# My way of training dogs without using force or raising my voice.



## ._Rick (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm not exactly sure how other people train dogs to do the simple tricks (sit/laydown and etc.) but the way I do it is very effective and I'm not physical or verbal. But since most people are dog lovers on here I don't think I need to express it in that way lol.

So I'm going to list the tricks and how I teach them in the order of which I teach them. Every dog I have taught has learnt the 'trick' in a short period (generally 15 to 20 minutes one sitting : puppy or not)

First off: the treats you use for the initial "bribing" should be small because you're going to be working with them for a bit. I usually use the milk bones and break 'em in half. So the initial 'showing' of the trick earns .5 treat : then doing the trick without the wait earns the other half : they catch on rather quickly with this method but it's essential for you to remove the treat after the 4th or 5th success so they don't grow accustomed to the treat and stop doing the trick.

Coming to their name:
This one is probably simple and likely everybody does it the same way, call their name and bribe with a treat. The first couple of times - the treat is essential. Then you ween them off of the treat. When it comes time to correct and 'punish' don't call them with their name : that just sends the wrong message and makes their name a 'negative' thing.

Sit:
The dog should be standing infront of you. Some people I know, push the dogs bum down, I however do not. As I said above, I'm not physical or verbal. That means the majority of what I do is hand gestures. 

So, to get your dog/puppy to sit without touching is to wave a treat infront of his/her nose so he/she knows that it is there. Then, hold the treat with your pinky and ring finger while you snap your middle finger/thumb and point to their bum moving the treat slowly over their head. As their bum touches the ground, give them the treat 

Now, the dog/puppy knows that the snap and point behind means : sit and you don't have to yell it or even tell them to do so. After they do it successfully a few times, you'll want to start saying "up" as you do it (for an exercise later on in this post)

Lay-Down:
This one is a bit trickier to explain then sit... But again, it's a 'follow the treat' learning experience. You'll want to let them know you have a treat in your hand so they'll follow it. For this one, you'll have to crouch down and have the dog already sitting: what you want to do is point down and move the treat under the dogs chin toward their chest then bring your hand down to the floor and slowly pull out : as the dog leans forward and their elbows touch the ground you give the dog/puppy the treat. Then, you work in the snap while you point down then when they catch on, you won't have to crouch and can just stand and snap your fingers and point straight down and they know this means lay down.

After they master this, you'll want to say 'down' while you snap your fingers so they know that's what it means and for the following.

Exercise/Catch:
This, is my favourite thing to teach. It's sort of a rapid fire game that both rewards them, and teaches them something new. (how to catch ^^,) If you remember previously, I informed you to teach them that 'up' means sit. Which will make more sense now. So, start off by the snapping sit... or telling them "up". Then slowly you'll want to command them to lay down, then sit, and then speed it up. "Down... up... down... up... down... up... down, up, down, up, down, up, down, up, down up down up down up down up" then hand them a treat. This slow to fast pace is only to teach them the game so they know what to do. After they 'get it' you can just do it as quickly as they follow the command. So as soon as the elbows touch you say 'up' as soon as the front legs are straight you say "down". When your dog gets to the panting stage, their mouth is open and their focus is on you so their head is up. Lightly toss the treat into their mouth. As you do this more and more, they'll learn what catching is, and that they can get the treat faster if you throw it. So, start to downgrade your aim, throw the treat just above their head, a little more to the left, a little more to the right. 

Now, your dog knows quite a few good things, not only how to sit, lay down and a game. But, it also knows that since your training isn't verbal, that it must pay attention to you to know what you want.

Next: Shake a paw.
I've tried to teach this numerous ways. The route alot of people I know go with is: "shake" and "other" I choose to make the dog seem more... intellectual by requesting a specific paw. Think of it like shaking someones hand on the street. We know that when someone extends their right hand to shake yours, you grab with your right hand. Obviously we know this, but dogs do not. So the way I came up with teaching these "2" tricks is by relying on the dogs intelligence. By doing the previous tricks and rewarding treats the dog will know that they have something to learn as you still have them infront of you.

Since this trick requires them to look and kind of figure out what you want, you can't bribe them with a treat to get into the 'habit'. There's 2 ways that teaching this trick can go. Sometimes when dogs sit, they'll naturally lean on one leg. This way is by far the easiest to teach. If they lean on their left leg (your right) you'll want to drop your right hand down infront of their face with your palm up and the back of your hand on the ground infront of their 'slacking' leg. It'll take some time for them to understand that you want them to press their paw to your hand for a shake, but when they do be ready to deploy the treat as soon as the paw touches your hand.

Then, for the other one, just change hands and do the same thing. They should be able to gauge that you want the other paw. If you want you can say left or right as you do this (just make sure you know your left or rights prior lol) 

For the dogs who sit with both front legs equal - it'll be a bit more difficult - but just do the same thing and be patient.

- What this does is engage the dog to think and figure out what you want. By the dog figuring it out on its own, you won't need to remind it in the future by grabbing the paw again (as I've seen with those who grab the paw to shake it). By doing this with just the gestures, the dog will learn to look to you for it's next command from the starting position which in most cases is the snap and point for sitting.

Stay:
I'd like to teach you how to teach your dog to stay the way I do, but it's kind of unknown to me. They'll just naturally stay for me from the sit position. So, I just raise my hand in a 'stop' position and back up. Eventually, they just stay to the sit snap, or the stop hand. 

Table Manners/Etiquette:
Alot of people come acrossed the problem of begging dogs. Granted, I like to feed the dog my scraps as a treat/reward. But, I do it in a way that doesn't promote the begging as bad behavior but in a more presentable way. I rarely eat at the table, it's too quiet there and I need the noise of the TV to keep me entertained as I'm quite ADHD-ish lol. So, how I teach the dog table manners is simple. Pick a spot where you're going to eat, pick a spot where you want your dog to stay. Make the dog lay down where you want him to stay, and eat where you've designated where you're going to eat. If the dog falls asleep or stays, approach him with the plate, and put it on the floor infront of YOUR feet this signifies to the dog that you're done, and you're offering it to them as a reward for allowing you to eat in peace. If the dog however creeps toward you and stares at you while you eat, don't give it to him. Save it up and mix it in his regular meal later. It is imperative that you use the sign of the plate being on the floor between your feet as the go ahead to eat. After the dog learns this, start teaching him another step. He's learnt that the ground = hound. So, when you set your plate on another surface such as a coffee table. You need to command him to sit/lay down and avoid the food. If he investigates you need to slap the table so that he backs away from it. After a while, he'll learn the difference between, the floor and the coffee table.

The last dog I trained this to didn't go to the begging state. I could set my plate down on the coffee table, leave it there all night if I wanted to, leave the house to visit a friend and come back and the food would remain there untouched.

I have other tips and techniques but I've been typing this pretty much since I registered. I know that I'm new and don't know anybody here so my word isn't much to anybody but: 

These techniques work quite effectively. This is how I train all the dogs I train (which is under 10 lol but it's been effective in all). The last of which was a 2 year old dog that the owner deemed stupid because he didn't listen to her . But he was quite smart, he learnt all of the above in a week. He was a complete mutt? He had a little bit of every breed in him. You could see the boxer in the formation of his face, the shepherd in his fur colouring, the husky in his build, the lab in his profile. Even though she didn't know what he was those were the features I saw prominent. He had unbelievably soft fur as well, softer than cotton <3. I miss 'em >_> why'd they have to move Q_Q.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I'm glad these methods work for you! 
Just to nitpick... I assume the reason why you don't use force or raise your voice is it creates fear. But this:



._Rick said:


> If he investigates you need to slap the table so that he backs away from it. After a while, he'll learn the difference between, the floor and the coffee table.


slapping the table, even if the force isn't directed at the dog, is still the same means to an end. The dog learns the difference by avoiding the table because of that frightful encounter.

Though personally, although I wouldn't purposely set a dog up to fail, if I should be so careless as to leave food at nose-height, and I have not created a situation in which I can teach the dog to succeed, and the dog goes for my food, I would probably yell or push the dog away or pick my plate up or something. The dog would probably learn not to go for my food, but that scenario would have been a failure on my part.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

How many dogs have you trained with this method, just curious.


----------



## ._Rick (Nov 7, 2012)

@Canyx ->
Nitpick all you like . I guess I may have overstated that correction. I'm, kind of a pansy and flinch at pain. So by slap the table I guess I meant more of a tap the table to make a noise between the dog and the plate. I usually just nab the table with the ends of my fingers - from middle knuckle. It makes a kind of dull thump sound lol.

I actually don't like using force or raising my voice for anything. I'm pretty much a calm quiet person. But, in all honesty and fairness, I learnt that you can keep the dog focused on you with just simple motions and minor sounds (like snapping your fingers) alot easier then if you yell at them or touch them. Granted, touching does seem to teach them quicker - but I've noticed that doing so, will usually cause them to require that touch later on. Also, on the yelling/voice : my mom's bf was quite a abusive and practically beat the dogs - which would always cause them to run from him out of fear. So, I guess in a way stimulation of fear is a contributing factor. 

This is how I see the relationship between humans and dogs: (maybe it'll help you understand my reasoning)
Let's pretend you're a dog, you don't understand english or any language.
If I were to say "establecer" to you and force you to lay down. You'd get that "establecer" means to lay down and after a few times of forcing it, you'd eventually get it.

However, if I guided you to lay down by pointing down and guiding you with something that smells good without touching you, you'd actually learn it on your own. Just like we learn math. The teacher doesn't hold your hand and write: 1+1=2 for you to learn it .


