corvus

A lot of snakes eat frogs, so tend to be found in areas where there might be frogs. Having said that, Browns are a mammal specialist and you'll find them in dry bush. Personally, I'm all for a good recall and keeping dogs on a long line in the bush. It's not good for them to be harassing wildlife anyway. Most of the time snakes will sense the vibrations of you and the dogs coming and will be long gone by the time you get there, unless they are cold and trying to warm themselves. I make a point of stomping around loudly if I'm in long grass and think there might be snakes. Most people will disagree with me because it's not uncommon for dogs to be bitten by snakes, but I think the risk is not that big, especially if you keep the dogs close when you are in the bush and they have a strong recall or "leave it". I spend a lot of time in the bush and hardly ever see snakes, even when I go looking for them. We are too noisy walking around in the bush. The trouble is on paths, where snakes often bask. If they are basking they may be cold and slow, or perhaps they are easier to surprise. Rocky areas can also be problematic as snakes will use the rocks as shelter and come and bask on the top, but at least they can get to safety pretty fast if they need to. IMO, it's a risk you just live with. But in some areas there are more snakes and you see them all the time.

K9: I met a guy once that said he stole ladies handbags because the running away was good exercise.. There are 10 000 ways to exercise your dog without the need for dog to dog play... Really? But you missed the bit where I said Kivi isn't really into playing ball or tug. He goes for jogs with us, but not everyone likes jogging, either. I didn't say playing with dogs is necessary, I was just pointing out one benefit. For us with our low drive dog and full-time work, playing with dogs is not only good value on an exercise front for Kivi, but it also teaches him how to approach different dogs AND most importantly, it's a lot of fun for us as well. Still don't really understand anyone who has dogs and yet doesn't like to see them playing with other dogs? Personally, I am more than happy to deal with the inconvenience of having a dog that adores other dogs more than me sometimes so that I can watch him have a wow of a time with them. The important thing is that he will come away when it's time to go, and that's all I aim for. Having to compete with other rewarding things in the environment is a good workout for my brain and my observation skills.

There is a long description of how someone is training a deaf sheepdog here: http://forum.dog.com/forums/p/93999/748994.aspx#748994. He wasn't born deaf, but he has gone deaf quite early in his life and doesn't know signs for a lot of the things he knew verbal commands for. It might give you some ideas.

With a dog that young I reckon your aim should be to make the birdies boring rather than aversive. Pups can be super sensitive to aversives. A loud noise during toilet training once made my puppy refuse to come into the kitchen for an entire evening. When my pup was discovering rabbits, I was helped greatly by one of them fiercely ignoring the pup no matter what he did to her. He learnt he couldn't get her to do anything fun so he gave up. The hare was a bigger problem because he's so flighty he is easy to incite to run and very exciting to try to chase. Kivi is getting very good, now. A few things helped. Training in front of the hare's cage so Kivi was focused on me rather than the hare even though he could still smell the hare. Doing some more focus exercises with the other rabbit out of her cage. And not allowing him to chase the hare. If he looks like he's interested in the hare he gets a verbal correction "ah-ah!" and I come down and shoo him away. To begin with he would try to come back, so I would stand there and block him and send him away again. Next dog I get will do most of its early training on a leash in the hare's enclosure so it can learn that hares are boring.

Have you ever met a dog that is not friendly? What did you do? or what would you do? Sure. At the moment I wouldn't trust Kivi to sensibly curb his enthusiasm, although the couple of times when he's been off leash when it has happened he has done just that. He's only met one dog I was worried would have him seriously and he was off leash at the time. He froze and kept his eyes down and ears flat and tail down and the dog calmed down and nothing happened. He gets snapped at all the time, but he hates it, so every time he gets snapped at is a lesson to him. Because he is not a robot and his life does not revolve around me. I deliberately picked a breed with a streak of independence because I don't LIKE being the center of an animal's universe. It's a lot of pressure. I like that he loves other dogs. He is a dog himself, so it kinda makes sense, no? Each to their own. Personally, there are two things I simply love about owning dogs. One is taking them places they are crazy about and watching them enjoy themselves and the other is watching them interact with each other and other strange dogs and learning from them. If my dogs ignored other dogs then that's the two things I love most about dogs suddenly out of the equation. Yes. It's about 85% reliable at the moment, but he's only 12 months old. His recall is a work in progress and is improving all the time. There's no obvious answer to that as it would depend on the circumstances. If he gets mauled because he ran up to another dog and I couldn't call him back, then it's my fault. I think it unlikely to happen, though. He's not suicidal. He lives with a cranky old corgi. He knows what a dog that's going to have him looks like. He also doesn't run up to strange dogs. He stops a good ten metres short and does the last leg at an unintimidating dawdle with his head and tail down. At any rate, he gets limited off leash time until his recall is better. Hope that clears it up. Ultimately, I don't want to be the center of my dog's world. I'm quite happy for him to go have fun with his own kind. It's not like we don't have heaps of fun together. I'm still someone he wants to spend time with and sometimes he even spends time with me rather than go meeting strange dogs. I am hoping he settles down as he gets older, but if he doesn't I won't mind. I want him to be himself as much as possible.

