichon mix is going to bark, those are vocal breeds. Unless the dog has been well socialized not to be loud and trained to a quiet cue it is likely that particular mix will be more vocal than your dog. That is like my comparing my poodle x chihuahua to my Carolina Dog, one doesn't bark at all the other is almost never quiet. Your parents have also passively taught their dog to bark by treating him and paying attention to him when he does so. They can teach him a quiet cue, they can try capturing calm but he will always be vocal. Dogs barking is not the worst thing in the world. I doubt you would want some one to smack your bum or roll you on your back every time you spoke.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Elementface said:


> 1) While people are eating, he will roam from person to person laying his head on their lap or pushing legs with his nose. If that does not get him food, he will start whining and barking very loudly. Is this rude and inappropriate behavior?


He has learned that begging gets him food. If it bothers his owners it's an easy enough problem to correct. I don't tolerate it in my dogs but it's not a red flag issue.



> 2) When somebody tries to hug my mother, he becomes very defensive, barking loudly and continually inserting his nose between her legs and buttocks. Is this rude and possessive behavior? Furthermore, he is very persistent with women on their periods, inserting his nose in places much to private for a dog's nose. Is this also intrusive/rude?


Intrusive yes. Rude, no, it's a dog, not a creepy dude on the subway. Just tell it to sit or whatever.



> 3) He expects a dog treat promptly at 7pm every night. If he does not get this treat, he will NOT stop whining or barking until he gets this treat or is put in his crate. Is this a sign of entitlement?


No. It's a sign he has learned he gets a treat at 7 pm. 



> 4) He becomes extremely aggressive if you go after any dog treats or dog food he has, as well as any objects he may have stolen that are not his to have. In one instance, he had grabbed some pieces of a ham package and I pushed him onto his back and held his head back in a submissive position. He immediately bit my hand and drew a large amount of blood, leaving me with a very painful bruise for weeks. My family is convinced I called this onto myself, yet I argue with them I can literally stick my fingers into my own dog's mouth and take things he shouldn't have from him, and he has never bit me. Am I wrong in assuming that their dog should display the same behavior?


You did call it upon yourself. "Alpha rolling" a dog that isn't even yours is a terrible idea. I expect my dogs to let me take anything from them, obey the command "drop it," and allow to handle their mouths as I please. (I do not abuse this privilege.) I did not accomplish this overnight or by brute force, I did it by training and desensitization, and thus the training has stuck. If a dog resource guards (some seem to have a predisposition for it, others have learned to do it), there are techniques to overcome it. In the meantime, in the battle of your hand versus teeth, your hand is always going to lose. There are a number of threads on this forum about resource guarding; I recommend you seek them out.



> 5) In regards to the previous question, on a scale of one to ten, how dangerous/aggressive would you rate their dog? How urgent is it that they seek rehabilitation?


If the only time it is snappy is when it has food then it's not particularly urgent or dangerous IMO. It is manageable because the trigger is obvious and can be controlled by the people. Just feed the dog separately or in a crate or whatever until the issue is resolved. Actually, leaving dogs the heck alone while they eat is a good practice in general.



> 6) They are convinced it's impossible to rehabilitate their dog due to his age. Is this true?


No.



> 7) These are my expectations for a dog: stops barking when commanded,


Reasonable but not urgent 


> releases any object they are holding on command,


Reasonable but takes savvy training


> will stop bothering people or begging for attention/food on command,


Level of begging tolerated really depends on the individual owners. "Stop bothering" is too vague, better to teach the dog a particular substitute behavior to do on command, like lie on a mat or kennel up


> will roll over and remain calm while being dominated by their master etc.


Mine would let me roll them over and pin them because they trust me. I did not achieve this trust by rolling them over and pinning them. It is a result of establishing trustworthy leadership, not a method of doing so. 



> They have expressed the opinion I am too strict; would you agree?
> 8) Anytime the dog begins to whine or bark loudly, either my mother or father will give him what he wants or will pet him until he's quiet. Is that the wrong choice to make?


It depends on what the goal is. If my dog is whining to go out I give her what she wants because I _want_ her to tell me when she needs out. If she's whining because she doesn't like being crated, I do not, because that would be rewarding her for being noisy in the crate, when what I want is for her to rest in the crate. Reward only desired behaviors is a basic principle of any kind of behavior management. 



> I already know this dog's behavioral state is dire and need of immediate attention before he harms a stranger, but my family just REFUSES to believe me. Hopefully with some support they will reconsider their opinion.


Eh. Unless there is more to the story, unless the stranger is grabbing ham from the dog's mouth while flipping it over, I'm missing the imminent threat. Plus if it's a beagle/bichon (I assume you meant bichon?) cross it's not exactly Cujo to anyone other than a toddler, and dogs shouldn't be left with little kids anyway. If it was my dog I'd be working on the yapping and pushiness and food guarding, but the level of that that individual owners will tolerate varies quite a bit.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

Thank you for the responses. I'll keep the thread open for other's sake, but I've got the information I need. 

I'll take the rudeness comments to heart, but I HAVE to go with the trainers I've talked to in person on the aggression issue. As they've put it:

"It just takes one bite; one bite and you have to put your dog down, no questions asked."

I'd hate for my family to have to put their dog down. I personally find him too annoying to really enjoy, but he doesn't deserve to be put down. He's been very aggressive to strangers in the past, especially children. Even if he is watched intently, he can snip at any moment, and all it takes is drawing blood to get a court preceding to have a dog put down.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

A smallish dog nipping someone is really unlikely to be court ordered euthanized, particularly if up-to-date on rabies shots. And from what you've said the dog has only bitten when having food violently snatched from it - what's the likelihood of a random stranger doing that? The dog needs some remediation in that particular area, but you're hugely overstating the level of danger here.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

parus said:


> A smallish dog nipping someone is really unlikely to be court ordered euthanized, particularly if up-to-date on rabies shots. And from what you've said the dog has only bitten when having food violently snatched from it - what's the likelihood of a random stranger doing that? The dog needs some remediation in that particular area, but you're hugely overstating the level of danger here.


This. 

Also? It's an easy issue to MANAGE. Don't screw with the dog when it has food. Put it in a crate to feed or behind closed doors to eat if you have visitors in the house. Boom, danger issue nil.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

That depends on the state you live in. In the states that both me and my parents live in, if the dog draws blood you have to put it down. It doesn't even matter if the victim doesn't press charges: there are states where reported bitings are treated like federal offenses, where once it's reached authorities its out of the control of the owner and victim. In many states, the policy is if it draws blood, it gets put down. Vaccination doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter if the dog is tea-cup sized - it draws blood, it goes down.

The reason many states do this is there are cases of owners convincing people to not report their dogs biting them, only to have the dog go crazy later on and mangle a child. It depends on the state you live in, but regardless dogs should NEVER nip unless they have a good reason too.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Usually dangerous dog laws are by municipality, not state. Are you sure about your local laws? What state are you in?


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

Sorry if I missed it. Has the dog nipped/bit someone else besides you?