@ wvasko -> Dragon, Nanook, Missy, Teeka, Bear (1), Caesar, Rocket, Roxy, Bear (2)
(German Shepherd, Shepherd/Wolf, Chihuahua, Pitbull, Pitbull, Husky, German Shepherd, Black Lab, Mutt)

so 9 lol.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

I think he said he had trained under ten dogs but did not say how far under ten.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

._Rick said:


> However, if I guided you to lay down by pointing down and guiding you with something that smells good without touching you, you'd actually learn it on your own. Just like we learn math. The teacher doesn't hold your hand and write: 1+1=2 for you to learn it .


So I take it you mostly use luring? If you were guiding a dog down, the act of guiding with food is luring. But the reward at the end is what reinforces the behavior you want, ie being down. 
To truly teach a dog to learn it 'on its own', you would shape the behavior; the dog lies down without any signal from you, and you mark and reward that position. The cue is then added once the behavior is set.


----------



## ._Rick (Nov 7, 2012)

Canyx said:


> So I take it you mostly use luring? If you were guiding a dog down, the act of guiding with food is luring. But the reward at the end is what reinforces the behavior you want, ie being down.
> To truly teach a dog to learn it 'on its own', you would shape the behavior; the dog lies down without any signal from you, and you mark and reward that position. The cue is then added once the behavior is set.


That isn't learning on it's own though there's no command so it doesn't really know what it's being rewarded for and it doesn't associate any command with the action. Thus making it think you'll just give 'em rewards randomly. Where as guiding or 'luring' is specifically teaching as apposed to just 'waiting' for it to naturally occur. In order to learn there must be instructions to be associated with, such as "luring". That's what training is . If we waited for dogs to do things of their own accord it installs dominance and independence. Which will end up leading to aggression. Dogs are our followers, we are the leaders . The reason it becomes a "trick"/command is because in mother nature, they don't teach each other to lay down or sit to bend to their will. It's an exercise to bond human to the animal : the above methods also work with cats btw lol.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

The dominance myth is just that, a myth. Dogs don't try to become dominant over their owners, nor are they stupid enough to think of us as dogs. Even if dominance over humans were a thing, training a dog using shaping wouldn't lead to it.

Here are some links for you to check out:

De-Bunking the "Alpha Dog" Theory
AVSAB Position Statement on the Use of Dominance Theory in Behavior Modification of Animals
Misconceptions of the Mythical Alpha Dog
L. David Mech's site (he wrote a book on the original wolf research that led to the popularity of the whole "alpha" thing; he now admits that he was wrong)

There are many excellent trainers on this board who have trained a lot more than 10 dogs. Stick around and you'll learn a lot! I certainly have.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

If that is the case then clicker training/shaping would never work. 
I agree that luring is useful; a good portion of my dog's tricks come from luring. But an equally large portion comes from shaping. 

"That isn't learning on it's own though there's no command so it doesn't really know what it's being rewarded for and it doesn't associate any command with the action."
There doesn't need to be a command. If every time I sat in a chair, someone gave me a dollar bill, I would make a point to sit in that chair more often, regardless of what cues are thrown my way. 

"If we waited for dogs to do things of their own accord it installs dominance and independence."
If you always show a dog what to do, it will always look to you for direction instead of learning to offer new behaviors on its own. For your purposes, this might work. But for people who are interested in more complex behaviors, like getting their dog to fetch, do handstands, etc. Then you want to keep that 'creativity' in their systems.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> @ wvasko -> Dragon, Nanook, Missy, Teeka, Bear (1), Caesar, Rocket, Roxy, Bear (2)
> (German Shepherd, Shepherd/Wolf, Chihuahua, Pitbull, Pitbull, Husky, German Shepherd, Black Lab, Mutt)


More curiousity, how long did it take you per dog just a ball park figure and is one of the dogs a wolf-hybird.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Also, as proof that I'm not crazy. Here's my newest dog a few weeks ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2_R-yA0utY
First few seconds, I'm trying to teach her to fetch. Notice: no lures, no commands.

The day after that video was taken, she 'got it' and till this day will reliably go after a toy and bring it into my hand. I have SINCE added cues. But she learned to fetch long before she knew what the game was called. She knew exactly what she was doing and what she was being rewarded for the entire time.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

._Rick said:


> @Canyx ->
> Nitpick all you like . I guess I may have overstated that correction. I'm, kind of a pansy and flinch at pain. So by slap the table I guess I meant more of a tap the table to make a noise between the dog and the plate. I usually just nab the table with the ends of my fingers - from middle knuckle. It makes a kind of dull thump sound lol.
> 
> I actually don't like using force or raising my voice for anything. I'm pretty much a calm quiet person. But, in all honesty and fairness, I learnt that you can keep the dog focused on you with just simple motions and minor sounds (like snapping your fingers) alot easier then if you yell at them or touch them. Granted, touching does seem to teach them quicker - but I've noticed that doing so, will usually cause them to require that touch later on. Also, on the yelling/voice : my mom's bf was quite a abusive and practically beat the dogs - which would always cause them to run from him out of fear. So, I guess in a way stimulation of fear is a contributing factor.
> ...


Thats very interesting information to me...but its very boring to a dog.
I try to make training fun and interseting...with the focus being on me and fun[video=dailymotion;x1wbo]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1wbo_van-halen-hot-for-teacher_music[/video]


----------



## beretw (Sep 25, 2012)

._Rick said:


> I'm not exactly sure how other people train dogs to do the simple tricks (sit/laydown and etc.) but the way I do it is very effective and I'm not physical or verbal. But since most people are dog lovers on here I don't think I need to express it in that way lol.
> 
> So I'm going to list the tricks and how I teach them in the order of which I teach them. Every dog I have taught has learnt the 'trick' in a short period (generally 15 to 20 minutes one sitting : puppy or not)
> 
> ...


Just some thoughts. I would maybe recommend versing yourself in positive reinforcement methods just so you can understand the vocabulary and technical nuances a bit better.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> If the dog falls asleep or stays, approach him with the plate,


You said "plate" is that the plate that you were eating from, if so do you think if a plate left on a counter would be an invitation for a dog to help himself later.


----------



## ._Rick (Nov 7, 2012)

wvasko said:


> You said "plate" is that the plate that you were eating from, if so do you think if a plate left on a counter would be an invitation for a dog to help himself later.


you need to continue reading the entire posts. you keep missing things I put in and then questioning me about them.

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

@wvasko :
15-45 min per trick. the ones who caught on quick learnt the others just as quickly, the ones who started off slow, stayed slower. : and the types of breeds are under the dogs in order to their name : which is also in order of trained.

@Crantastic :
there's always debunking of everything by people who think they're smarter. It's hard to shape everyone to believe in the same thing - take a look at religion, or politics. Everyone has an opinion of what's wrong and what's right and will frantically search for whatever they believe in. IE: lady gaga's random little hand gestures has people assuming she's 'illuminati'. The "Alpha thing" is quite proven in packs of animals and even humans. There's always a chain of command. Military, work, school, home. It's imprinted everywhere for everything.

@Canyx:
Dogs will learn new behaviors on it's own all the time, that's where correcting and giving direction comes in. IE: house breaking, chewing. Which is what you're there to teach because. Notice how above I noted "tricks" in parenthesis. That's because it's the extra curricular's of dog training. Where as the other stuff is expected behavior and such. But to emphasize more on what you used an example. That is dominance, and taking the lead. Which is unwanted. You need to guide your dog, not let the dog guide you . 

- though I'll be honest, I don't quite get how the clicker works as I've never tried it or looked into it. I prefer using the primal tools lol.



beretw said:


> Just some thoughts. I would maybe recommend versing yourself in positive reinforcement methods just so you can understand the vocabulary and technical nuances a bit better.


meh the dogs I've trained do whatever I want them to do whenever I want them to do it completely silent aside from the verbal exercises, in all of the dogs I've trained, and play with - the dogs attach to me and prefer me over their owners. So, the method I use works, and I'll stick to it. it does no harm to me or the dog  - also : judging by your comments throughout my training post ; I have deduced that you have failed to understand the words I typed. For whatever reason - you need to re-read them as your recommendations have nothing to do with what was origionally posted lol.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

._Rick said:


> @Crantastic :
> there's always debunking of everything by people who think they're smarter. It's hard to shape everyone to believe in the same thing - take a look at religion, or politics. Everyone has an opinion of what's wrong and what's right and will frantically search for whatever they believe in. IE: lady gaga's random little hand gestures has people assuming she's 'illuminati'. The "Alpha thing" is quite proven in packs of animals and even humans. There's always a chain of command. Military, work, school, home. It's imprinted everywhere for everything.


Yes, it was proven, by studies done on a pack of _captive_ wolves more than 40 years ago. I linked to one of the very guys who wrote about it and now says that he was wrong. 



> The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature at least partly because of my book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species," written in 1968, published in 1970, republished in paperback in 1981, and currently still in print, despite my numerous pleas to the publisher to stop publishing it. Although most of the book's info is still accurate, much is outdated. We have learned more about wolves in the last 40 years then in all of previous history.


If you want to believe in it anyway, that's your prerogative, and it doesn't sound like you're harming the dogs you train, so that's fine. But don't say "it's quite proven" and then wave away more recent studies to the contrary.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> you need to continue reading the entire posts. you keep missing things I put in and then questioning me about them.


Yes I have a tendency to skip/read so to speak. 



> 15-45 min per trick.


I do very little trick work so I need others to step in with time allotments for tricks.



> The last dog I trained this to didn't go to the begging state. I could set my plate down on the coffee table, leave it there all night if I wanted to, leave the house to visit a friend and come back and the food would remain there untouched.


The above is interesting how long did it take to train and proof your dog for the leave food alone all night work.