I've no idea. On Barking Mad one time they had a deaf Dalmatian. When he finally understood what was going on he was so deleriously happy he became an extraordinarily attentive dog. He obeyed every signal with a good deal of enthusiasm. For the first half of his life no one knew he was deaf and he got dumped. It was so beautiful to see his sudden interest in everything and everyone once he understood. It reminds me of Kivi's excitement when he was 9 weeks old and learnt that you can get things by sitting. He was doing pretty sits whenever he wanted anything at all. He was thrilled!

Vibrating collars and really big, exaggerrated hand/arm signals.

Well, one benefit of dogs playing with other dogs is physical activity. Kivi goes to daycare twice a week and plays with other dogs all day. He wishes he lived there and he gets on with everyone famously, especially newcomers (so I don't know about that Leerburg article claim over territorial dog aggression in dog parks). Kivi is not big on playing fetch, tug, or any other kind of athletic game (although he likes fast-paced hikes). He is extremely fit, though, and he's all hard muscle under his fluffy fur. He has also learnt a lot about the way different dogs communicate through playing with them. Seeing as play is such a high reward for him he has learnt heaps about the ways to approach dogs to put them at ease and invite play and calm them and so on. Lots of things he can use in any situation. And I quite enjoy watching him play with other dogs, so there's another benefit. I don't know how you could not enjoy watching dogs play together. It always makes me smile. I do, however, think that Kivi has been slightly over-socialised. At the moment his ears perk up if a dog barks a block away when we are walking. He just wants to go find them in case they are friendly. Strange dogs have the biggest pull on him because he has met so many dogs and loved them. Having said that I would do the same thing if I had my time with him again. He is quite the social butterfly and may well have gone that way anyway.

Mmm, true. I was going to say I didn't think it would matter as I have a feeling snakes are as much or more of a visual thing than a smell thing, but then I remembered that apart from the fact that EVERYTHING is a smell thing for dogs, and once we tried to trick fairywrens with a dead male someone had fished out of the toilet and left to dry on their windowsill for a month. Every single wren behaved the same way. They were curious, but they knew it was all wrong and no threat. They'd fly in and just stare at it.

*waves* Hi Curly Tail. I think I emailed you a few months ago about Basenjis. We're still at least a couple of years away, but no doubt I will be following you around a bit.

I know someone in the States that does agility with Basenjis. Her first one was a bad match, but she later found a breeder she really liked and got a second one that has done very well. She got a third one from the same breeder. She says they are definitely a challenge and she has had some embarrassing moments in trials with them when they suddenly decided they weren't working today, but it makes the days they do well a really big achievement. I think you have to be careful how you train a Basenji. They are very bright and very independent. When they do things for you they are mostly humouring you, so if you don't have a fantastic relationship with them they are unlikely to humour you for very long or very often.

I know what you mean. They do look like snakes. I quite like snakes, but every time I get surprised by one my heart is in my mouth until I know I'm safe. I'm not afraid of snakes, but my subconscious is. I've had a few frights from Blueys before I've realised it's just a lizard. I don't know that Penny really does stay entirely out of range. It's hard to tell. Suffice to say she acts really strangely around snakes and at least until I get there she'll stay behind the snake and she has a bark I've only ever heard when she's found a snake. First time she ever saw one was a Tiger one of the other dogs was getting riled. She went over to see what he'd found and I got worried when I saw her suddenly jump high over something with her ears in the fear position and skitter well away. It would be fair to say she is instinctively afraid of snakes. I find that very interesting considering she doesn't have much of a prey drive and will walk right up to a lizard to have a sniff. Kivi will pounce on small lizards quite happily. He really doesn't like those Blueys, though. Probably one has had a go at him.