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Simple solution. Company comes over, dog goes in crate or other room until company leaves. No chance for dog to bite a child or other stranger/guest. If your parents are truly concerned about resource guarding they can watch kikopup or zakgeorge videos or seek help from a good trainer.


----------



## WonderBreadDots (Jun 26, 2012)

Elementface said:


> That depends on the state you live in. In the states that both me and my parents live in, if the dog draws blood you have to put it down. It doesn't even matter if the victim doesn't press charges: there are states where reported bitings are treated like federal offenses, where once it's reached authorities its out of the control of the owner and victim. In many states, the policy is if it draws blood, it gets put down. Vaccination doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter if the dog is tea-cup sized - it draws blood, it goes down.
> 
> The reason many states do this is there are cases of owners convincing people to not report their dogs biting them, only to have the dog go crazy later on and mangle a child. It depends on the state you live in, but regardless dogs should NEVER nip unless they have a good reason too.


What states are these?


----------



## Eenypup (Mar 21, 2014)

I'd be afraid of a dog that's already resource guarding getting even worse with attempts at alpha rolling and all of that ridiculous dominance stuff. You've seen in the past that doing things like alpha rolls gets the dog to bite you, so why would you want to continue listening to trainers who advocate those methods? You're much better off keeping the dog away from strangers, especially when toys or food are around. This dog doesn't really seem overly problematic to me. Minus the resource guarding he sounds a lot like my mom's dog. A bit spoiled, sure, but he's almost 12 years old and hasn't caused any serious problems ever. He annoys me a bit but my mom loves him and doesn't mind his less than stellar manners, so who cares?


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Elementface said:


> That depends on the state you live in. In the states that both me and my parents live in, if the dog draws blood you have to put it down.


This is not true of any US states. You are misinformed.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

parus said:


> This is not true of any US states. You are misinformed.


Many of my neighboors have had to put their dogs down after the first unprovoked attack. I even met the girl who was mangled by a dog that caused the dramatic and strict shift in legislation. One comment mentioned that it could be municipal level, which may be true. I was under the impression it was state level because everybody I talked to, even the poster girl for the law changes, as well as many lawyer/dog bite attorney websites talked about the laws at the state level. I guess it was a case of the wrong information flowing enough to become false fact.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

Gally said:


> Sorry if I missed it. Has the dog nipped/bit someone else besides you?


Unfortunately he has either bitten or tried to bite everybody in the house. He has drew blood on me, my sister and my mother, but my father moved quick enough during his altercation to avoid a bite.

Correction: I remembered incorrectly; he did not draw blood on my sister, but he did leave a large bruise.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Attack vs nip, very different things. My grandfather's cranky old peke nipped at everyone, he rarely broke the skin and even if he did it was the sort of thing you put a bandaid on you didn't go to the doctor. How would this then be reported to the authorities causing the dog to be required to be put down? The dog nips your mother, there is not an animal control officer waiting outside the door monitoring these interactions ready to rush in and seize the dog. I fail to see any good reason why a family member would report a small nip that needed no medical care. 

I will agree that a dog should not be biting without provocation. However, if the dog is only snapping (not just growling, actually nipping/snapping) when some one tries to take food or toys away from the dog the biggest question here is why do you keep trying to take these things away from the dog? It seems like the simplest solution in the world. Put the dog away when visitors come over and do not try to take things from the dog. Work on behavior modification for the resource guarding and accept that this may be a dog that does not love socializing with strange people (some dogs don't) or shouldn't socialize with visitors/children (some dogs just don't like the noise and chaos of children, it is scary for them, doesn't make them bad dogs). I fail to see how alpha rolling the dog is a good solution here.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

Remaru said:


> Attack vs nip, very different things. My grandfather's cranky old peke nipped at everyone, he rarely broke the skin and even if he did it was the sort of thing you put a bandaid on you didn't go to the doctor. How would this then be reported to the authorities causing the dog to be required to be put down? The dog nips your mother, there is not an animal control officer waiting outside the door monitoring these interactions ready to rush in and seize the dog. I fail to see any good reason why a family member would report a small nip that needed no medical care.
> 
> I will agree that a dog should not be biting without provocation. However, if the dog is only snapping (not just growling, actually nipping/snapping) when some one tries to take food or toys away from the dog the biggest question here is why do you keep trying to take these things away from the dog? It seems like the simplest solution in the world. Put the dog away when visitors come over and do not try to take things from the dog. Work on behavior modification for the resource guarding and accept that this may be a dog that does not love socializing with strange people (some dogs don't) or shouldn't socialize with visitors/children (some dogs just don't like the noise and chaos of children, it is scary for them, doesn't make them bad dogs). I fail to see how alpha rolling the dog is a good solution here.


The dog growls very loudly if you stand within a foot of him while he's playing with a toy or chewing on a dog treat, and increases his growling, turning into a bark and rearing teeth, as you move closer.

You guys are really stuck on the alpha rolling. I didn't do it/don't do it to stop the bitting. I did it once to get a piece of trash out of his mouth, and that's when he bit me personally. I have not done it since.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

There are very simple ways to handle that, really. The first is to stay away from him when he has a toy or treat. Only give him high value items in a crate or room away from other people. If this is the only time he growls or threatens you have now solved the issue. If you would like to work on fixing the resource guarding you can do so with simple games like the "trade up" game. Take a toy and start playing with him, assuming of course he is willing to play. Offer him a tasty something like a bit of cheese. When he releases the toy give him the cheese. Start playing again and repeat the process. Eventually you can add the word "drop it" as he is letting go of the toy. This will help him come to anticipate good things when you take hold of his toys, both playing and treats. If he will not play with you (and a single time alpha rolling can be enough to harm a relationship with a sensitive dog who already has RG issues, that is why we keep coming back to it) or simply to further encourage the idea in his mind that people near his things are not threatening you can walk by while he is chewing a toy and just toss down tasty rewards. Make the rewards high value, things like bits of meat, freeze dried liver or cheese. Do not get too close, try to stay far enough away that he doesn't begin growling, just close enough that you can toss the treat and get it near him. Eventually (this will take time, it isn't an over night or even over a week thing) he will allow you closer and closer. This is something your parents will need to do as he is their dog. Or, if they don't care they can just keep his things (toys and chew treats) put up and keep him locked up when guests are over, it really isn't that big of a deal.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

Remaru said:


> There are very simple ways to handle that, really. The first is to stay away from him when he has a toy or treat. Only give him high value items in a crate or room away from other people. If this is the only time he growls or threatens you have now solved the issue. If you would like to work on fixing the resource guarding you can do so with simple games like the "trade up" game. Take a toy and start playing with him, assuming of course he is willing to play. Offer him a tasty something like a bit of cheese. When he releases the toy give him the cheese. Start playing again and repeat the process. Eventually you can add the word "drop it" as he is letting go of the toy. This will help him come to anticipate good things when you take hold of his toys, both playing and treats. If he will not play with you (and a single time alpha rolling can be enough to harm a relationship with a sensitive dog who already has RG issues, that is why we keep coming back to it) or simply to further encourage the idea in his mind that people near his things are not threatening you can walk by while he is chewing a toy and just toss down tasty rewards. Make the rewards high value, things like bits of meat, freeze dried liver or cheese. Do not get too close, try to stay far enough away that he doesn't begin growling, just close enough that you can toss the treat and get it near him. Eventually (this will take time, it isn't an over night or even over a week thing) he will allow you closer and closer. This is something your parents will need to do as he is their dog. Or, if they don't care they can just keep his things (toys and chew treats) put up and keep him locked up when guests are over, it really isn't that big of a deal.