----------



## ._Rick (Nov 7, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> Yes, it was proven, by studies done on a pack of _captive_ wolves more than 40 years ago. I linked to one of the very guys who wrote about it and now says that he was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to believe in it anyway, that's your prerogative, and it doesn't sound like you're harming the dogs you train, so that's fine. But don't say "it's quite proven" and then wave away more recent studies to the contrary.


now see, all I see is you trying to force your opinion down my throat still passive aggressively. and then kind of shrugging me off because I'm not "causing" harm somehow justifying how it doesn't matter?? If it doesn't matter, then don't bring it up. You have your opinion I have mine, and I'm not going to fight you on it. I just stated my beliefs not for your banters but so you understood. While in the process, I didn't undermine you or belittle you. So why you're trying to dominate me is kind of beyond me . Chain of command, you're doing it now trying to "alpha". So, you're disproving your own belief lol.



wvasko said:


> The above is interesting how long did it take to train and proof your dog for the leave food alone all night work.


The last one was a quick learner, so it didn't take all that long for him. He was curious of the scent at first, but since he was kind of neglected and left outside all the time he wasn't really a begger to begin with. So, all I had to do was tap the table that first time and he understood, that the table top wasn't his. Granted, I didn't think of testing him with the act much until my grandpa pointed out that he was well behaved around food. So, I decided I'd start testing his self discipline. I started leaving stuff on the cubboard, the table, the coffee table, the couch, an end table in my room... Not once did he ever try to take anything off the plate until I put it on the ground and backed away. So, I left 'em alone out of curiosity and he kind of surprised me cause I expected him to go for it but it he didn't <3. I'm sure the method would work to correct beggers that're persistent, it'd just take alot of consistency and perhaps other food training IE: putting a plate on the floor and walking the dog by it long enough for it to ignore it completely :s


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

._Rick said:


> now see, all I see is you trying to force your opinion down my throat still passive aggressively. and then kind of shrugging me off because I'm not "causing" harm somehow justifying how it doesn't matter?? If it doesn't matter, then don't bring it up. You have your opinion I have mine, and I'm not going to fight you on it. I just stated my beliefs not for your banters but so you understood. While in the process, I didn't undermine you or belittle you. So why you're trying to dominate me is kind of beyond me . Chain of command, you're doing it now trying to "alpha". So, you're disproving your own belief lol.


That doesn't make any sense. 

I don't understand this thread, really. Are you attempting to teach all of us how to train? Did you lurk here at all before posting? This forum is full of people who have trained for years, who compete with their dogs, who understand dog behavior on a level most owners will never reach. Those people are going to disagree with you, and that's not an attempt to "dominate" you -- it's an attempt to share their knowledge. It's disappointing that you are not open to hearing different views at all.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> The last one was a quick learner, so it didn't take all that long for him. He was curious of the scent at first, but since he was kind of neglected and left outside all the time he wasn't really a begger to begin with. So, all I had to do was tap the table that first time and he understood, that the table top wasn't his.


I'm not sure what "all that long" means in real time. A week, 2 weeks, a month, 2 months. etc. You did not mention if one of the dogs was a wolf-hybrid you trained. If so were there any unusual problems with him. 

The reason I'm asking about time is that you are explaining all your work and making it sound so easy that it might be a tad misleading to some. While you may have the magic touch with your dogs some who read your methods and try could end up with the idea that they have an inferior dog. I say this cause through the years many clients when dropping their dogs off said that the dogs were stupid.


----------



## ._Rick (Nov 7, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> That doesn't make any sense.
> 
> I don't understand this thread, really. Are you attempting to teach all of us how to train? Did you lurk here at all before posting? This forum is full of people who have trained for years, who compete with their dogs, who understand dog behavior on a level most owners will never reach. Those people are going to disagree with you, and that's not an attempt to "dominate" you -- it's an attempt to share their knowledge. It's disappointing that you are not open to hearing different views at all.


Nope, obviously it's a dog forum, it's going to attract alot of dog lovers. But, being a dog lover, and being a dog trainer is 2 different things. There was a time when people consulted "____ for idiots" to learn how to do things, now - they consult google/the internet. And, if someone who can't speak properly or use force wanted to train a dog, then this option is there for them to do so. And, no, I didn't lurk at all. For the past couple of months I've been thinking about getting myself a dog and thus, came here to learn the things that I don't know about them and perhaps interact with others who share a common interest. Which is why I shared my way of doing things because like you said - some people don't know about some things. I am open to different views, which I have already conveyed. It's you that's not open to hearing different views. After all, you're the one jumping on me about MY views. Remember? this is my thread...


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Regardless of who creates a thread, people are free to disagree, debate, discuss... it's the beauty of a public forum.

It's interesting that you believe in the "alpha"/dominance myth, yet you are opposed to using force when dog training. It's a different philosophy from the usual ones we see here, anyway!

And I said you weren't open to different views because you immediately told Canyx (who has gotten great results with shaping) that shaping is wrong, and ignored my links refuting dominance-based training, comparing scientific studies to the conspiracy theorists who think Lady Gaga is Illuminati. That doesn't seem terribly open-minded.

(And yes, I am familiar with dominance-based training techniques. I actually used them on my last dog before I joined here, started reading A LOT -- posts here, scientific studies, and books and blogs by behaviorists -- and changed my mind. I like to be informed about both sides of issues.)


----------



## ._Rick (Nov 7, 2012)

wvasko said:


> I'm not sure what "all that long" means in real time. A week, 2 weeks, a month, 2 months. etc. You did not mention if one of the dogs was a wolf-hybrid you trained. If so were there any unusual problems with him.
> 
> The reason I'm asking about time is that you are explaining all your work and making it sound so easy that it might be a tad misleading to some. While you may have the magic touch with your dogs some who read your methods and try could end up with the idea that they have an inferior dog. I say this cause through the years many clients when dropping their dogs off said that the dogs were stupid.


ohhh you wanted precise time. it was about a day for him. I wasn't breaking him from a lingering habit he got into, I was simply teaching him what the proper etiquette was. I just didn't know the extent he had taken that lesson to. I just assumed it was only when I was eating and that coffee table. What he took in was that if it was on the floor he could have it, if it wasn't he couldn't. The Wolf hybrid was the wolf/shepherd Nanook. He was kind of bullheaded and didn't have a long attention span, he was one of the 45 minute cases to teach.

As for the magic touch, I believe I actually do. I can control all my friends dogs just by teaching them some tricks. They'll follow me until I leave and obey everything I want and ignore their actual master. It is quite simple for me to do these things. When I get a pup, I'll make some videos of his training so you can see how quickly they learn. I don't do all of the tricks listed above in one sitting. I'll start with one, work at it with the dog until they get it. I have the dogs 100% focus, the dog has my focus 100%. Then, periodically, I'll test them on it. An hour later, an hour after that. Etc. Etc. Then, later on in the day I'll move onto the next trick. So, over 12 hours ; it learns 2 tricks. 



Crantastic said:


> Regardless of who creates a thread, people are free to disagree, debate, discuss... it's the beauty of a public forum.
> 
> It's interesting that you believe in the "alpha"/dominance myth, yet you are opposed to using force when dog training. It's a different philosophy from the usual ones we see here, anyway!
> 
> ...



I believe in the alpha/dominance as the leader. The others, are the followers. It's clear and that's what it is. You don't have to use force to be a leader which is why I caught onto your passive aggressive assertation. The controller is the one whom is dominant. They don't need to use force to manipulate, they just have to get the result. So, I sort of passive aggressively control animals. I don't use force because I don't enjoy the yelping out/crying reaction. I love animals with every fiber of my being. So, when it makes a noise that's not a bark or a growl - that shows me the animal is in some sort of pain. Be it anxiety, actual pain, shock, or fear. And, I don't use pain as a tool for anything. I tap into them mentally and demand them to connect with me on a psychological level. 

As far as shaping goes, I didn't say it was wrong. I just said the implication of the example was wrong. She tried to use an example to explain how it was different from my method thus making it better method, when all it did was cause confusion. (Think about math class: did you learn it well when you were confused? or did it frustrate you?)

I ignored your 'scientific' studies links which purpose as you titled the links - went against my beliefs and my own expiramentations/observations. I don't use 'scientific studies' as a basis for my beliefs in anything I do because in most cases studies bounce around from the subject being right, then wrong, then right, then wrong again. For example: the world being flat, neutrons - electrons and protons being the 'smallest' particles then provin that atoms are actually smallest that we know of. Nothing is certain, we are always learning. Just look at education, it changes all the time - as does the medicinal system. Even vets change their practises through the years.

I personally don't look at both sides of things that I've experienced because I know what I experienced. If you went up to someone who's Christian, and tried to explain to them your views, they'll think you're misguided and want to save you. I have the same mentallity but I'm not trying to save you. I'm understanding you have a different view/opinion and I just don't care for it. I'm not trying to force my opinion onto you, I'm explaining why I have my opinion. You're the aggressor here, you're the one whom brought the subject up to debate about, except you're hardly debating. You like me are rarely addressing the other side. I'm addressing your constant reprise but you're still shoving your opinion down my throat as if you're disapproving and trying to change my opinion. I'm not trying to change yours by shoving all of these 'studies' and proofs in your face. I'm using examples that're well known to show why I believe what I believe. 

So, you have your belief, I have mine. Now, I'd appreciate it if you left it at that.

Thanks!


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

When teaching sit, is it absolutely necessary to hold the treat with my pinky and ring finger? What if I can't snap my fingers?


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

._Rick said:


> I'm not trying to save you. I'm understanding you have a different view/opinion and I just don't care for it. I'm not trying to force my opinion onto you, I'm explaining why I have my opinion. You're the aggressor here, you're the one whom brought the subject up to debate about, except you're hardly debating. You like me are rarely addressing the other side. I'm addressing your constant reprise but you're still shoving your opinion down my throat as if you're disapproving and trying to change my opinion. I'm not trying to change yours by shoving all of these 'studies' and proofs in your face. I'm using examples that're well known to show why I believe what I believe.
> 
> So, you have your belief, I have mine. Now, I'd appreciate it if you left it at that.
> 
> Thanks!


