Worth a read:)

[Mattie]

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

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

[forkin14]

I really liked the part about fire works and "ellie" the dog. Of course a dog is going to freak out and do all it can to get away from what it's scared of! People think by making the dogs "face their fears" they'll get over it. Friends and family still keep telling me to put Cadence in situations with other dogs so she can face her fears - umm hell no! I still feel awful for what we put her through those two times at dog parks. It's only going to lead to unpredictable behavior from all the parties involved.

Anther thing I noticed will all the "dominance" theory stuff, is how inconsistent it is. They want to say they are emulating how dogs would behave in the wild, yet the last time I checked no dogs are choking each other out or shocking each other! I still have yet to ever see wolves pinning each other down on any wildlife documentaries. I understand why people would believe that you have to achieve dominance over your dog (so that they will listen to "the boss") but that idea and the procedures taken just don't make sense. Of course if you hit your dog, roll it around, or choke it with a choke collar, it is going to do all it can to get away and get you off of him/her, even if it means biting your hands and arms. It's not aggression for dominance sake, it's so they can save their lives and not experience pain!

Maybe none of that makes sense but that's just my ranting as I don't know as much as most people on here about behavior and training!

[***Melissa***]

Very interesting Mattie

I also don't get why some people don't want to change their methods - for example, if I'm following a method (and I don't know any better) and someone tells me that I can achieve the same by following a better (better for the doggie) method, I'd immediately change what I'm doing

[GoofyDog2]

These are very good articles, and I agree for the most part. But I think there is also a problem with how various people define the term "dominance". The article seems to indicate that people who use this term assume that a dog who is perceived to be dominant is planning ahead and doing things in order to achieve higher social status. That is definitely an anthopomorphism and really cannot be applied to a species that lacks such reasoning power.

But I do believe that dogs (and most people) seek leadership and security from those who have taken on their care and to whom they have given trust, and Victoria has observed on several occasions that dogs are out-of-control and showing unwanted behavior because the owners are not providing leadership. There are human parallels to this as well, where an employee will gladly work for a boss who is clearly in charge and provides a secure job and rewards good work, thus earning his position as a leader. If consistent guidelines and reasonable expectations are not provided, and if the leader cannot provide security by making good decisions that earn respect, a worker (or a dog) will not feel secure and may try to take a leadership position (which may be termed dominance), or will feel stress and exhibit unwanted behavior.

I think most dogs are benevolent and naturally look to humans for a source of food, shelter, affection, and attention to their needs. But I think some dogs are more resistant to "submission" and require a stronger leader. And in most cases all that is required is a positive attitude and reinforcement of good behavior, and clear rules and limitations that are consistently and gently enforced. I believe that positive reinforcement methods are most effective when a dog willingly presents good behavior and is provided an environment where failure is not an option.

[Sarah83]

These are very good articles, and I agree for the most part. But I think there is also a problem with how various people define the term "dominance". The article seems to indicate that people who use this term assume that a dog who is perceived to be dominant is planning ahead and doing things in order to achieve higher social status. That is definitely an anthopomorphism and really cannot be applied to a species that lacks such reasoning power.

Sadly that seems to be what a hell of a lot of people do see dogs as doing. It may be antropomorphism but they still believe their dogs are spiteful, trying to get one up on them or trying to take over and become "alpha". And the weirdest things apparently raise a dogs social status. I was told just last week that me making peanut butter cookies for Rupert is raising his status in his mind because he sees all the effort I'm putting in to please him so he thinks he's dominant over me. I've been accused of "letting him get away with" being scared of things god knows how many times because I let him approach scary things at his own pace where possible rather than forcing him. It seems that to some people unless you're choking, shocking, yelling at or alpha rolling your dog you simply aren't the one in charge. It's bizarre!

[forkin14]

I was told just last week that me making peanut butter cookies for Rupert is raising his status in his mind because he sees all the effort I'm putting in to please him so he thinks he's dominant over me.

Umm.. yes because a dog knows of all the effort you're putting into making cookies!? Honestly, where do some people get their ideas!!? If children don't notice (mainly teens, my 15 yr old sister is a monster at this age right now..) how much effort a parent puts into the things they do for/give their children, certainly a dog won't haha! While dogs can be extremely smart, they don't always know what we're doing and why we do it.

[Mattie]

These are very good articles, and I agree for the most part. But I think there is also a problem with how various people define the term "dominance". The article seems to indicate that people who use this term assume that a dog who is perceived to be dominant is planning ahead and doing things in order to achieve higher social status. That is definitely an anthopomorphism and really cannot be applied to a species that lacks such reasoning power.

When giving advice we do have to work with what the owner is and not what we want them to be, enlightened owners are a minority at the moment, it is boards like this that is educating them but there is still a long way to go. We have to advice these owners on how they think and not us. We are very lucky here, we have a lot of enlightened owners who are well on the way to understanding their dogs.

[Noobs]

I think most dogs are benevolent and naturally look to humans for a source of food, shelter, affection, and attention to their needs. But I think some dogs are more resistant to "submission" and require a stronger leader. And in most cases all that is required is a positive attitude and reinforcement of good behavior, and clear rules and limitations that are consistently and gently enforced. I believe that positive reinforcement methods are most effective when a dog willingly presents good behavior and is provided an environment where failure is not an option.

I'm inferring from this last paragraph that you are saying positive reinforcement is most effective when a dog isn't "strong-willed", but if he is strong-willed and needs a "stronger leader" as you put it.... well, positive reinforcement is STILL the most effective method. Because you can be firm and consistent and still be kind and not use aversives or punishment. Even on a "red-zone" "aggressive" "out-of-control" dog...in fact ESPECIALLY on that type of dog.