Good advice here. 

I think part of the reason people keep talking about the alpha rolling is that while that may have been a one time occurrence, people who alpha roll usually have a dominance based training philosophy which can be really damaging to a relationship between a dog and a human and can lead to further bites and more aggression. If you did what Remaru suggested above that would be a great start to fixing most of this dogs really problematic behavior. Actively working on training might also help some of the other issues as the dog becomes more confident and less fearful. Also engaging the dog's mind and making sure it has adequate exercise can help curb some annoying habits that are sometimes done out of boredom. 

Your family should focus on what they want the dog to do (such as training to sit instead of sniffing guests, or go to mat instead of begging at table). This is much more productive than trying to correct bad behavior. If you reinforce appropriate behavior and stop reinforcing the bad behavior the dog will stop doing the unwanted behavior in favor of what works.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

Gally said:


> Good advice here.
> 
> I think part of the reason people keep talking about the alpha rolling is that while that may have been a one time occurrence, people who alpha roll usually have a dominance based training philosophy which can be really damaging to a relationship between a dog and a human and can lead to further bites and more aggression. If you did what Remaru suggested above that would be a great start to fixing most of this dogs really problematic behavior. Actively working on training might also help some of the other issues as the dog becomes more confident and less fearful. Also engaging the dog's mind and making sure it has adequate exercise can help curb some annoying habits that are sometimes done out of boredom.
> 
> Your family should focus on what they want the dog to do (such as training to sit instead of sniffing guests, or go to mat instead of begging at table). This is much more productive than trying to correct bad behavior. If you reinforce appropriate behavior and stop reinforcing the bad behavior the dog will stop doing the unwanted behavior in favor of what works.



I'm sorry but I find the advice somewhat conflicting. You are advocating against alpha rolling because it can cause trust issues, yet every trainer I've talked to has advised against using the crate as a sole source of control over the dog. 

Locking him in the crate every time a visitor comes over can only work in the short term. Also, my family has an issue keeping him in the crate because he is literally so loud you cannot have a conversation unless you are literally half way across the house. AT that point you are ignoring the dog every time a visitor comes over, leaving the dog with a feeling it's never allowed to socialize with other people. Dogs, and this is the opinion of many of the professional trainers I've spoken to, need to be able to co-exist with not just their owners but also strangers and not feel the need to be dominant over every human they come across. That obviously can't be done in the short term, but just locking the dog up constantly just is not a respectful option in my eyes.

I'm already aware of the training techniques people have offered, but the problem is my family is refusing to implement any of them: they don't keep him in the crate while strangers are over, they don't do any trust training to stop the resource gathering, and they continue to insist that the biting is not just a small problem, but that it doesn't require any sort of attention or extra training. I'm trying to get the opinion if this dog is showing signs of being at risk of being overly aggressive and protective, or if this is, as they have put it, not that big of deal that doesn't require any adjustment in how they treat the dog. Perhaps the truth is in the middle, but I think everybody is getting confused on what exactly I'm asking for and saying:

The dog has bit or tried to bite everybody in the house, usually when he grabs trash or something else he's not supposed to have. Usually people leave him alone when he has something given to him, but trying to get things from him that he shouldn't have is always a risk, at least in my eyes. He shows very aggressive signals when somebody tries to take anything from him, but especially trash or anything else he's stolen. He very rarely accepts trade-ups, even with his favorite toys or treats; if that piece of trash has meat juice on it, he wants NOTHING but that piece of trash. They have settled on walking him to his cage, and at the door of his cage he drops it. Unfortunately, to encourage this they pick him up by the back of his collar, hold him high enough to where his paws are off the ground, and holds him there until he spits it out, because otherwise he will stand at the gate with the trash in his mouth and not give it up.

The problem isn't that _*I*_ don't know how to train him, because I have adjusted the way I treat him and we have found some sort of truce. He doesn't respond to alpha rolling well like my dog does (but in my opinion no dog should ever be aggressive during an alpha roll - I take it as a sign of challenge for dominance, as many dog trainers have described such behavior as dominance challenge), and I refuse to choke things out of him so I just let my family handle that. That is why I chose to alpha roll him: I refused to resort to choking things out of him, so I chose a MUCH less harmful technique that a dog is familiar with. I have trained my dog, through positive reinforcement, to drop things on command, and my family is convinced due to his age that it's impossible to train him to do that sort of thing, so they continue to choke things out of him. 

You guys seem to think my go-to choice is alpha rolls or other corporal punishment - to be very clear, *alpha rolls and corporal punishment are a last resort for me; positive reinforcement is always the first choice unless the dog refuses to cooperate. * I certainly prescribe to the dominance style of training, where I want there to be a clear, established dominance with the pack leader, or myself. I will acheive this through very rare dominance signals and mostly positive reinforcement for being submissive. I don't agree with the opinion dominance trainers are inherently bad or break trust, because every owner, vet and trainer I've taken my dog to says he's one of the happiest dogs they've seen. My dog knows who pack leader is, and he never challenges that, but I see him as an equal as a life form - I'm just smarter and bigger so I call the shots, for my dog's own well being, as well as the happiness of my household, so I seriously doubt dominance training is nothing but bad for a dog.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

The dog's aggression gets more elaborate with each post, and now your parents live in a mysterious municipality of the US (even though before you authoritatively stated it was you and your parents' state*s*) where there is a regulation requiring death at first blood (if this were true, there's be a heap of dead landshark puppies) and you've consulted with all these trainers, but you're here on an internet forum about the dog...yeah. You don't need to double-down just because people didn't agree with your OP.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

People have already given you their opinions on the situation. If everyone had instead said that this is a dangerous dog what would you have done with that information?

If your family wont manage the dog or train him I'm not sure what else could be done? Are you going to take the dog to a professional trainer or behaviorist yourself? That might be a good option if the family agrees but it wont stick unless everyone is on board and continues the training at home.

If the family is uncomfortable with using a crate then other containment measures can be used. A dog proof room or a babygate can work equally well for this type of situation. 
Keeping the trash and other forbidden objects locked away would be a good start as well.

Part of dog ownership is management (like using crates or dog proofing your home). It's not about control, it's about setting the dog up to succeed.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

parus said:


> The dog's aggression gets more elaborate with each post, and now your parents live in a mysterious municipality of the US (even though before you authoritatively stated it was you and your parents' state*s*) where there is a regulation requiring death at first blood (if this were true, there's be a heap of dead landshark puppies) and you've consulted with all these trainers, but you're here on an internet forum about the dog...yeah. You don't need to double-down just because people didn't agree with your OP.