I really don't think anyone was trying to force their opinion onto you. Others were just discussing your viewpoints and methodology behind your training. There are a ton of excellent trainers on this board who have worked with hundreds of dogs. If you post a thread about your training methods on a dog training forum, of course people are going to point things out and question them- thats the purpose of a forum! It's not intended to be an attack on your views.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

sassafras said:


> When teaching sit, is it absolutely necessary to hold the treat with my pinky and ring finger? What if I can't snap my fingers?


When I'm giving bubba commands while walking to class its been so cold that my fingers freeze  yay for voice commands!


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

._Rick said:


> - though I'll be honest, I don't quite get how the clicker works as I've never tried it or looked into it. I prefer using the primal tools lol.


LOL before you dismiss shaping maybe you should educate yourself about its tools. (Although you don't _have_ to use a clicker as your marker, you can use your voice or even a gesture, they're just not nearly as precise.)


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

._Rick said:


> I believe in the alpha/dominance as the leader. The others, are the followers. It's clear and that's what it is.


I think we actually agree in some ways. I do consider myself my dogs' leader... a benevolent leader, though, not an "alpha." Dogs don't think of us as dogs, so even if the "alpha wolf" theory were true, and even if it applied to dogs (which it doesn't, as dogs aren't pack animals like wolves), our dogs wouldn't consider us to be alpha dogs. I use the "Nothing in Life is Free" method when training my dogs, which has gotten me great success. My dogs obey me not just because they want to please me, but because they get what they want when they do what I want. Dogs are opportunistic, which is why NILIF works so well. 




> For example: the world being flat, neutrons - electrons and protons being the 'smallest' particles then provin that atoms are actually smallest that we know of. Nothing is certain, we are always learning. Just look at education, it changes all the time - as does the medicinal system. Even vets change their practises through the years.


Yes, in all of these things, we learned that the old beliefs were wrong. Same with the wolf studies -- the old ones were done on a pack of wolves in captivity, and they acted very different from wild wolves. There have been many studies done on wild wolves in the 40 years since, and the alpha thing has been soundly disproved. Would you like for vets to use methods from 40 years ago just because some of them worked, even though they now know of methods that work better? 



> I'm addressing your constant reprise but you're still shoving your opinion down my throat as if you're disapproving and trying to change my opinion. I'm not trying to change yours by shoving all of these 'studies' and proofs in your face. I'm using examples that're well known to show why I believe what I believe.


I think you are reading my rebuttals as much more antagonistic than they are. 

Comparing my beliefs to a belief in Christianity is silly -- you can't really argue about religion, because it's faith-based. Dog training is not faith-based. I, like many members of this forum, put much more stock in scientific studies than in one guy's experiences, which is why I continue to debate with you. Also, if you had lurked here before posting, you'd know that many, many members of this forum using shaping and other positive training techniques and have done amazing things with their dogs. So, not only are my beliefs on this issue backed up by scientific fact, but I have read many other peoples' personal success stories as well. Of course I'm going to be incredulous that you disagree with everyone else on this thread just because of your experience training nine dogs to do basic tasks.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

This is an.....interesting thread. Like Cran, I don't really get the point of this. It's not answering misconceptions or anything but rather just sharing your methods. But then it's too long and I'm assuming detailed to just be a normal share a story type of thread.

It's obviously not a thread looking for input. 

Well as for myself, I'm too egotistical to listen to some single random person that just showed up out of nowhere, especially someone that's not open to input and opinions from others.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> ohhh you wanted precise time. it was about a day for him. I wasn't breaking him from a lingering habit he got into, I was simply teaching him what the proper etiquette was. I just didn't know the extent he had taken that lesson to. I just assumed it was only when I was eating and that coffee table. What he took in was that if it was on the floor he could have it, if it wasn't he couldn't. The Wolf hybrid was the wolf/shepherd Nanook. He was kind of bullheaded and didn't have a long attention span, he was one of the 45 minute cases to teach.


Well I'm gonna bow out now because with 50 years of training experience and 90 breeds trained I have never had the ability to teach a dog proper ettiquette in a day.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> The "Alpha thing" is quite proven in packs of animals and even humans.


Interesting... could you direct me to where its proven? I know that its a theory put forward by David Mech (most notably) but he has since changed his position and even called for publishers to stop printing his book. I believed very strongly in pack theory before I joined this board but have learned a lot and find myself questioning it pretty strongly. Any sources you could point to supporting the theory?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I doubt you're going to get what you're looking for, aiw. I was hoping for some links, too, but all I got was:



> I ignored your 'scientific' studies links which purpose as you titled the links - went against my beliefs and my own expiramentations/observations. I don't use 'scientific studies' as a basis for my beliefs in anything I do because in most cases studies bounce around from the subject being right, then wrong, then right, then wrong again.


And:



> I'm not trying to change yours by shoving all of these 'studies' and proofs in your face. I'm using examples that're well known to show why I believe what I believe.


As far as the OP is concerned, he's already demonstrated that the "alpha thing" is proven.


----------



## EdDTS (May 30, 2012)

Interesting way of training.

The only problem I see is the whole slapping the table thing. If you slap the table for my dog, that's his cue to jump up on it. I didn't teach him it, he just took the slap on the desk or table or anything as a cue to jump up.
So you might want to consider different methods because you never know. One day you might run into a dog that doesn't listen to the slap on the table thing.
Fill up your tool bag. Make sure you have a variety of different methods to help every dog.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> So why you're trying to dominate me is kind of beyond me . Chain of command, you're doing it now trying to "alpha". So, you're disproving your own belief lol.


This is one of the biggest problems with dominance theory. It locks everyone and everything into 'alpha' and 'submissive', 'leader' and 'follower' roles. If that is the philosophy you choose to apply with dogs you are certainly free to do so. I would ask that you don't apply it to people (or at least me). I haven't seen anyone here try to 'dominate' you or being aggressive, just openly debating a subject of mutual interest from opposing viewpoints. I am not interested in anyone trying to 'dominate' me or be 'alpha' to me, we are equals and should respect each other as such.

I also view myself as my dog's leader, and in some ways we resemble a pack (which is actually a family structure anyways) but the rules aren't hard and fast. I don't expect 100% control and we don't function as a wolf pack with concrete alpha and omega structure (although as it turns out, wolf packs don't function quite that way either).


----------



## mashlee08 (Feb 24, 2012)

zhaor said:


> This is an.....interesting thread. Like Cran, I don't really get the point of this. It's not answering misconceptions or anything but rather just sharing your methods. But then it's too long and I'm assuming detailed to just be a normal share a story type of thread.
> 
> It's obviously not a thread looking for input.
> 
> Well as for myself, I'm too egotistical to listen to some single random person that just showed up out of nowhere, especially someone that's not open to input and opinions from others.


+1! Cran is pretty much saying everything I would say so I will let her bang her head on the wall and save mine lol.


----------



## mashlee08 (Feb 24, 2012)

EdDTS said:


> Interesting way of training.
> 
> The only problem I see is the whole slapping the table thing. If you slap the table for my dog, that's his cue to jump up on it. I didn't teach him it, he just took the slap on the desk or table or anything as a cue to jump up.
> So you might want to consider different methods because you never know. One day you might run into a dog that doesn't listen to the slap on the table thing.
> Fill up your tool bag. Make sure you have a variety of different methods to help every dog.


Conditioning works in weird wonderful ways! Some people don't even know they have conditioned a behavior til it's too late. In this case, a slap on the table for my dog would teach her to avoid the table at all costs and then I would have to counter condition the hole thing and put treats or something on it so she new it wasn't going to bite her!


----------



## ._Rick (Nov 7, 2012)

What seems to amuse me, is you all just look at the info, discredit it because you don't know me or believe me, and then focus on everything you deem to be wrong instead of trying to comprehend, infer/read between the lines. It's provin' post after post.

So Sassa; since you failed to have thought about anything : yes it's essential to hold the treat with your pinky and ring finger because the dog is fixated on it while you do the motion you want it to learn and it frees up the 3 fingers you want to use while teaching. Now after all this you come back with the stupid question of snapping your fingers. I believe there's youtube tutorials too asist with that. 

Rescued:

perhaps you mis-read the initial post which can be found here. As for your fingers being cold, it's obviously winter you obviously haven't trained him the things that you want him to do. In my cases, I've takin' the dog for so many walks that it knows when I stop moving, it is to sit and remain there until I continue. To further my point, I don't even need to use the leash. He knows, I'm in command and what the behavior is that is expected. And, if it's cold while you're training, then no pain, no gain. It's not needed constantly.

Sass: as I explained in the post you effortly quoted. I prefer using my natural tools in my natural way, therefore I don't see a reason to look into it. You know how to type on a computer, should I critique the formation you're using because it's not "proper" in my opinion/eyes? No. Because it works for you lol.


@Cran:
a leader is an alpha though. Just like your boss is your leader. If a leader is challenged, they adapt and correct. That's a dominant alpha act. True, dogs aren't pack animals like wolves, but the dog world has an hierarchy. Which may not show to all, but not all signs of the heirarchy are shown noticably. 