I think the dog's would generalise fine. As far as my corgi is concerned, a snake is a snake no matter how big, small, fast or slow. She's seen a handful and always reacts the same way. She stays out of range and barks. I suspect that all snakes smell pretty much the same, and whatever visual cues they use to ID a snake are common to all snakes. Kivi hasn't seen a snake, yet, but he is deeply unsettled by Blue-tongue lizards. Blueys have evolved to look like a death adder as yet another predator deterrant.

If only they had clicker seminars for rabbits and wild hares. Something tells me Bonnie would not be welcome.... although it would be way cute to see my angry rabbit carrying a dumbell.

Kivi does "back back" from free shaping. I haven't done much for ages, but for a while there I was teaching him to lift whichever front foot I indicated a small amount or a large amount depending on the "size" of my signal. Little signal = little lift and big signal = big lift. I didn't know if he'd be able to grasp that concept and some people told me he wouldn't be able to, but one way or another he seemed to be getting it before I lost interest again. I also did "touch" and "paw" with shaping, but I think I may have lured with those ones. I abandoned the clicker with my hare because he seemed to think it was a bit pointless. Once he figured out what I was going to reward he took control and would ask for rewards whenever it took his fancy. I swear, wild animals just don't buy into these mind games unless they decide to just humour you. My hare doesn't humour people. He prefers to learn "human" and use it to teach me "hare".

I'm surprised how many people I normally disagree with I'm agreeing with this time. I think there has been some confusion. I started the post in response to another thread where I was arguing that a dog that didn't listen to you was not necessarily dominant. It was off topic, so I started a new thread, but tried to be more neutral about it because I don't think I'm very popular on this board and I suspect some people disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. I used to catch myself doing the same thing and it clouds the vision and gets in the way of good discussion. Perhaps this is why I'm suddenly agreeing with people I normally don't agree with. For those that are still confused, I have already stated my understanding of dominance as being an animal that consistently controls other individuals in order to secure resources. This is pretty much what jdavis used as a definition at the beginning of the thread. I think that "control" is unfortunately often a matter of perspective with interspecific interactions. If you are both happy with an outcome, then who can say who is controlling the other? Being happy at the outcome does not mean you are the dominant one. I do not think that ignoring someone is a dominant behaviour generally speaking. There are always exceptions. I invite people to think of them and challenge what I say. How will I learn if people don't challenge me? Just try to actually persuade me with an argument rather than telling me I don't understand the basics. That sure ain't gonna give me a reason to see things your way. I promise, I am easily persuaded with a good argument. I see animal behaviour as a result of cost/benefit and risk analyses, although I do not think that animals are capable of doing this consciously. I believe that costs and benefits for individuals are variable and strongly related to motivation, or drive if you like. I believe motivation/drive changes for different situations and individuals. Social hierarchies do not sit well with me because fluidity upsets my sense of order that hierarchies were supposed to satisfy. (I am being semi-facetious, here). My problem with hierarchies is that I think they can be explained more simply with cost/benefit and risk anayses and building a history with an individual over time. It could be just operant conditioning. I equate dominance with confidence and so don't think of a dominant animal as an alpha, but that is just my perspective and my choice of words. The concept is more or less the same. However, because I believe that every new individual has the potential to upset a history of dominant behaviour, I do not like to label dogs as alpha or dominant because it seems very final. That is not to say such dogs don't exist. Just that I think the terms are over-used and mean things they shouldn't. I try to keep dominant individuals and dominant behaviour as separate things in my mind. Apparently by stating I'm a zoologist I have stapled my degree to my forehead and point to it before I say anything. I have it underneath my avatar so people know what the hell I'm on about when I start rambling about wild animals, which happens pretty much every time I open my mouth. It is there precisely so I don't have to say "Oh, I'm a zoologist" every second post. I do not know why that apparently makes me an academic snob. I don't give a stuff about degrees. I'm just passionate about science and learning and my job gives me a sometimes bizarre perspective on things. My dry sense of humour goes down like a lead balloon sometimes, but nonetheless it creeps into things all the time and leaves me trying to convince people that I'm not a complete loony who thinks animals are people. Trust me, I don't!