I have yet to lie. Also, my post started many different conversations and many people had different questions. That's what forums are for: to discuss. People agreed and disagreed with my OP, but I have every right to defend my opinions. Notice none of the posts by this point are actually answering my original post: it has moved on from that into other discussions that have proved useful to myself and no doubt others. If I had not "doubled-down", i would not have learned as much as I did.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

Gally said:


> People have already given you their opinions on the situation. If everyone had instead said that this is a dangerous dog what would you have done with that information?
> 
> If your family wont manage the dog or train him I'm not sure what else could be done? Are you going to take the dog to a professional trainer or behaviorist yourself? That might be a good option if the family agrees but it wont stick unless everyone is on board and continues the training at home.
> 
> ...


I may ask them if they are willing to allow me to do that. 

Ultimately I did get what I'm looking for: you all suggesting something change. Everybody suggested something different, but nobody has suggested leaving it as it is yet. What's happening is people within the family are saying he either can't or shouldn't be retrained. He might not be as aggressive or as dangerous as I believe (I think I'm justified in my opinion; he did not simply nip me, he took a good bite at my hand, and has done this to others), but the problem persists they have in some way recognized the problem.

My intention was to start this thread and show it to them. My sister has seen the posts and has since changed her opinion. That was my goal: to show that not only should a change happen, but that his age won't block a change (seriously, they stood viemntly to the ideal that he can't be retrained at the age of 7). I can't bring the vets and dog trainers I've talked to from back home to my parents who live a few hundred miles away from me, so I was looking for a more accessible opinion, particularly one where a lot of people could weigh in.

Some closing comments:
I looked up the dog attack policies for my county; my county, and many surrounding counties/jurisdictions as a result of that girl I mentioned earlier, have abnormally strict and harsh dog attack policies. I looked up the laws in my parents home county and although a dog CAN be put down on the first attack, whether it's unprovoked or not regardless of their history, it is rarely done in their county. To be fair, I have many neighbors and family members who have had to put their dogs down on the first attack, and it wasn't like a mangling either - one chop bites have caused many family dogs to be put down in my family's past. However, it is unfair to guests to have a dog with a history of 4 bites/attempts roaming around when they aren't willing to deal with his whining while in the crate. You all have said A) he can be retrained and B) its probably a good idea to, especially when it comes to the resource guarding. I think that's enough to push them to not accept his disruptive behavior (they usually just yell shut up at him when he barks) and to take training seriously as a viable option. Maybe now they won't cling to the belief he can't be retrained due to his age, because whether or not people agree with the finer points of my opinions of the dog's behavior, they[my parents] personally agree with me on many things but shook them off because they feel he's "untrainable."

Thank you for the help and clarification. Please don't discount dominance training: ultimately, positive reinforcement is a form of dominance training. I'll be moving on to other posts because I have some questions about the behavior of my own dog I would like to correct/remedy.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Elementface said:


> Please don't discount dominance training: ultimately, positive reinforcement is a form of dominance training.


Well, that's the first I've heard of R+ being equated with dominance training. And frankly, doing so seems slightly perverted to me. At least when going by the popular definition of each one, respectively.

There is a world of difference between the culture and mindset of, say, CM and kikopup for example. One is heavy-handed and active, the other is quite benevolent and passive. I really don't think there is any way to compare the two, aside from the basic fact that dogs are involved in either case. Bottom line - "ultimately" it's a simple issue of FORCE vs. CHOICE.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Many people CHOOSE to kill their dog after the first bite (sometimes even growling :/); it may not have been the government forcing them to do so. 

Using force to bully the dog is a lot different than actually teaching him desired behavior. Training is only about "dominance" if you like it that way. It should be about teaching not submission.

ETA: you keep saying he's trying to "dominate" people by guarding resources. RGing is not about dominance---it's about insecurity and fear. He's insecure because he does not know what to do in that situation and he's afraid someone is going to steal his stuff. He needs to be taught what he SHOULD do instead and that he does not need to fear anybody taking things away from him. It really is an easy thing to fix with counter-conditioning but force will just make it much MUCH worse.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Elementface said:


> To be fair, I have many neighbors and family members who have had to put their dogs down on the first attack, and it wasn't like a mangling either - one chop bites have caused many family dogs to be put down in my family's past.


Jesus, that's a lot of biting dogs. What is going on with your neighbors and family, man?


As far as your original question. It's up to your parents to decide if it's bad behavior. Most of it is nuisance behavior, which some people can tolerate and some people can't. The resource guarding is more concerning, but if they're not willing to do training/behavior modification then there's not really much you can do about it. It's their dog, not yours. If they were my parents and the dog fusses in a crate, I'd tell them to put the dog behind a baby gate when guests are over. 

If they are willing to do training, the book "Mine!" by Jean Donaldson is a great guide for addressing RG in dogs. Remember that RG is at its heart a fear/anxiety based behavior, which is why you got bitten (and why your family was right that you brought the bite on yourself) - you terrified the crap out of that poor dog who has been living with one set of rules/expectations his whole life in his own home and now suddenly was expected to live up to yours instead. Punishment/corrections tend not to really solve fear/anxiety based behaviors.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

petpeeve said:


> Well, that's the first I've heard of R+ being equated with dominance training. And frankly, doing so seems slightly perverted to me. At least when going by the popular definition of each one, respectively.
> 
> There is a world of difference between the culture and mindset of, say, CM and kikopup for example. One is heavy-handed and active, the other is quite benevolent and passive. I really don't think there is any way to compare the two, aside from the basic fact that dogs are involved in either case. Bottom line - "ultimately" it's a simple issue of FORCE vs. CHOICE.


I find it interesting how this thread has turned into a dominance v r+ (assuming that's positive only?) argument. It seems you can't find a single dog forum where there isn't a huge debate between dominance and r+, when in my eyes r+ seeks to establish a dominant/submissive relationship.

Dominance training is giving the dog a choice: don't listen to me, and you don't get what you want. Listen to me and you'll get nearly everything you want.

Here's my philosophy on dominance training: what you are seeking to do is establish the idea that you, as the owner, are the sole source of everything the dog needs, from grooming to food to attention. In other words, you dominate the dogs life - everything that dogs wants, it has to get from you. It wants a treat? Sit. It wants a walk? Behave. It wants to play? Shake paw first. It's a give and take relationship: the dog gives me obedience and I give it everything it needs, which is a fair trade in my opinion. I teach the dog I am the source of food and everything else it needs, but that I expect something in return for my investment. A situation where the dog is only allowed to get what it wants without giving anything to the owner in return is disrespectful in my opinion, because its all taking for the dog and all giving for the owner. 

I think there needs to be a clear separation between dominance training and negative reinforcement and just straight slave driving. If I ask my dog to sit and he doesn't, I just don't give him what he wants. It's not like I alpha roll him to make him listen - he knows I am the sole source of everything he needs, so he'll come back eventually. If he really doesn't want to sit, I'm not going to force him to and force a treat that he obviously doesn't want down his throat. However if he is doing something he shouldn't be doing, there is less of a choice in the situation, because he's crossing boundaries. If he takes something he's not supposed to have, he WILL give it up. I'll give him the opportunity to spit it up by choice, and if he does I'll give him a treat, but if he doesn't I have no other choice than to just take it, and my dog knows that when it comes to that its best to just give it up anyway. However, even if he doesn't give it up at first and I have to take it, he still gets a treat for giving it up. Whether or not the dog did something wrong, he always gets a reward for doing something right and that is *vital *in dominance training, otherwise your dog isn't choosing to be submissive, it's doing it out of fear.