Still on these studies? Here's the problem with them. It's a statistical probability. Which if you pay attention to, you would know is not always accurate as there's so many factors to consider that recreating the exact same thing to judge it numerous times with others is next to impossible. I'm sure I don't have to tell you this, but each dog has it's own personality, desires and etc. You will likely never find 2 dogs that're exactly the same in how they perceive anything whether it's in the wild, or in captivity. I'm not saying that my method has only worked a couple of times, on a couple of breeds only or specific genders. I'm saying the method I used worked for ALL dogs I took the time to train/help train. That is the difference for me. And depending on the methods and what the outcome was perhaps I would. There's even a thread here about suggested vaccinations that people are iffy about due to some outcomes. Sometimes, the evolution of medicine isn't for the best. They sell us with "We need this, to fix that" but keep the "but it will do this, this, that, this and that" under wraps. Whether because they don't know, or have given up on searching for something better at the moment.

Hahaha, maybe I am reading them more antagonistic than you mean them to me, that's the problem of the interwebz, everything seems so violent when reading a disagreement. As far as dog training not being faith based, it actually is lol, you put faith in a technique lol. I kind of strayed from all forms of religion, but I won't get into that lol. It's nice to see you believe in scientific fact, I like scientific : however science isn't always cast in stone otherwise it wouldn't be evolving all the time. There'd be a point where it's final. What science is ; is the best they can do with what they can perceive. Which isn't fact if you don't experience it lol. I mean, once upon a time, you thought Santa Claus was real and would've faught to the death... Same thing lol.

@Zhoar ; your defiance makes me horny...

@wvasko : perhaps you didn't try the method I have described, you were too busy skimming through other methods and not getting the whole thing? or perhaps, the dogs are already beggers and you were trying to break the habit as apposed to teach the etiquette of the situation.

@aiw:

look around at life, the pack thing is everywhere. Boss, Supervisor, Worker, Janitor. Heirarchy, Pack. Alpha followers. 

@EdDTS:

ahh, I see your point. I've never encountered that situation before. Perhaps, somebody else was the one who taught your dog that cue. Mostly when the slap on the table does when I do it is reverts their attention to see what I want them to do.

@aiw: 

her initial post was dominance though. She had no previous contact with me or friendship toward me and was trying to direct me somewhere else right off the bat. That, is a dominant type thing. There's other ways to establish such things. I don't try to dominate people, I just try to have a conversation. The conversations are much easier when people are just going to shout down everything they perceive as wrong each time they "speak".


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

._Rick said:


> Sass: as I explained in the post you effortly quoted. I prefer using my natural tools in my natural way, therefore I don't see a reason to look into it.


I don't care if you look into using it yourself or not. But if you haven't looked into it, then you can't really tell someone who has used it very successfully all about how and why it can't possibly work, kwim?


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

._Rick said:


> @Zhoar ; your defiance makes me horny...


A/S/L? :eyebrows:


----------



## beretw (Sep 25, 2012)

._Rick said:


> So Sassa; since you failed to have thought about anything : yes it's essential to hold the treat with your pinky and ring finger because *the dog is fixated on it* while you do the motion you want it to learn and it frees up the 3 fingers you want to use while teaching. Now after all this you come back with the stupid question of snapping your fingers. I believe there's youtube tutorials too asist with that.


We don't want the dog fixated on the treat during training. The treat is not the impetus. The treat is the reward. The focus should be on the handler. This becomes especially important when working on focus cues and other commands/behavior. Training that your methods do not lay proper groundwork for.

The same training required for advanced OB, which does NOT necessitate aversion training, despite your insistence that all methods of formal OB training are cruel and involve the use of choke collars.


----------



## mashlee08 (Feb 24, 2012)

Wait, so your saying I am submissive to my boss?!

I don't think so. It's the way a company runs. Everyone is still equal, and if didn't do my job, I would get fired. It's called infrastructure not pack order.


----------



## EdDTS (May 30, 2012)

mashlee08 said:


> Conditioning works in weird wonderful ways! Some people don't even know they have conditioned a behavior til it's too late. In this case, a slap on the table for my dog would teach her to avoid the table at all costs and then I would have to counter condition the hole thing and put treats or something on it so she new it wasn't going to bite her!


See! Not every dog is going to react the same way to everything!
I'd be willing to bet that one dog somewhere will spin around in a circle if you slap a table!



._Rick said:


> @EdDTS:
> 
> ahh, I see your point. I've never encountered that situation before. Perhaps, somebody else was the one who taught your dog that cue. Mostly when the slap on the table does when I do it is reverts their attention to see what I want them to do.


That's a great assumption.
But then factor in my dog has been with me since he was 10 weeks old, I handled all his training since I got him and the people who bred his parents together didn't even give him a bowl to eat out of. They just tossed food onto the ground. It's unlikely anyone could have taught him that. He came to me essentially a big fluff ball of knowing nothing.

Learn a lot about the different methods. I still lean towards using corrections and being physical but I see the value in doing stuff like shaping, counter conditioning, using treats, and clickers now. I've applied it with my own dog and I've seen results I wouldn't have been able to achieve without it.
Heck I taught my dog how to carry a beanie around just by doing some basic clicker stuff and I can see I could never do it by correcting him.
There is a place for all methods, even yours. But I like to think there is never just "one" way to train a dog.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

._Rick said:


> perhaps you mis-read the initial post which can be found here. As for your fingers being cold, it's obviously winter you obviously haven't trained him the things that you want him to do. In my cases,I've takin' the dog for so many walks that it knows when I stop moving, it is to sit and remain there until I continue.] To further my point, I don't even need to use the leash. He knows, I'm in command and what the behavior is that is expected. And, if it's cold while you're training, then no pain, no gain. It's not needed constantly.


lawd. where to begin.

just going to throw out there that my comment to sassafras was sarcastic. it is cold, but that has no bearing on this conversation since i said that in jest.


> you obviously haven't trained him the things that you want him to do.


 not sure where this weird attack on my training skills/ my dog came from, but the dog that I'm currently training will one day be a guide dog for a blind handler. you have to do things a bit different when the dog will eventually be working with someone that cannot see- hence the verbal commands. 



> I've takin' the dog for so many walks that it knows when I stop moving, it is to sit and remain there until I continue.


well thats all fine and dandy for a pet (though in one of your posts you said you don't have a dog so i'm not sure what dog you're referring to?) but when a blind handler is using a harness, a dog that sits every time the handler stops moving would result in a very bruised handler and would be completely counteractive to having a guide dog. And I'm glad you dont need to use a leash, but I will throw this out there: one day of training does NOT produce a dog that doesnt need a leash. And no amount of training will produce a dog that would be safe without a leash in the city, where most guide dogs work.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

beretw said:


> We don't want the dog fixated on the treat during training. The treat is not the impetus. The treat is the reward. The focus should be on the handler. This becomes especially important when working on focus cues and other commands/behavior.


THIS. I use food rewards very, very rarely- because I've phased them out over time and his reward is verbal, and his focus remains on me.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> her initial post was dominance though


Her initial post offered an alternative viewpoint and evidence to back it up, you don't have to believe in science but that doesnt make the evidence any less valid. You have only worked with 9 dogs (seemingly for less than a day each) and yet you're using your personal experience to make a generalization about everyone and everything else. You also don't seem willing to accept input or dissent, so I wonder what you came here looking for? A lot of your methods are similar to those I use and other very experienced trainers on this board use but there is always more to learn so I dont really understand your unwillingness to investigate other methods.

All those people you listed are free-functioning, equal individuals. As a worker I perform certain tasks requested by my boss (within a very narrow framework), I don't do it because he is 'alpha' or dominant or because he is stronger. I do it for myself, because I am self interested and want to take home my wages... that is operant conditioning at work. If the wages disappeared you can bet I would promptly ignore said boss. Even while we function within this framework of boss and worker he is not the 'alpha' of my 'pack', he has no authority over my personal time and tasks I am willing to perform at work are very narrow, I might fill out a report but I'm not going to cook his lunch. Power dynamics exist but its silly to reduce them to something so simple as 'leader' and 'follower', especially between humans. Its just not applicable.


----------



## ._Rick (Nov 7, 2012)

Rescued said:


> lawd. where to begin.
> 
> just going to throw out there that my comment to sassafras was sarcastic. it is cold, but that has no bearing on this conversation since i said that in jest. not sure where this weird attack on my training skills/ my dog came from, but the dog that I'm currently training will one day be a guide dog for a blind handler. you have to do things a bit different when the dog will eventually be working with someone that cannot see- hence the verbal commands.
> 
> ...


For starters dear; comprehension does a lot. Picking out specific things to banter about and fixating on them is kind of dumb on your part. So allow me to shed some light.

First off. This thread is called: "My way of training dogs without using force or raising my voice."
Why would someone training a dog for a blind person consider a MUTE TRAINING method? Are you just trying to be stupid or are you just not reading everything?

Secondly.
I didn't go after your training skills, I went after the hypothetical that you are still in the PROCESS of training the dog.

Thirdly.
How am I to know you're being sarcastic and trolling? Guess it was bad on my part for assuming you were trying to install an actual question/prospect to the conversation.

and lastly, until you learn to comprehend, I no longer have any interest in your bantering.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

._Rick said:


> there you go again, not reading and comprehending what is infront of you. I didn't say it can't possibly work. I A) admitted that I did not understand it. (much like you don't understand what you read) and B) that I believed it insighted a different type of behavior as apposed to the type that I am getting. Comprehension is key, please learn to use it.


I would actually like if very much if you would take your own advice and learn to comprehend a conversation. Here, I will summarize for you so it is easier.

1. Canyx says this, about shaping.


Canyx said:


> So I take it you mostly use luring? If you were guiding a dog down, the act of guiding with food is luring. But the reward at the end is what reinforces the behavior you want, ie being down.
> *To truly teach a dog to learn it 'on its own', you would shape the behavior; the dog lies down without any signal from you, and you mark and reward that position. The cue is then added once the behavior is set.*


2. Now. Because you haven't "looked into" clicker or training or shaping, you don't appear to understand what "mark and reward" means or what Canyx is getting at, because you respond with this, which is patently false:



._Rick said:


> *That isn't learning on it's own though there's no command so it doesn't really know what it's being rewarded for and it doesn't associate any command with the action. Thus making it think you'll just give 'em rewards randomly.* Where as guiding or 'luring' is specifically teaching as apposed to just 'waiting' for it to naturally occur. In order to learn there must be instructions to be associated with, such as "luring". That's what training is .