Oh, trifling details. There are no alphas only dominant individuals. Alphas are a human construct and concept. Kivi loves food, but he'll blow off a recall if he knows I'm offering Schmakos, yet he'll come running if he thinks I have old rissole. Penny wouldn't blow me off if all I had were breadcrumbs. It's all food drive, but while Penny might pick a fight over breadcrumbs, at least until she's figured out that's all it is, another dog might pick a fight over a piece of sausage but back off on the breadcrumbs. This is what I'm talking about. Variations in drive or value, it means the same thing: different dogs will consider different things worth the trouble of getting and keeping. You're just nitpicking because you accidentally agreed with me. Can we talk about the topic perhaps, rather than arguing about the use of a term that doesn't actually make a difference to the discussion? Unless you can tell me why it makes a difference....? ETA Sorry, I get impatient with distracting side-arguments. I use a lot of colloquial language because really, "value" is something that most people understand whereas "drive" just sounds wanky. People don't like it when I talk down to them with wanky science language, so I use words they are used to hearing. I don't think it makes a difference in this case, so unless you have a good reason to argue about it other than for the sake of disagreeing with me, then I'm happy to bow to your superior knowledge of zoology and use "drive" instead of "value".

Some really great posts, here! Kelpie-i, Anita and tkay, you guys have raised a load of great points and I agree with the majority of it. In particular, the incosistency in the notion that when a cat ignores you when you try to control them they see you as irrelevant but when a dog ignores you when you try to control them they see you as subordinate to them. I actually think it's not such a lop-sided comparison. Cats are remarkably social animals. My sister has 9 of them living in a small, 3 bedroom house, and there are almost never any troubles. They have their favourite companions and the ones they don't get on with so well and manage to avoid conflict and live in perfect harmony. Except for Felix who was the first boy and still isn't big on sharing his house with other boys, but he doesn't pick fights. Anyway, in my mind, animals seek to control other members of their species whenever someone else is threatening what they value. This is natural, because if you want something, and someone else is around and might also want that something, then there are only a few options open to you and seeking to control the behaviour of your potential rival is one of the safer options and also one that may be more likely to pay off with minimal risk to you. As tkay says, it is indeed all about cost and benefits. I would be quite happy to call this behaviour dominant if that's what people want to think of it as, but it is common to pretty much any vertebrate and some invertebrates as well. When I was hanging out with behavioural ecologists, this is pretty much how we used the concept of dominance. To describe an individual that controls another individual in order to secure resources exclusively for themselves as much as possible. I believe that dominance exists. It's just social hierarchies I'm not all together down with. I think that people are more hierarchical than they think they are and often project their need for order on other social animals. Now when we come to dogs, I don't see a lot of the behaviour touted as dominant to be following what I think of as dominance. I don't think that LOOSING control automatically means the dog has GAINED control over you and is therefore dominant. That is nothing but a different point of view. A lot of the time I think the way people like Midol think is just a factor of their sex and/or personality. I haven't met many dog trainers, but those I have met have generally been dominant personalities, and they play their dominance games on me as well as the dogs. I also don't think that a dog getting what they wants from you is necessarily dominant or controlling behaviour. A lot of the time I reckon they are just practising what has worked in the past. I deliberately taught Kivi that poking me with his nose was an acceptable way to get my attention (as opposed to biting me, for example), that leaning on me was a good way to get cuddles, sitting quietly by the kitchen bench is a good way to get food, and doing what I ask is a good way to get treats or praise. I have effectively given him a whole toolbox for controlling my behaviour. Kit my hare knows that if he approaches me he will get what he wants from me one way or another. Just because I deliberately created that toolbox doesn't mean that I am the only one in control. For all I know, every time Kivi recalls he thinks he is controlling me because he comes and I give him something tasty. Without proof, it is just the way you look at it. Lilli and I have disagreed on social hierarchies in the past, but where we disagree is really just semantics. If I were confronted with a dog like what she has described, I might not call it an alpha but I would definitely call it behaving dominantly. I have met one such dog, and it was an entire male Akita. He only switched it on when no one from his family was there to tell him what he should do. Also jdavis, animals certainly do have values. I suspect we are misunderstanding one another. I'm just talking about things an individual likes, things they love, and things they adore, as well as things they don't like, things they hate, and things they loathe. Whenever there is conflict, these things come into play, and I don't think that an animal has to be dominant to win. They just have to have pinned a higher value on that item than the other animal, and perhaps have a lower aversion to risk of violence than the other animal, or a clever, non-violent method like showering with appeasement gestures as an example. They certainly can be exhibiting dominant behaviour before, during and after the conflict if that's what floats their boat. Posturing and noises is all just communication if there's no conviciton behind it, though. Many dominant wannabes posture all the time because it's cheap and sometimes works. If they win every time, we're getting into the realms of speculation for me. I think it can work without dominance, but whether it should work without dominance is something I'm not convinced of yet and I don't think my arguments for or against matter in the long run. The result would be the same.