To me, dominance training is the mindset that you legally own the dog and are the source of everything that dog needs, so that relationship needs to be clear to the dog because it's the reality. HOW you go about doing is where R+, negative reinforcement and other training techniques fall. It's a mindset, not a set of techniques. I have a very tough time believing all these negative connotations with dominance training because it seems like you all think the dog never has a choice in the situation: whether or not you agree with dominance training, everybody has to acknowledge that they legally own their dog so at some level the dog does not have control of it's own life and has to be submissive to your choices.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I think that's a very sad mindset. I would rather be partners in learning/teaching with my dog.

I mean, yes, it's true that humans control what dogs do/have. But they are still living feeling beings and must be respected for their individuality. Yes, you have to look out for the dog's safety and this may mean that sometimes you need to take something by force. But it would be better to work on trust beforehand so they wouldn't mind giving it up. If you have to force issues often, it means something is wrong in the relationship.

And, basically, every decent dog trainer is doing the whole "you do what I want, I give you want you want" thing. the differences being how forceful/harsh they are in this (as in, is the thing the dog wants a treat or avoiding being hurt?). So that's not groundbreaking. The mindset I think is sad is the "I AM HUMAN, DOG DO WHAT I WANT OR ELSE" caveman mentality.


----------



## Cattledogfanatic (Sep 18, 2011)

Elementface said:


> I find it interesting how this thread has turned into a dominance v r+ (assuming that's positive only?) argument. It seems you can't find a single dog forum where there isn't a huge debate between dominance and r+, when in my eyes r+ seeks to establish a dominant/submissive relationship.
> 
> Dominance training is giving the dog a choice: don't listen to me, and you don't get what you want. Listen to me and you'll get nearly everything you want.
> 
> ...


I'm a dog trainer. I was just listening to a lecture by Patricia McConnell. A simplified definition of dominance is; if there is more dogs then resources, who is going to get the resource? Alpha rolling that dog was really determental in getting the outcome you wanted, and you got bitten. It seems to me, you don't really understand dominance.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

You are assuming your dog thinks it through. My dog is not thinking "hmm today I will be submissive to my owner and do whatever she wants because she owns me" vs "hmm today I will be a naughty dog because I want to dominate my owner." Yes, I own my dog, I ultimately make all of the important decisions. However I am also a human and know that my dog doesn't sit around reasoning out dominance vs submission to a human the way you are trying to explain it. 

Frankly your posts in this thread don't make a whole lot of sense. First the dog was just a bit annoying with begging and barking (yes that is just annoying behavior) and had bitten you once when you tried to take something out of its mouth and alpha rolled it. Then suddenly it was a holy terror who was terrorizing and attempting to bite everyone (though you have never actually clarified if this dog is biting at random or only when people attempt to take items from it). You insist that "all of the trainers I have spoken to" are pro-dominance theory but they have never met this dog because the dog lives hundreds of miles away from you in another town. First your state requires any dog that ever bites be put down, then the dog has bitten many people but never been put down. When told that no state had these requirements you backed off to "well maybe it is just my county because there is this girl that...." and you know so many neighbors that have lost their pets but there is still the issue of your parent's dog who has gone from annoying begging barker to biting everyone in sight but again, not been put down. I will point out that an ordinance in effect in your town does not effect a town "hundreds of miles away" where your parents live. I don't think I could find a single dog trainer who is going to agree that a dog needs to socialize with every single visitor that comes over, that is begging to get sued if the dog bites some one. I also will tell you that I live in the state of TX, a state well known for allowing schools to paddle children. I have looked into dog training facilities and every single one uses positive only training methods. That is every one from the big box stores, to the board and train, to the in home private training groups are all positive only now. I don't know that I could find even one "dominance theory" based trainer within 100 miles if I wanted to. A large portion had some pretty aggressive statements on their websites about the use of aversive tools in training (unfortunate as I would like to do snake training with a couple of my dogs, oh well). I find it pretty far fetched that every single trainer you have spoken to is dominance based. 

I think the best thing you can do is some research on how dogs learn, you seem very confused on both dominance theory and positive reinforcement training. As far as your parents and their dog, you have been given plenty of good suggestions. At this point I am at a loss as to what the dog is actually doing/not doing. If there are REAL concerns your parents should take the dog to see a good trainer for themselves and keep him away from guests.


----------



## lisahi (Jun 19, 2011)

Dominance theory is based on the flawed idea that humans and dogs live in a "pack" and that there must be a leader of the "pack." I say flawed because it was based off a study of captive wolves who, yes, did form packs with dominant and submissive wolves. The problem is that they were captive. They formed a mode of social living that doesn't exist in their natural state. In the wild, wolves form families. Wolf families are the way that my 3-year-old niece would imagine--a Mommy, a Daddy, and their babies. Except wolf "babies" stick with their parents even when they are adults--until they decide to mate and form their own families. There's no innate sense of rank and order. There is no struggle for dominance. Younger wolves only follow the motivations of their older family members because... well... it's their parents. But those younger wolves don't make plays to dominate, and there's no concept of submissiveness. They don't sit and think about whether one day they will rule the pack.

Once you get rid of all that pack theory, and you start replacing it with a "family" theory, you can see the benefit of positive reinforcement. Think about the way good parents teach their children how to behave. First... you have to teach them. Sounds obvious, right? But a lot of dog owners don't actually teach their dogs what the right thing to do is. The owner doesn't pay any mind of the fact that she didn't teach the dog the right thing to do and punishes the dog when he does the wrong thing. Doesn't seem quite fair, does it? The idea of positive reinforcement is to make a behavior so appealing that the dog will want to continue with that behavior. Positive reinforcement also aligns with natural learning. When you do something and the outcome is good, you do it more. When you do something and the outcome isn't so good (you didn't get that treat), you don't want to do it more.

Taking it back to that family of wolves -- when a wolf cub is learning how to hunt small prey, it will watch its parents. The cub will go after tiny prey, like a bug. If the cub uses techniques consistent with successful hunting, it will capture its prey. Positive reinforcement. If the cub makes a lot of ruckus and jumps around, startling the bug and causing it to disappear into the earth, the cub will not capture its prey. _Natural_ negative reinforcement. Its parents are not artificially punishing him for not learning how to hunt right off the bat. Now imagine if the wolf parents were to smack down the cub every time the cub displayed any behavior not consistent with a successful hunt. The cub probably won't even want to try hunting anymore.