3. Canyx tries valiantly to address your non-understanding of shaping and marking thusly:



Canyx said:


> If that is the case then clicker training/shaping would never work.
> I agree that luring is useful; a good portion of my dog's tricks come from luring. But an equally large portion comes from shaping.
> 
> "That isn't learning on it's own though there's no command so it doesn't really know what it's being rewarded for and it doesn't associate any command with the action."
> ...


4. Then, among other things, you admit:



> - though I'll be honest, I don't quite get how the clicker works as I've never tried it or looked into it. I prefer using the primal tools lol.


5. After which I suggested that maybe you shouldn't dismiss shaping when you clearly don't know anything about how it works or the tools ones uses when using it (clicking/marking). 




You're welcome.


----------



## Salina (Sep 2, 2012)

._Rick said:


> Secondly.
> I didn't go after your training skills, I went after the hypothetical that you are still in the PROCESS of training the dog.


having a dog means you are always in the process of training...(unless you don't care about training at all)


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

do we really not have a smiley that scratches its head? 

*scratching head smiley*


----------



## savvy (Nov 6, 2012)

You can't just assume every dog responds the same to different training methods, my 2nd dog was extremely submissive, fearful and timid, I wouldn't have even put a chain collar on her, but my current dog is a 100 lb German Shepherd and is very stubborn, without some force to put him in his place and gaining a fearful respect from him he would be out of hand, and I have had problems with him in the past because he tried to take control.

And just so you know a 100% positive training method would never work for working dogs, I am very interested in Schutzhund and many people use all force, but a lot of people also do a lot of positive training, but no matter what there will need to be some force to train them. These kinds of dogs are bred to handle it, if they are going to tuck their tails and run when someone raises their voice they would be completely useless, working dogs need to be strong, not timid.

Another problem with using 100% positive training on a less submissive dog is that they will not know what yelling or 'no' means, sure maybe you can teach a dog not to scratch on the door with positive training, but I would never have been able to teach my dog not to attack the cats without force. Different corrections for different behaviors!

I would rather teach my dog to get over his fears than never make him afraid, he knows what no means and he knows it's nothing to be afraid of unless he continues to behave badly, it is his decision, dogs can make the choice between getting what they want and a punishment or not getting what they want and no punishment!


----------



## mashlee08 (Feb 24, 2012)

Salina said:


> having a dog means you are always in the process of training...(unless you don't care about training at all)


 Pretty much, if you stop reinforcing the behavior becomes extinct. Thank goodness for spontaneous recovery hey! If loose leash walking took me one day and i didn't have to work on it anymore then I'd want a medal.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Goodbye Rick.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Gone already?

Oh well, at least he made my evening a little more amusing. I'm still laughing at the idea of my boss being my alpha... or of me trying to dominate someone by throwing links at them.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

._Rick said:


> Dogs will learn new behaviors on it's own all the time, that's where correcting and giving direction comes in. IE: house breaking, chewing. Which is what you're there to teach because. Notice how above I noted "tricks" in parenthesis. That's because it's the extra curricular's of dog training. Where as the other stuff is expected behavior and such. But to emphasize more on what you used an example. That is dominance, and taking the lead. Which is unwanted. You need to guide your dog, not let the dog guide you .
> 
> - though I'll be honest, I don't quite get how the clicker works as I've never tried it or looked into it. I prefer using the primal tools lol.


Yeah, I also use shaping to create the behaviors I want, such as not begging at the table. Your method sounds good for you, but mine worked well for me too and I can summarize my entire training method in one sentence: I rewarded her when she was in the right place at the right time.
The end result is whenever I am about to eat, she will go to a dog bed in a different room. To this day there is no cue; I simply go about my way eating dinner and she _chooses_ that action, and the rewards have been phased out too. Just another example of shaping. But to me, this is "expected behavior," not a trick. 

Clicker training is not a fancy gadgety method. There is a clicker involved, for ease of marking behaviors. But you can also use your voice. The heart of clicker training really is the _theory_ of marking exactly when a dog demonstrates a desired behavior and rewarding for it, simple as that. You can use luring and clicker training together as well.

But please explain to me where in my previous example is my dog "taking the lead," and when have I failed to "guide my dog"?




._Rick said:


> For the past couple of months I've been thinking about getting myself a dog and thus, came here to learn the things that I don't know about them and perhaps interact with others who share a common interest.


I am just curious... Were the other nine dogs from your past? Or were they all friends' dogs?
And I assure you there is a lot to be learned here. A dog can teach you something new every day (without going alpha on you), so each dog owner here is constantly learning. Pool together all those stories and all this experience, and there is a lot to be learned for sure.


----------



## mashlee08 (Feb 24, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> Gone already?
> 
> Oh well, at least he made my evening a little more amusing. I'm still laughing at the idea of my boss being my alpha... or of me trying to dominate someone by throwing links at them.


I was cowering under all your linkyness! A little wee might have even came out....


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Wait, why was he banned? (which is what it says on his profile)
Drats! I wanted answers! Because maybe he really was THAT good of a trainer: "As for the magic touch, I believe I actually do. I can control all my friends dogs just by teaching them some tricks. They'll follow me until I leave and obey everything I want and ignore their actual master."

But depending on whose dogs these were, I also thought that maybe the dogs saw him as novel, and if the dogs have never been taught to learn, then a person giving them direction in their lives would seem appealing; that plus things like Sit and Paw are really easy to teach; you can really teach a dog half the things on the OP's first post in a day. (Proofing is what takes longer). That's exactly what happened with my friend's dog, the following, ease of picking up commands, and obeying. But I don't have "magic touch." I just have food in my pocket, a clear route to getting the dog to do a behavior (as does the OP, credit to him for that), and I'm a visitor so to the dog I'm automatically 10x cooler than his owner.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Yeah, I believe Patricia McConnell mentioned that in one of her books -- people would bring problem/aggressive dogs in to her office and the dogs would be great for her, at least on that first day. It was a combination of unfamiliar surroundings and new, confident person, among other things.

It's certainly possible that Rick is very confident around dogs, which I believe they pick up on. Some people are naturally "good" with dogs, whether they know any training theory or not. I don't believe that anyone could train a dog in lifelong etiquette in 45 minutes, however. 

I have taught friends' dogs things when I visited, and the dogs performed those things well throughout the day, but what if I went back a month later and gave the command? I'm not so sure the dog would perform as well.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Wait, why was he banned? (which is what it says on his profile)


Is suspect it was for the snide comments he made about rescued and sass. He accused her of being stupid and a troll... so a pretty legit banning. I also would have liked answers, especially about how extensively he worked with these dogs since he doesn't own one and claims training took a day or two for the dimmest bulb. Anyways, much as I am tempted its not nice to dance on the grave so... on to other things!


----------



## beretw (Sep 25, 2012)

The PMs he sent me were pretty entertaining


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Oh, bother. Doesn't he know that getting called stupid only makes me stronger? It's like the spinach of my soul.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

well i will admit that i was skimming and not reading everything, because a physiology report on cockroach hemolymph is calling my name. i'll also admit that i am sort of stupid for reading df when i should be doing homework.

if i'm a troll, does that mean that i get to go sit under a bridge and not wake up early tomorrow to walk the dog before i take him to class and then get new foster puppies tomorrow? i'll take it


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> get new foster puppies tomorrow?


Puppies?! Okay new plan, you go be a troll, sass can go be popeye and _I'll_ take the new puppies.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

aiw said:


> Puppies?! Okay new plan, you go be a troll, sass can go be popeye and _I'll_ take the new puppies.


Okay im not gonna lie i'm pretty excited  The monthly guide dog transport van is making its way down the east coast (to deliver new pups/ pick up ones that are going back to the foundation for training) and they're stopping off here overnight so they need people to take two new pups for the night until they get delivered to their new foster homes in georgia.

i'll post pictures when they arrive tomorrow. and then we're (hopefully) getting a baby foster kitten on friday!! bubba doesnt know what he's in for...

this week also happens to be the week i have an insane amount of work due. WHO SAYS i cant plan well??


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Puppy time iz teh best time.


----------



## Lucy Brees (Aug 20, 2012)

well that was an entertaining late night read..... but now it's got me worried i am training Lucy wrong as I use luring for pretty much all the commands: sit, down, come, etc..... I will give her a a treat also after she rings the bell and potties. And I also give her treats if she is being "nice" by playing with me and not biting me.

am i screwing it all up?


----------



## mashlee08 (Feb 24, 2012)

Lucy Brees said:


> well that was an entertaining late night read..... but now it's got me worried i am training Lucy wrong as I use luring for pretty much all the commands: sit, down, come, etc..... I will give her a a treat also after she rings the bell and potties. And I also give her treats if she is being "nice" by playing with me and not biting me.
> 
> am i screwing it all up?


There is no wrong way of training per say, as long as you aren't harming the dog and not emotionally damaging it by whacking the table lol, and as long as the dog is learning whatever your trying to teach, then that's fine. Every dog is different, shaping is great for lots of dogs, as is luring. If it works, use it, if it doesn't try something else.