[Nettle]

Good discussion

So much hinges on a word or the interpretation of a word.

I don't think of dogs as strong-willed or submissive, although of course there are always different characters. In training terms, I see what the dog wants, what I want, and arrange matters so that these wants overlap to our mutual benefit. If a dog doesn't "want" what I "want" it isn't because the dog is strong-willed, but because I haven't made what I "want" also what the dog wants. If a dog does what I want, it isn't because the dog is submissive, or submitting to me, it is because I have made that action sufficiently rewarding.

[Mattie]

I think most dogs are benevolent and naturally look to humans for a source of food, shelter, affection, and attention to their needs. But I think some dogs are more resistant to "submission" and require a stronger leader. And in most cases all that is required is a positive attitude and reinforcement of good behavior, and clear rules and limitations that are consistently and gently enforced. I believe that positive reinforcement methods are most effective when a dog willingly presents good behavior and is provided an environment where failure is not an option.

I didn't have time to think and reply to this earlier, all my dogs are rescue, all came with various problems although some are not as bad as others. Even Tilly had been treated/trained wrong and it showed, she was only 20 weeks old. Joe's prevous owners thought you trained dogs by beating them, Merlin was abused to try and make him run faster and what ever happened to Gracie to make her so frightened and aggressive I cannot imaging.

I don't want my dogs to submit to me, that isn't why I have dogs, they are my companions and friends, we are a partnership but I hold all the resources so have to lead them.

Bonnie is a very confident dog, the type that is often called dominant and needs to learn her place, what a load of old rubbish, yes she knows what she wants but as long as I make it clear what I want, she is very willing to do it.

Merlin is as thick as 2 short planks, I don't think he has much of a brain which does make it difficult to get information into it. Many people would call him stubborn, etc. in fact he is just thick. When it comes to food he is very resourceful.

Now we come to Gracie, she really was a one off, so aggressive to humans and dogs when she came and was classed as a very dominant, stubborn dog. Being a terrier, Staffy/Cairn, you try to use force and she would attack, thankfully I never used force, it wasn't my style but I still have scars from her bites. I was told many things to do to her to get her under control, beat the life out of her was a favourite. She is ruling the house and needs to be taken down, she needs to know her place etc. Gracie was what is now known as a red zone dog, far worse than most that CM deals with. With positive training and good, consistant management Gracie because a wonderful pet dog, obedient up to a point, her had a good recall, would obey when it was necessary but also had a mind of her own. Gracie taught me so much, especially how positive training works, I found laughing at her often worked better than a stern voice, her whole body language would soften when I laughed. She taught me to smile at my dogs, smiling also softens our body language so we are not as fierce looking to dogs.

It doesn't matter how strong willed your dog is, how nervous and submissive, positive training will work for them all, we do have to tweak things to suit personalities but teachers have to do that for our children as well.

Positive training is putting our dogs in such a way that they succeed so we can praise them, we don't expect them to fail. It builds up the confidence with nervous dogs and teaches dogs that they don't have to defend themselves, we do that so they can relax and chill. It teaches them that we make all the decisions so they don't have to so can relax and chill. Dogs that think they have to make the decisions are usually very stressed dogs because they don't want that responsibility, Bonnie could handle it now but why should she, she has me to do that.

My dogs are all different but I have never had to be stronger with any than the others, they are all different so are treated differently. I learnt many years ago to accept what my dogs have and can offer, that helped both myself and my dogs and they developed a lot more than they would have if I hadn't accepted what they offered. I have seen many dogs that were trained by punishment, they don't have twinkle in their eyes, in fact many had very dull, sad eyes. I love to see the mischief in my dogs eyes even when I am swearing in a happy voice because of what they have just done.

Positive training is for all dogs, weak, strong, old, young, traumatised dogs especially will benefit from positive training.

[Fundog]

Good discussion

So much hinges on a word or the interpretation of a word.

I don't think of dogs as strong-willed or submissive, although of course there are always different characters. In training terms, I see what the dog wants, what I want, and arrange matters so that these wants overlap to our mutual benefit. If a dog doesn't "want" what I "want" it isn't because the dog is strong-willed, but because I haven't made what I "want" also what the dog wants. If a dog does what I want, it isn't because the dog is submissive, or submitting to me, it is because I have made that action sufficiently rewarding.

That reminds me of the books by Stephen R. Covey, "7 Habits of Highly Effective People," and "7 Habits of Highly Effective Families." The fourth "habit" is to "Think Win-Win," rather than "win-lose." In finding a solution to any problem, it works out best when we try to think of a solution everyone can be happy with, rather than insisting on getting your way, and only your way. Maybe Mr. Covey should write a "7 Habits" book for dog owners?

[Noobs]

Good discussion

So much hinges on a word or the interpretation of a word.

I don't think of dogs as strong-willed or submissive, although of course there are always different characters. In training terms, I see what the dog wants, what I want, and arrange matters so that these wants overlap to our mutual benefit. If a dog doesn't "want" what I "want" it isn't because the dog is strong-willed, but because I haven't made what I "want" also what the dog wants. If a dog does what I want, it isn't because the dog is submissive, or submitting to me, it is because I have made that action sufficiently rewarding.

What a great point and a great way to look at the dog-owner relationship. Murphy can still be challenging, mostly because of my lack of patience. I'm working on it, but what you said here is really helpful to me. Thanks for adding that, Nettle.