I'm not saying dogs should always be compared with wolves. They are now two different species, but both share a capability of learning through parenting. I bring this up because dominance theory started out because of dogs shared lineage with the modern wolf. And it's been proven to be based on a false premise. There's no alpha. Your dog doesn't see you as an alpha--your dog sees you as a parent or a companion.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

Remaru said:


> You are assuming your dog thinks it through. My dog is not thinking "hmm today I will be submissive to my owner and do whatever she wants because she owns me" vs "hmm today I will be a naughty dog because I want to dominate my owner." Yes, I own my dog, I ultimately make all of the important decisions. However I am also a human and know that my dog doesn't sit around reasoning out dominance vs submission to a human the way you are trying to explain it.
> 
> Frankly your posts in this thread don't make a whole lot of sense. First the dog was just a bit annoying with begging and barking (yes that is just annoying behavior) and had bitten you once when you tried to take something out of its mouth and alpha rolled it. Then suddenly it was a holy terror who was terrorizing and attempting to bite everyone (though you have never actually clarified if this dog is biting at random or only when people attempt to take items from it). You insist that "all of the trainers I have spoken to" are pro-dominance theory but they have never met this dog because the dog lives hundreds of miles away from you in another town. First your state requires any dog that ever bites be put down, then the dog has bitten many people but never been put down. When told that no state had these requirements you backed off to "well maybe it is just my county because there is this girl that...." and you know so many neighbors that have lost their pets but there is still the issue of your parent's dog who has gone from annoying begging barker to biting everyone in sight but again, not been put down. I will point out that an ordinance in effect in your town does not effect a town "hundreds of miles away" where your parents live. I don't think I could find a single dog trainer who is going to agree that a dog needs to socialize with every single visitor that comes over, that is begging to get sued if the dog bites some one. I also will tell you that I live in the state of TX, a state well known for allowing schools to paddle children. I have looked into dog training facilities and every single one uses positive only training methods. That is every one from the big box stores, to the board and train, to the in home private training groups are all positive only now. I don't know that I could find even one "dominance theory" based trainer within 100 miles if I wanted to. A large portion had some pretty aggressive statements on their websites about the use of aversive tools in training (unfortunate as I would like to do snake training with a couple of my dogs, oh well). I find it pretty far fetched that every single trainer you have spoken to is dominance based.
> 
> I think the best thing you can do is some research on how dogs learn, you seem very confused on both dominance theory and positive reinforcement training. As far as your parents and their dog, you have been given plenty of good suggestions. At this point I am at a loss as to what the dog is actually doing/not doing. If there are REAL concerns your parents should take the dog to see a good trainer for themselves and keep him away from guests.



Well nothing I've said has been inconsistent. I asked for short answers and found many of them asked questions so I provided more details.

In any case, dominance/submission is not sad/disrespectful, and it's a little accusatory to assume so. Dominance training has been used for a long time, is used by many breeders and trainers, and has no definitive proof of being any better or worse than r+, whether its with respect to the health of the dog or the happiness of the dog. In fact, many police departments that once used only r+ are choosing to switch back to dominance training because their dogs are not listening to commands as intently as they did with dominance training, at least in the words of an MP attack dog handler I've spoken too. I'm not training my dog to be an attack dog, but you guys have to recognize there are strengths and weaknesses to every training style, r+ included. You guys are also confusing my dog with my parents dog. 

At this point I think the conversation has derailed into dominance training bashing. I feel like you guys are letting your conceptions of dominance training get in the way of what I am saying, because you guys are criticizing me for things I have explicitly addressed and said it's the complete opposite. You guys are assuming alpha rolls are my go-to technique (which as I have said I haven't used in literally months), so its obvious to me you guys aren't reading the whole or all of the posts before you comment, and are just seeing the word alpha roll and letting your opinions run wild. Alpha rolls are an effective technique, and although you guys claim its harmful, I'm having a difficult time finding robust proof of that, and again I haven't used alpha rolls in months, maybe even a full year. Maybe if alpha rolls are all you use against your dog, then yes I would say it can be harmful, but there are rare situations where you have to take the dog's behavior under control because sometimes dogs don't listen and rarely it's life threatening. I use alpha rolls when my dog has something he refuses to give up and can harm him if swallowed. No exceptions, so its obvious why I haven't used it in a very long time, since I first got my dog.

I teach my dog. I teach him its beneficial to see me as a leader and source of everything he needs. I don't force him to listen to me, with the exceptions of situations where it can physically harm him if he does not. However, there is a clear leader/follower relationship, where he stands abreast of me, listens to my commands most and first, and I reject the idea that it universally ruins trust because, as I've said, every single vet and trainer and owner he's ever been exposed to has said he is one of the happiest dogs they have ever seen. What you guys are warning me against just isn't happening: he trusts me. He comes to me when there is thunder outside, he comes to me when he wants treats, he chooses to play with me the most out of any other person in the house, and he listens to my commands, so from my point of view my training has established a loving, trusting relationship with a clear leader, and I have had this opinion backed up by animal experts in person so I'm going to go with their opinion and take it as indication my training has been effective. Give me the signs that my dog does not love or trust me or does not feel like he has a choice and I'll let you know if he displays any of them.

Again:

I have not used alpha rolls in nearly a year.
My dog chooses to be submissive: contrary to what you have said, dogs *do* make that cognitive choice. Its not as elaborate as you have portrayed: dogs make the choice to listen or not: that is the choice between submitting or not. Its is completely contradictory to say he doesn't choose to be submissive yet you are all telling me I should train him to make the choice between listening to me or not. I see no difference. Submissive and listening are the same thing to me: he is conforming to my will. Whether or not he gets a reward doesn't matter (disclaimer he always does), he is choosing to listen to what I want from him. 
The dog in question and my dog are two separate dogs: many of you are confusing the two.
Again, I have not used alpha rolls in nearly a year. They are an extreme tool to be used in extreme situations, and there are situations that call for complete dominance for the safety of the dog's life. Have you ever snatched anything from your dog because he was going to harm himself? If so, you just dominated him.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

I think some of the flaws in dominance-based training become even more clear when one considers that a dog is an animal that has been selectively bred to retain juvenile canid traits for its entire lifetime. If you're going to insist upon thinking of a dog as a wolf, you have to at the very least think of it as a wolf pup. And wolf pups have a unique place in their pack structure that makes roles such as alpha and omega less than relevant to them.

I'm not particularly anti-Cesar Milan; I do think some of the complaints about him are overstated, and I actually think his methods would probably work pretty well on my now-elderly dog, who has her entire life been a super "hard" dog mentally and physically. But his publicized concepts of dog training are to dog behaviorism in general as a big mac is to a balanced diet. If you're really starving you're not going to turn it down, but you shouldn't live off them, and if you have the time and skill to prepare a proper meal, it's better to do that. TBF I doubt Cesar Milan even personally would swear by the fast food version of training presented in his TV network-approved materials - they're designed for easy consumption, not for the serious student of animal training.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Elementface said:


> I have not used alpha rolls in nearly a year.


So your parents' extravagantly evil dog bit you nearly a year ago?