No, but a dog that doesn't isn't necessarily deciding not to in respect for the dog that has the bone. That implies something quite personal that may or may not occur. The dog may be weighing the benefit of getting the bone against the cost. If it is a dog they know, this job is much easier for them as they have experience and a history with the dog. They might know that if they take the bone the other dog will give way or if they try to take the bone they will cop it. Whether the dog is the kind to give way or stand and fight is not just a matter of dominance and submission. It's a case of personal values, which change from moment to moment. Bones rate higher than the cost of conflict for some dogs and lower for others. If we looked at dog behaviour on a case to case basis like that, dominance doesn't have to come into it. But over time, we notice patterns and one dog tends to care more about getting what they want regardless of conflict than another dog. Perhaps. Is that dog dominant or does it just care more about resources and less about conflict in general? Are they the same thing? Great point. That is basically what I'm suggesting. And this is what I was talking about when I mentioned cute behaviour (behaviour, not selection). I wholly agree with jdavis that this is just something that has worked in the past, but my point was, a dog that gets what it wants by resting its chin on someone's knee is no different to a dog that gets what it wants by staring and growling. They are both just behaviours that work. Or maybe they are both dominant behaviours, as poodlefan says. Yes, we do. In a way. My point here was that I don't see why people think it is so wrong when their dogs disrespect them when they may well be doing exactly what they are programmed to do and don't see it as disrespecting at all, but just seeking to benefit themselves, which is something that everyone is driven to do. Just because we humans think we are being disrespected doesn't mean we are. Tony, if they needed to follow a leader for survival, then why would the leader be challenged? Why do dogs quite happily live on the streets of many countries all on their own? I am actually beginning to think alphas are not regularly challenged at all due to them not really existing as most social animals live in small family groups with the parents or older members at the top, but perhaps that's a story for another thread. Although I kinda already went there with the alpha thread. And that is ignoring primates. I think there's a lot of truth in that. I have pretty much given up on dominance, but that doesn't mean any animal in my house gets to do whatever they want. They get to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't clash with something that I want more, which is basically what many people see as dominant behaviour. Turns out there's a lot of things I care about more than my animals do.

Thanks poodlefan, that makes it pretty clear. I guess what I'm thinking most about is the grey area. Where a dog may not control you in everything but sometimes where it matters most to the dog they do what they like. Being very fond of independent breeds, I wonder where you draw the line if there is one. It seems to me that the whole point of dominance in dogs hinges on them getting what they want when they want it, but as I described in an earlier post, dominant behaviour is not the only way to win at that game. And really isn't it dependent on what an individual values? The way I see it, every dog is out to get what they want when they want it. Every animal I have met has the same aim in life, even when that gets tangled up in wanting conflicting things. Ultimately one has to decide what conflicting thing they want more: avoiding confrontation or getting what they want, for example. Which is how sneaky strategies like behaving cutely come about. But if I am right and every animal is driven to look after their own affairs first (which is what we are told in population genetics), then why wouldn't we regularly see this drive clash with giving others respect, even a leader? What motivation is there to follow a leader beyond them knowing more about your environment than you do? You might get to a point where you are an adult and quite confident about your environment and suddenly the motivation to follow isn't as strong. There are other things in the world, you are an opportunistic creature and there may be big payoffs for you if you venture out on your own and find something cool. I guess that this point generally conincides with adolescence when people start saying they are seeing dominance problems. But is this behaviour dominance or just an individual naturally weaning themselves off their parents' guidance? Although in dogs it is a bit more complicated than that as they never really grow up. So to me, EVERY dog seeks to get what they want regardless of the wants of others, so every dog would be dominant. The difference is in how far they are willing to go to get what they want and how insistent you are to get what you want. This could explain jdavis' observations about this dog that dominates one person but not another. The dog may be no different to my sooky spineless Lapphund as dominance isn't a requirement for learning that something works on one person but not on another. I really appreciate your posts poodlefan as they give me something to think about, so don't take this the wrong way, but I put to you that a dog that chooses to disobey is serving the UNIVERSAL drive to get what they want when they want it and disregarding a leader is neither here nor there in the need to serve themselves first. They are leading only themselves. If they get cross with you for not following them, then I might agree that this is dominance. In the meantime, you have a selfish animal with an inate desire to be led, yet an equally inate desire to do what is rewarding, ignoring for a moment that it is not really expressed as a desire as such. I was going to say something about relationships and communication but I've forgotten. Maybe it will come to me later. Sorry jdavis, I didn't set out to trick anyone into agreeing with me, but sometimes when everyone habitually disagrees with you it helps to pose a different question and then people can say what they really think rather than just disagreeing because it was you that wrote it. In theory, anyway. Sometimes I think people end up arguing against themselves in arguing against someone they normally disagree with.