----------



## Lucy Brees (Aug 20, 2012)

mashlee08 said:


> There is no wrong way of training per say, as long as you aren't harming the dog and not emotionally damaging it by whacking the table lol, and as long as the dog is learning whatever your trying to teach, then that's fine. Every dog is different, shaping is great for lots of dogs, as is luring. If it works, use it, if it doesn't try something else.


thanks, I don't slap her nor the table, lol. And she is smart and learning. I do "shape" a tiny bit I guess because sometimes i do reward for her just spontaneously doing something I want. She's really pretty well behaved for a puppy, so I don't have a lot of issues to deal with ( knock on wood). I just want a good family pet, not trying to win any competitions or anything; just keep her safe and polite are my goals.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> @wvasko : perhaps you didn't try the method I have described, you were too busy skimming through other methods and not getting the whole thing? or perhaps, the dogs are already beggers and you were trying to break the habit as apposed to teach the etiquette of the situation.


Now I am depressed as when OP wrote the above I never had the chance to explain that his online training skills far outweighed any real life training. He's gone. Oh well I feel better now.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Lucy Brees said:


> well that was an entertaining late night read..... but now it's got me worried i am training Lucy wrong as I use luring for pretty much all the commands: sit, down, come, etc..... I will give her a a treat also after she rings the bell and potties. And I also give her treats if she is being "nice" by playing with me and not biting me.
> 
> am i screwing it all up?


Luring isn't going to screw anything up as long as you fade the lure quickly. IMO.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

._Rick said:


> Then, hold the treat with your pinky and ring finger while you snap your middle finger/thumb and point to their bum moving the treat slowly over their head.


See ... I was always taught from an early age, that snapping fingers at a dog was condescending, disrespectful, and largely ineffective.

No ? don't think so ? ... then try snapping your fingers at your spouse, to obtain a specific behaviour. Watch for the result.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Crantastic said:


> L. David Mech's site (he wrote a book on the original wolf research that led to the popularity of the whole "alpha" thing; he now admits that he was wrong)
> 
> There are many excellent trainers on this board who have trained a lot more than 10 dogs. Stick around and you'll learn a lot! I certainly have.


thats also a myth. He altered the definition of "alpha" and its context for use.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

In a way, but the point still stands: Wolves are not constantly competing to become the "alpha," nor are dogs. The main belief behind the "alpha dog" thing is that our dogs are constantly seeking ways to "dominate" us, that we must be on our toes and do all of these silly things to make sure the dog knows that we "own" all of the furniture and that we walk first through doors and that we eat first and blah blah blah. It's just not accurate information. As Dunbar says here:



> People are fond of extrapolating popular, but misunderstood and bowdlerized accounts of wolf-behavior to dog-human interactions and training methods. The assumption is that the dog is out to dominate us and as a result, far too much training advice is unfeeling and adversarial with a sickening reliance on physical domination.





> Notions of a “dominance hierarchy” with an “alpha wolf” being the all-powerful, supreme leader are simply incorrect. Such a muddled and simplistic view is a bit of an insult to the wolves’ most complex and sophisticated social system. This is not the way that wolves live together. Wolves live together in large groups based on family units — in fact, not that much different than the way large groups of humans live together.
> 
> Moreover, dog behavior is very different from wolf behavior, especially in terms of their social interactions with people. In fact, few dogs live in packs at all. When dogs do live in groups, certainly they organize themselves in hierarchies ranked from topdog to underdog, but the hierarchies are neither created nor maintained by physical dominance.





> From an assortment of books, I have discovered the following cautionary “advice” for owners. Never let a dog stare or jump-up, never stand, crouch or kneel down in front of a dog, never look a dog in the eyes, or reach over his head, never loom over a dog and reach down around his neck, never get down on the floor or allow a dog to stand over you, never give a dog food treats or human food, never allow a dog to eat before the family or go out of a door first, never allow a dog on furniture, upstairs, in the bedroom, or on the bed, never let a dog mount your leg, never let a puppy mouth or bite, and never play chase, tug o' war, or play-fight with a dog. Instead, novice owners are routinely advised to enforce “elevation dominance”, “dominance down-stays”, physical restraint and discipline and especially, the “alpha-rollover” — grabbing a dog by the jowls and forcing him onto his back.
> 
> All of these recommendations destroy the fun and enjoyment of living with a dog, most recommendations are just too silly for words, some are counterproductive and others are downright dangerous.


And as Mech said in his study:



> Labeling a high-ranking wolf alpha emphasizes its rank in a dominance hierarchy.
> However, in natural wolf packs, the alpha male or female are merely the breeding
> animals, the parents of the pack, and dominance contests with other wolves are rare, if
> they exist at all. During my 13 summers observing the Ellesmere Island pack, I saw none.
> ...


Could we argue about the definition of alpha? Sure. Some people, like the OP, think of it as synonymous with "leader," and choose to be a benevolent "alpha." But way too many other people think that alpha = dominant, and act like the people Dunbar described in his article because they believe that "alpha wolves" constantly have to reassert their dominance. I think that Mech's re-definition was a good one.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

To me, a person who is *alpha* is either physically or emotionally suppressing something else. Now, it might not be a bad thing, like if a fight was about to break out in a group, the alpha might suppress both instigators to prevent conflict. But in a human-dog relationship, if a person describes him/herself as alpha I, perhaps wrongly, judge the person as having some level of control issues. As in, the person feels physically or emotionally suppressed if the dog 'doesn't obey,' so any unpredictable behavior from the dog (read: lack of 'control') needs to be corrected.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Lucy Brees said:


> well that was an entertaining late night read..... but now it's got me worried i am training Lucy wrong as I use luring for pretty much all the commands: sit, down, come, etc..... I will give her a a treat also after she rings the bell and potties. And I also give her treats if she is being "nice" by playing with me and not biting me.
> 
> am i screwing it all up?


Just make sure you're fading the lure once she 'gets it'. Become a slot machine, not a treat dispenser.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

petpeeve said:


> See ... I was always taught from an early age, that snapping fingers at a dog was condescending, disrespectful, and largely ineffective.
> 
> No ? don't think so ? ... then try snapping your fingers at your spouse, to obtain a specific behaviour. Watch for the result.



Had to laugh at that image either direction in my house. Hubby and I are both pretty strong personality types (we could both be described as 'alphas') either of us snapping our fingers at the other in anything but a joking manner would result in a WTH moment by the other.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

._Rick said:


> This is how I see the relationship between humans and dogs: (maybe it'll help you understand my reasoning)
> Let's pretend you're a dog, you don't understand english or any language.
> If I were to say "establecer" to you and force you to lay down. You'd get that "establecer" means to lay down and after a few times of forcing it, you'd eventually get it.
> 
> However, if I guided you to lay down by pointing down and guiding you with something that smells good without touching you, you'd actually learn it on your own. Just like we learn math. The teacher doesn't hold your hand and write: 1+1=2 for you to learn it .



I see it like this:

I put Wally in a room with the object. See what he does. How does he interact with the object. 

There's something I want him to do with it - let's say it's a mat and I want him to lay on it. Of course, expecting that all at once may be unrealistic, or he might just do it. Either way, I need to "explain" to him what's on the right track or not. He doesn't know my language, so throwing a word at him isn't going to do much. Forcing him to do it might just make him think he's doing something wrong, not necessarily that the word = what I'm forcing him to do.

It's like playing the "hot or cold" game. He puts a paw on the mat - he's getting "warmer", mark and reward. He takes the paw off - "colder" - no response. Paw back on, mark/reward. Two paws. Mark/reward. Now Wally makes a leap of reasoning and is sitting on it. Mark/Bigger Reward. From here, he still has a lot of possibilities so it's going to take refinement. He might lift a paw (like shake/wave), nope. He might "sit pretty". Nope. He may decide sitting isn't it and get off the mat. Nope. 

He gets back on the mat and sits. Mark/Reward. So now he knows being on the mat is definitely part of the solution. Those other behaviors didn't net anything. Getting off didn't net anything - what's left? Ah "I haven't tried laying down yet!" So he lays down. Mark/big reward. 

Now that he's progressed to the end, I want to see just what his understanding is. So, like a teacher, I ask him to "work the next one himself". I call him off the mat and then just wait and see what he does. If he gets back on the mat and lays down - I know he has the concept. Now I can tell him what it's called. And every time he does it, I tell him what it's called and mark/reward him for doing it. 

Now not only does he know what to do on the mat, he can connect meaning to that object. Mat = Lay on it = Environmental cue. So mat + dinner table = go lay on it -> get rewarded with table food. Mat + bed room = Lay on it and I'll throw treats to you or start a game. The process of getting him to get on the mat has brought lots of rewards for being on the mat as well, so that adds to the attraction of it. 

To me, that's how teachers teach. They guide, but ask the student to use his own brain to see the concept, then ask the student to demonstrate what he thinks he understands, and then guides the student from where he's struggling or praises the student for getting it correct and then asks the student to do it again to continue getting practice and to make sure the understanding is there. I don't just want Wally to learn that 1+1 = 2, I want him to learn why that is true, what the concept is called, and how to do it again for future problems.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

petpeeve said:


> See ... I was always taught from an early age, that snapping fingers at a dog was condescending, disrespectful, and largely ineffective.
> 
> No ? don't think so ? ... then try snapping your fingers at your spouse, to obtain a specific behaviour. Watch for the result.


I don't know anything about spouses not being one or having one, but snapping my fingers at Wally is a "look at me" signal. 

I captured him looking at me when I did it. So I repeated it and he kept doing it, and a signal was born


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Canyx said:


> To me, a person who is *alpha* is either physically or emotionally suppressing something else. Now, it might not be a bad thing, like if a fight was about to break out in a group, the alpha might suppress both instigators to prevent conflict. But in a human-dog relationship, if a person describes him/herself as alpha I, perhaps wrongly, judge the person as having some level of control issues. As in, the person feels physically or emotionally suppressed if the dog 'doesn't obey,' so any unpredictable behavior from the dog (read: lack of 'control') needs to be corrected.