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

Elementface said:


> I have not used alpha rolls in nearly a year.
> My dog chooses to be submissive: contrary to what you have said, dogs *do* make that cognitive choice. Its not as elaborate as you have portrayed: dogs make the choice to listen or not: that is the choice between submitting or not. Its is completely contradictory to say he doesn't choose to be submissive yet you are all telling me I should train him to make the choice between listening to me or not. I see no difference. Submissive and listening are the same thing to me: he is conforming to my will. Whether or not he gets a reward doesn't matter (disclaimer he always does), he is choosing to listen to what I want from him.
> The dog in question and my dog are two separate dogs: many of you are confusing the two.


 Didn't you say you recently used an alpha roll on your family's dog? 

I'm not questioning whether you have a good relationship with your own dog or not but I am concerned that you are viewing your family's dog's behavior as an act of dominance or a lack of submission. It has nothing to do with that. It is about a lack of training. The fact that you have already used an unnecessary amount force on this dog and so has your family is concerning. This is a fearful and anxious dog and using force to try to cure or control that is not going to help, it will likely make it worse. You say you know how to do positive reinforcement based techniques, so great, pass that on to your family and help train some appropriate behaviors.



> Again, I have not used alpha rolls in nearly a year. They are an extreme tool to be used in extreme situations, and there are situations that call for complete dominance for the safety of the dog's life. Have you ever snatched anything from your dog because he was going to harm himself? If so, you just dominated him.


 There are emergency situations where some force might be needed to protect the dog's safety like yanking a a dog out of the street so it doesn't get him by a car or pulling garbage out of a dog's mouth so he doesn't choke or get an obstruction. BUT in the few emergency situations where I had to take something away from my dog for his safety I didn't have to alpha roll him, I just stuck my hand in his mouth and removed the object. Alpha rolling would have just escalated the situation and made it worse for the dog and likely made him more likely to bite me because I would be creating fear in a situation which would have otherwise just been slightly uncomfortable/unpleasant for him. I try my best to not create or bring fear into the relationship between me and my dog.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

I have also snatched hazardous objects from toddlers, but I wouldn't describe myself as using "dominance-based methods" on children, lol.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

I don't know if it is even worth continuing to post on this thread as you are clearly very confused as to what dominance theory is and what the training entails. I don't know about the other posters but no, I have not confused your dog with your parent's dog even once in this thread. You have however been quite inconsistent, could be that you are uncertain because the dog doesn't live with you, could be for other reasons. You are the one who keeps coming back to alpha rolls, do you think that is the only difference between positive reinforcement training, balanced training, NILIF, and positive training? Earlier you said you smack your dog once a week, would you like to back track on that? 

The main issues seem to be that
You are unclear on if your parents dog is just a little rude or actually a dangerous animal (you are inconsistent about this)
You have spoken to "experts" about said dog and they all agree with you having never met the dog. By the way tomorrow I could start advertising myself as a trainer, there is no licensing board for that sort of thing. 
You are unclear as to what dominance and submission actually means and how dogs learn or think. 
You think alpha rolling is necessary in dangerous situations to "take control of your dog"

For the record no, taking something away from your dog is not "dominating" your dog. It is simply taking something your dog can't have away from your dog. I do not have to alpha roll any of my dogs to get anything from them, I own five dogs. All of my dogs know "leave it" and it is not a matter of them choosing or not choosing to follow a command, I taught them what I expected them to do and they do it. I could leave my plate and walk away and no one would touch it. If I say "drop it" every one of my dogs is going to do it. I do not wrestle my dogs for items they are holding because I don't have to. That is the benefit of teaching vs dominating your dog. I don't just hope they listen, I know they will. My 30lb child can walk my 100lb bulldog down the street and I do not worry the dog will pull him, run off or do anything else. That is what proper training gets you.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

My only thought is perhaps it would be beneficial to be more cooperative with the dog, try to get it to work WITH you not FOR you. If the dog is working for you, there is a lot more coercion implied, perhaps in the form of a threatening alpha roll. If you work with the dog you'll probably get a more two sided situation, and you'll get a good understanding of what the dog needs from you in terms of instruction and motivation to get to the goal that you've set, rather than the "you do this because I am your owner, if you don't I will alpha roll/slap, etc". Yes, the original questions were about the parent's dog...it applies with that dog (and to your parents) as well.....you all need to work with this dog to get things done. Yes, much of the behavior is rude IMO, I would be embarrassed to have people over if my dog did those things, and as for the possible resource guarding, that's beyond rude and can escalate to dangerous. Overall, the things that you mention are things that should be addressed, but for the possible exception of the RGing, if your parents are ok with living with that stuff and don't have other people being put in a situation where the RG is a problem...then so be it (even the RG I guess....though if they get bit badly I wouldn't be surprised).


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

The way I see it. Dominance training usually involves putting the responsibility on the dog. Whether you use treats or other positive reinforcement to train, when you are thinking in terms of dominance, the dog is either submitting or trying to dominate you. The dog must do what you want because you are the "alpha". If the dog doesn't do what you want then it doesn't see you as the "alpha". This sort of mind frame leaves people open to frustrations with a so called "dominant" dog who isn't following commands or otherwise misbehaving, which can lead to using corrections, often escalating to harsher methods if the dog continues to not perform. It's about you having physical control over the dog's behaviors and it is up to the dog to "obey" the "alpha". In most dominance training there is no other alternatives, the dog is either dominant or submissive in any situation and there is not other explanation for a dog's behavior. 

With a more "positive" training mindset (and by positive in this case I don't necessarily mean only using positive reinforcement, but just taking a non-dominant based approach) you put responsibility on yourself to work cooperatively as a team with your dog to help him learn. You take into consideration what is reinforcing for the dog and what methods work best for the dog. If the dog doesn't follow your "cue" you don't think, oh this dog doesn't respect me or is trying to dominate me, you think okay, why is the dog not responding? Maybe we need to work on this cue more, maybe we haven't practiced it in this situation before. Or you might realize that something like a squirrel is distracting your dog and you've never trained with such a strong distraction before. Maybe the dog doesn't find food reinforcing and couldn't care less about that treat you are using, maybe what it really finds reinforcing is a game of tug. You might realize the dog has a sore spot on it's back and that's why it doesn't want to do an agility jump today etc. Basically, it is up to you, the handler to figure out what is wrong and come up with a solution, usually with further training or finding a reinforcer that works better for your dog. The dog's wants and needs are taken into consideration.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> It is completely contradictory to say he doesn't choose to be submissive yet you are all telling me I should train him to make the choice between listening to me or not. I see no difference. Submissive and listening are the same thing to me: he is conforming to my will.


But they're not the same thing. Submission means giving up your will to another entity. Training means to teach systematically how to do something. Listening to someone just means you think what they say has value. For instance (and dogs and humans are not the same I know), my co-worker trained me in how to do my job. I was not and am not submissive to her. If I need to know how to do something, I will ask her how to do it and then do it that way because I think she knows what to do. I still am not submissive to her. 

Similarly, your dog looking to you for guidance because you've established trust and that you know how to handle a situation is not the same as the dog giving up his will to you. There really is a difference.

Some trainers do prefer to break a dog and have it never show any behaviors/do anything without express permission. I suppose if someone gets off on that kind of power, there's nothing I can do about it. But it's sad to see that.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

parus said:


> So your parents' extravagantly evil dog bit you nearly a year ago?