That's exactly my point! Ha ha, jdavis, you're agreeing with me! :rolleyes: You can't lay these laws down and say when a dog does this it is being dominant. Like you say, there is heaps that we can miss. Like a dog that is baring its teeth but the ears are flat the tail is tucked and the body is low and there's no direct eye contact. Or for a different example, when an otherwise very submissive dog is dancing around on your lap cheekily barking at a normally dominant dog on the ground. What bothers me about the dominance theory applied to dogs is that it doesn't really make room for the complexity of interactions between individuals. With social animals that have to learn how to get along, there are an awful lot of concessions to keep the peace, which I guess is where this fluidity comes from. But equally, there are a lot of ways to get what you want without direct confrontation. You might say that a dog that comes and lays down next to another dog and licks them and smothers them in appeasement gestures until they get up and leave the good bed to the submissive dog is actually dominant. He got access to the best resource in this case without any dominant behaviour. Controlled behavioural experiments with dogs are hard because dogs are so into people and I reckon they have to be pretty focused on something else for you to be confident you haven't influenced what you are observing. Contrary to what everyone seems to think, I don't draw conclusions based on one or two observations of my own dogs. I build up a picture over time by watching every dog I see. We used to play a fun game on another board I was on where people would post photos or videos of dogs interacting and we would try to figure out what we were seeing and the reaons behind it. It was an eye opener for how hard it is to interpret a snapshot of behaviour, especially with bigger groups of dogs, but nonetheless most of the time we were able to agree on something. I really don't think it's that hard as long as you don't carry any preconceptions into it, although having said that background knowledge can certainly be an advantage. But anyway, it's all beside the point. Is there a time you could pinpoint, jdavis or anyone else, where a dog that isn't listening to you IS behaving dominantly? I can offer an example that might be seen that way. When you ask a dog to do something you know they know very well and they stand there and bark loudly at you instead. Although I haven't decided if I would call this dominant behaviour or not, as sometimes they do it in a manner that downplays the obnoxiousness. They'll put their head on a funny angle so they aren't quite looking right into your eyes and the ears will be in a playful orientation rather than forward and the tail might even wag, which I have heard is sometimes a signal of conflicting feelings. If they were staring right at you with tail up and ears forward and maybe even grumbling, then yeah.

Yes, I think you're right! The thing that started this train of thought was people saying that a dog that wasn't paying attention to the person on the other end of the leash was dominant, when they told me themselves a variety of reasons why the dog might be behaving that way and I didn't really think that any of them were related to dominance. It seems to me that we think that because we don't like being dragged around by a dog they should respect that and if they don't then they are dominant. Why should they respect it, though, if they haven't been given many reasons to and plenty of reasons not to? Why should they respect it if they have been given these reasons but they fail to outweigh the dog's desire or compulsion to pull like a freight train anyway? I don't pretend to be a great trainer and I have seen that look on my dog's face. He wants me to tell him right now exactly what I want and is frustrated when I can't find a way to do just that. I would if I could! I usually tell him to do something he knows to make us both feel better and just try to be consistent in the way I talk to him. :rolleyes: I think a lot of people are probably not very good trainers, but the dogs can make up for our problems if we give them the opportunity. Kivi knows two quite different commands for pretty much everything because OH naturally does it differently to me. When I look at the way he does it compared to the way I do it, there are so few similarities in the details that I find it quite cool that Kivi figured it out anyway. But we're not going to help them figure us out by getting frustrated that they can't read our minds and then turning it into a problem with them and their attitude rather than us and our attitude. Maybe if people realised how much better at interspecific comminication dogs are than us they would look at it differently.