If "alpha" = leader, then it depends on the leadership style. My leadership style is anything but suppressive. Yet, when the chips are down or he's confused or he wants to know what to do about whatever it is he saw or heard, he's looking to me for guidance. That's as much leadership as barking out orders every 5 seconds, imo.

I also see "control" differently. If Wally is being overly hyper and excited to where he can't concentrate on what we're doing, and what we're doing isn't just free play or as he might call it, the "running-around-rough-housing-then-I-pounce-on-you-and-lick-your-face-off" game, then I will settle him down so he can THINK as well as be excited. "Control" isn't about him doing everything predictably. Even when I play with him where he tries to "kill the prey", he has to have control over himself so he can try to see how the "prey" is moving, where is it hiding, where is it going, where's the sound coming from, etc. A service dog has to be in control of herself to be any use to her partner. A therapy dog has to have control to stay calm, even if the patient is excited about getting to be with the dog again, and the dog has to be able to be content just sitting or gentle movements - more control. 

Control is not a bad thing. It just has potential to be misused and misdirected. I don't want much control over Wally. Recall and some boundaries (largely because of my mom when he's with her) and that's about it. I want Wally to have control over *himself* so he can think and see what the situation requires.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

KBLover said:


> If "alpha" = leader, then it depends on the leadership style.


Right, but to me alpha =/= leader. Or rather, "leader" is a blanket term that includes alpha, matriarch, boss, etc. So an alpha is a leader but a leader is not necessarily alpha. But again, all of this is just my definition. I liked Crantastic's suggestion of arguing the term, since it's something that's crossed my mind before.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Canyx said:


> Right, but to me alpha =/= leader. Or rather, "leader" is a blanket term that includes alpha, matriarch, boss, etc. So an alpha is a leader but a leader is not necessarily alpha. But again, all of this is just my definition. I liked Crantastic's suggestion of arguing the term, since it's something that's crossed my mind before.


Don't dogs look to whomever they consider alpha for guidance? 

So the question is, imo, what does the dog think, not what the human defines. If Wally looks to me for guidance in uncertain situations, doesn't that make me alpha (in his mind) since that's what dogs do? If Wally felt he was alpha in that situation, wouldn't he act, expecting me to play off his action?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

The problem with using the "alpha" word at all is that, despite how you personally choose to define it, the vast majority of people associate it with dominating a dog thanks to the popularity of dominance theory. I mean, just do a forum search and see the hundreds of threads that say something like, "My four-month-old puppy won't stop biting me -- I think he's trying to dominate me. When I hold him down, he just bites harder. How do I show him I'm the alpha?" Better to scrap the word entirely, at least for now. Nothing wrong with "leader," which I think is more descriptive and meaningful than "alpha" anyway.

From that article I linked earlier in the thread:



> The alpha myth is everywhere. Google “alpha dog” on the Internet and you get more than 85 million hits. Really. While not all the sites are about dominating your dog, there are literally millions of resources out there – websites, books, blogs, television shows, veterinarians, trainers and behavior professionals – instructing you to use force and intimidation to overpower your dog into submission. They say that you, the human, must be the alpha.


That's the problem... not the literal dictionary definition of "alpha," nor how we each choose to define it... but how the majority defines it.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

KBLover said:


> Don't dogs look to whomever they consider alpha for guidance?
> 
> So the question is, imo, what does the dog think, not what the human defines. If Wally looks to me for guidance in uncertain situations, doesn't that make me alpha (in his mind) since that's what dogs do? If Wally felt he was alpha in that situation, wouldn't he act, expecting me to play off his action?


Not according to my definition, because you offer him guidance and you don't try to physically or mentally suppress him  Also, and this overlaps a bit with what Crantastic says above, I think most people use the term "alpha" when they have a behavioral problem (jumping, rowdiness, nipping, etc). Otherwise, it all falls under 'training' (sit, tricks, etc.), as if the two things are separate, and I think they aren't.



Crantastic said:


> The problem with using the "alpha" word at all is that, despite how you personally choose to define it, the vast majority of people associate it with dominating a dog thanks to the popularity of dominance theory. I mean, just do a forum search and see the hundreds of threads that say something like, "My four-month-old puppy won't stop biting me -- I think he's trying to dominate me. When I hold him down, he just bites harder. How do I show him I'm the alpha?" Better to scrap the word entirely, at least for now. Nothing wrong with "leader," which I think is more descriptive and meaningful than "alpha" anyway.


I agree entirely. The problem with words is even if we can prevent one from being used, another word (say, "leader" or "master") will just be used in its place, with the same detrimental connotations. 
Maybe it's not the word, but the person hiding behind the word. I still stand by what I say about "alpha" dog owners having a bit of a control issue problem.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

That may be true, Canyx, but at least "leader" doesn't have the same wolf associations that "alpha" does. The sooner people stop thinking of their family and their dog as a wolf pack, the better. 

Here are a few of the threads I was talking about:

http://www.dogforums.com/dog-training-forum/88881-alpha-dog-confusion.html
http://www.dogforums.com/dog-training-forum/102280-rescued-puppy-i-feel.html
http://www.dogforums.com/dog-training-forum/103144-im-concerned-about-alpha.html
http://www.dogforums.com/dog-training-forum/29126-steps-alpha-dog.html
http://www.dogforums.com/dog-training-forum/49763-am-i-creating-alpha.html

There are SO MANY MORE. It makes me sad.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Hahaa, no one is more equipped to dispel dominance theory than you


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Crantastic said:


> That's the problem... not the literal dictionary definition of "alpha," nor how we each choose to define it... but how the majority defines it.


I'm more interested in how dogs think - so if it exists in THEIR minds, that's what I'm interested in. I'm not training a human, but a dog, so I want to know what HE is thinking and how "alpha" would express itself through a dog's behavior in a human/dog relationship. 

It is possible that "alpha" might be more instinctive, so it doesn't trigger with humans (since I believe dogs know humans ain't dogs). It could be that its instinctive and appears in any social connection, and if so, how does that express itself in behavior? There's countless other possibilities and scenarios, I'm sure, but I just want to illustrate my interest in the concept of "alpha" is less about connotations and how a wolf researcher describes it, but how do dogs use (or don't use) it. Obviously, dogs aren't trying to take over the world, or even the house, but I do think they are trying to understand the world around them and find some order amid the chaos of being in a world they understand none of instinctively. Perhaps one way is playing off someone's lead - which could be an expression of "alpha" in the dog's mind (this person seems to be stable and confident and if I do what they do, maybe that will help through all this).

I'm not so concerned about connotations or how other control-freaking humans want to use the term. I couldn't help them anyway as I'm a shaper, and do not understand that mindset any more than they could probably understand how putting a dog and a ball in a room can lead to a retrieve by its own momentum and the dog's logical thought processes. And I kinda wish the OP were still around (just read back and saw that 1. he thinks shaping doesn't work, and 2. he's banned), so I could make him explain that if his views on shaping is correct, then how could I teach Wally <insert list of as many of Wally's behaviors I could think of>, let alone what Pawz does with canine freestyle.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

savvy said:


> You can't just assume every dog responds the same to different training methods, my 2nd dog was extremely submissive, fearful and timid, I wouldn't have even put a chain collar on her, but my current dog is a 100 lb German Shepherd and is very stubborn, without some force to put him in his place and gaining a fearful respect from him he would be out of hand, and I have had problems with him in the past because he tried to take control.
> 
> And just so you know a 100% positive training method would never work for working dogs, I am very interested in Schutzhund and many people use all force, but a lot of people also do a lot of positive training, but no matter what there will need to be some force to train them. These kinds of dogs are bred to handle it, if they are going to tuck their tails and run when someone raises their voice they would be completely useless, working dogs need to be strong, not timid.
> 
> ...


No, it isn't at all necessary to use punishment (aversives) on GSDs or working dogs. Just because you don't know how to train something without punishments doesn't mean it can't be done. Just because the dog "gets over it" doesn't make it the best training method or make it ethical.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

._Rick said:


> That isn't learning on it's own though there's no command so it doesn't really know what it's being rewarded for and it doesn't associate any command with the action. Thus making it think you'll just give 'em rewards randomly. Where as guiding or 'luring' is specifically teaching as apposed to just 'waiting' for it to naturally occur. In order to learn there must be instructions to be associated with, such as "luring". That's what training is . If we waited for dogs to do things of their own accord it installs dominance and independence. Which will end up leading to aggression. Dogs are our followers, we are the leaders . The reason it becomes a "trick"/command is because in mother nature, they don't teach each other to lay down or sit to bend to their will. It's an exercise to bond human to the animal : the above methods also work with cats btw lol.


actually, if you have the patience to capture or shape behaviors, the dog learns much more quickly. If the dog is clicker trained, s/he quickly realizes what the rewarded behavior is, though you may have to wait a little longer for the down. I have no problem with luring AS LONG as the lure goes away fairly quickly (like after three reps). I don't want my dogs only working when I show them food. They get the reward AFTER the behavior. From the beginning. I name the behavior as soon as I perceive that the dog is intentionally giving it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

._Rick said:


> now see, all I see is you trying to force your opinion down my throat still passive aggressively. and then kind of shrugging me off because I'm not "causing" harm somehow justifying how it doesn't matter?? If it doesn't matter, then don't bring it up. You have your opinion I have mine, and I'm not going to fight you on it. I just stated my beliefs not for your banters but so you understood. While in the process, I didn't undermine you or belittle you. So why you're trying to dominate me is kind of beyond me . Chain of command, you're doing it now trying to "alpha". So, you're disproving your own belief lol.


I'm not really sure how posting articles with a different "take" on Alpha is trying to dominate you. That's a little weird and defensive


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Sandy, the OP is gone, banned for name calling.


----------