THERE'S the miscommunication.

Yes, that incident happened nearly a year ago. People in the house have been bit since then, but I have much better relationship with the dog this time around (I'm currently visiting at the moment). In that particular incident, realize the dog had a dangerous piece of trash in his mouth, refused to trade up, I was the only person home, and I refused to choke it out like my family usually does. I tried literally everything else you guys have suggested, but he refused. It was better for me to get bit than to let him sallow that trash, at least in my opinion. In fact the alpha roll as more for my protection because I tried simply taking it and he snipped at me and growled loudly.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

Willowy said:


> But they're not the same thing. Submission means giving up your will to another entity. Training means to teach systematically how to do something. Listening to someone just means you think what they say has value. For instance (and dogs and humans are not the same I know), my co-worker trained me in how to do my job. I was not and am not submissive to her. If I need to know how to do something, I will ask her how to do it and then do it that way because I think she knows what to do. I still am not submissive to her.
> 
> Similarly, your dog looking to you for guidance because you've established trust and that you know how to handle a situation is not the same as the dog giving up his will to you. There really is a difference.
> 
> Some trainers do prefer to break a dog and have it never show any behaviors/do anything without express permission. I suppose if someone gets off on that kind of power, there's nothing I can do about it. But it's sad to see that.


People don't "get off' on that, and it's purverse to assume so. Most owners, to include dominance trainers, do what they do because they legitimately feel its what's best for the dog. This is how I know your opinions are based in an emotional response and not a logical one.

I do not use dominance based training to "get off". What "gets me off" is the happiness of my dog, nothing else. I hate punishing him when he does naughty things, and I try to avoid it at all costs because most the time he just doesn't know any better. I'm tired of these accusations, I'm closing this thread promptly after people see my responses.


----------



## Elementface (Jun 30, 2014)

Willowy said:


> But they're not the same thing. Submission means giving up your will to another entity. Training means to teach systematically how to do something. Listening to someone just means you think what they say has value. For instance (and dogs and humans are not the same I know), my co-worker trained me in how to do my job. I was not and am not submissive to her. If I need to know how to do something, I will ask her how to do it and then do it that way because I think she knows what to do. I still am not submissive to her.
> 
> Similarly, your dog looking to you for guidance because you've established trust and that you know how to handle a situation is not the same as the dog giving up his will to you. There really is a difference.
> 
> Some trainers do prefer to break a dog and have it never show any behaviors/do anything without express permission. I suppose if someone gets off on that kind of power, there's nothing I can do about it. But it's sad to see that.


I'm coming from a position of military training, so submission and compliance are the same thing to me. I let the dog choose to be submissive, or in your words cooperate, but I am not forcing the dog into anything. Very rarely do I use force, and when I do its for a VERY good and VERY rare reason.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Some people DO get off on power/force, and it's naive to say they don't. Not saying you are and not saying that all force-based dog trainers do, but it's definitely a thing.

Look, you used force on an insecure dog and he rightly defended himself. This is a dog that has never been taught how to behave properly and is apparently choked out on a regular basis, so he has no reason to trust anybody. I don't know what else you want to expect from him; he's a product of his raising. 

A LOT of things would have to change for this dog to improve. Trying to get people to change is immensely difficult. This is probably all a moot point because I doubt you're going to get your family members to change. I think all you can do at this point is hope they don't get another dog after he's gone :/.


----------



## pinksand (Dec 11, 2013)

Elementface said:


> I have not used alpha rolls in nearly a year.
> My dog chooses to be submissive: contrary to what you have said, dogs *do* make that cognitive choice. Its not as elaborate as you have portrayed: dogs make the choice to listen or not: that is the choice between submitting or not. Its is completely contradictory to say he doesn't choose to be submissive yet you are all telling me I should train him to make the choice between listening to me or not. I see no difference. Submissive and listening are the same thing to me: he is conforming to my will. Whether or not he gets a reward doesn't matter (disclaimer he always does), he is choosing to listen to what I want from him.
> The dog in question and my dog are two separate dogs: many of you are confusing the two.
> Again, I have not used alpha rolls in nearly a year. They are an extreme tool to be used in extreme situations, and there are situations that call for complete dominance for the safety of the dog's life. Have you ever snatched anything from your dog because he was going to harm himself? If so, you just dominated him.


I read the entire thread and I think that basically people are up in arms because you are basing your training on misconceptions about dogs' motives. For the most part, your training methods don't seem too far from mine (minus the alpha rolling and smacking)... it's just that you're under the impression that dogs are constantly battling for dominance and the role of alpha. Here's a helpful link explaining the history behind dominance theory (already nicely explained by another forum member on this thread), but reading a full article might help you get the bigger picture. http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/14_12/features/Alpha-Dogs_20416-1.html

Where I disagree is that dogs are choosing to listen or not and that by not listening they are challenging your role as a leader. I see the dog choosing whether or not they WANT to perform the action you are asking of them. I have a 10mo puppy who's a land shark. If he gets something he shouldn't have and I ask him to "drop it" and he doesn't, I believe it's because he isn't motivated to do so, not because he is trying to challenge/dominate me. He wants whatever it is because he wants to play and have me chase him to get it, or he wants to eat whatever it is. If he doesn't drop it, and it's dangerous then I stick my hand in his mouth and take it (no alpha rolling). If I think he's motivated by wanting to play, then I remove that reinforcing stimulus by ignoring him or walking in the other direction, and he'll drop it when he realizes I'm not going to chase him. As you said you do with your dog, mine gets a toy or treat traded for dropping something I don't want him to have. My dog knows that I'm his source of food and walks and fun... he isn't trying to challenge me for that role. He does a sit stay for his food like you said you do, I just see his motivation very differently. I have him work for things because I think it promotes good manners and he enjoys learning, not because I feel that he's submitting to me. My goal is to guide him to make the right decisions about his behaviors, not constantly have an imaginary battle with him for the role of alpha. I do tell my dog "no" and believe in using negative punishment to discourage unwanted behaviors. If my dog jumps on me or barks for attention, I remove my attention by turning my back and ignoring him. I don't have a problem with some minor forms of positive punishment, like using bitter spray to deter chewing furniture and things on this level that aren't based on dominance theory. It's my impression that most forum members are of a similar mindset. 

It's difficult to understand exactly what your parents are dealing with when all we can rely on is the information you provide and how we read your tone and between the lines, etc. At first it sounded like the dog only bit you when alpha rolled so everyone said it's not a big deal, reacting that way to an alpha roll is expected. Now it sounds like it's more of a general RGing issue and working on discouraging this behavior should be their focus. If they want to discourage some of the other behaviors (barking/begging) then those should be fairly simple to resolve if consistently discouraged by all members of the family. Positive Reinforcement training is based on a very different outlook on our dogs' motives and really a lot of people here (including myself) just feel that dominance theory is based on outdated information. It's hard to get beyond this in addressing a post concerning training based on dominance theory as the foundation.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

If you use your own personal definition of dominance, then don't be surprised when people misunderstand you.


----------