This is exactly why I'm bringing this up, jdavis. I question why some people are telling me a dog that isn't listening is dominant period when I thought we all knew that dogs and other animals aren't simply a matter of this equals that. I am not interested in hearing that I need to go back to basics. I AM going back to basics by questioning everything I'm told about dogs. Just because someone more experienced than I am states something unprovable about a dog doesn't mean they are automatically right. You might notice I specifically didn't bring up any behaviour in dogs I have lived with because that is not my point at all. I'm not drawing conclusions but asking questions. Why don't you try giving me a compelling reason why I'm wrong rather than just saying I don't know anything about dogs, which was beside the point anyway? Well, I disagree because it's not hard to figure out what an animal wants by watching them. They give themselves away all the time. All you have to do is be objective and have eyes and go for the simplest answer that works. It sure helps to have a load of info and experience, but one thing I discovered when raising my hare was that sometimes info is just flat wrong and experience is sometimes over-rated if it has been seen through eyes coloured by incorrect information. I'm talking about simple, stated facts that turn out to be complete fabrications. That info would have been correct if the people that stated it had taken their lead from other animals that have similar lifestyles to a hare rather than animals that are closely related to hares. If dominant animals get access to the best resources, then isn't that rather dependent on what resources the individual is interested in? If one dog wants an old bone and another dog doesn't feel like chewing on old bones right now, then how can you conclude that the dog that gets the bone is dominant? Good point, Vickie, I did miss out on a big one! That's what you get for writing these things past your bed time.

Despite the fact that this is undoubtedly going to end in me being berrated by a lot of people and told that I don't have enough experience with difficult dogs, the question is burning in me and I must discuss it! There are a lot of reasons why a dog might not listen to you. They may be distracted, frightened, hurt, didn't even hear you, or perhaps they are being deliberately naughty because they have found something more interesting. Is a dog that isn't listening to you a dominant dog, or displaying dominant behaviour? In my mind, if one of my dogs has found something more interesting than listening to me, then that's my problem and I need to give them a reason to find me interesting. If I never gave them a reason to find me interesting enough to listen to, then can we seriously say they are dominant just because there are things more intersting in life to them than people? Or to put it another way, is it their nature that they are not listening to me or is it my social status in their eyes? This is hypothetical as my dogs are usually naturally interested in what I'm doing. I'm not going to bring any examples of dogs I know into it because it just confuses people. But here's another hypothetical example. Say a dog is one of those independent types and has learnt that they can find funner things to do than hanging out with people. Now if someone asks that dog to, say, come back, the dog might decided that he has better things to do. Is this disregard truly dominance? Considering he knows not only that there are big rewards for ignoring you and very small consequences for ignoring you, why wouldn't he do what he wanted to do? Why would that be a dominant thing to do? Why should he be motivated to hang out and do boring stuff with the leader rather than go off and do fun stuff on his own? It doesn't make sense to me. What is the purpose of dominance? How does choosing to disobey the leader serve the purpose of dominance?

Sorry deelee. It was just a thought prompted by what you said and I wasn't picking on you. You aren't the only one that has said a dog that isn't listening is a dominant dog. I'm just focusing on that because it was what prompted me to think. I will start another thread. I theorise because to answer a question you have to have one! I would want very good control of a difficult dog as well, but the question is is this much discipline always the best thing? Cesar takes so many dogs out at once that I would think having them all strictly in line is pretty important, otherwise surely it would be pandemonium? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that he is also of the dominance theory school of thought and does believe that a dog walking out front is a dominant one, but who sees him pronouncing over a dog walking out front that is still taking their lead from the one on the other end of the leash? I've never seen it. He doesn't strike me as the kind of person that would blindly say such a dog was dominant when it was clearly following directions from behind.