Curious

[poodlefan]

PF, I think the key is to ask yourself WHY the dogs defers to you ("respects you"). Because it "fears" the consequences otherwise surely (perhaps "dislikes" is the better word given the definition you've posted of fear)?

Maybe alpha-wannabes need to actually perform the correction rather than just posture it will happen (like a true alpha will) because tha pack doesn't "fear" the consequences, meaning the dog won't submit and thus forcing the alpha-wannabe to actually challenge.

I'm not a good dog trainer but I love discussing and theorising about behaviour, hope you all don't mind.

Hmmm why does the dog defer? Could be range of reasons I suppose.

1. Because it doesn't really value the unwanted behaviour enough not to submit... the "why not"? attitude.

2. Because in the past good things have come from submission.

3. Because in the past I've had the ability to compel submission.. and that doesn't necessarily mean through fear. Eg. if you won't come then I'll use the long line or I'll come right after you.

4. Because being consistent about getting submission breeds more of it.

5. Because the behaviour is self rewarding.

None of this involves a "fear response" and none of the dog's body language indicates it. Yes, ears and tail lower but you're not seeing panting, wide eyes and other real fear indicators. HR does anything in your dog's body language indicate that they fear you or is it more language of submission? My bet is that it would be the latter.

Edited June 14, 2007 by poodlefan

[MolassesLass]

I'm loathe to use the word "respect" because I think it implies thinking that just isn't happening (like saying "jealousy" instead of "resource guarding"). And I guess others can't say "fear" because of the extremeness that can be implied which isn't happening.

Edited June 14, 2007 by molasseslass

[Herr Rottweiler]

I'm loathe to use the word "respect" because I think it implies thinking that just isn't happening (like saying "jealousy" instead of "resource guarding"). And I guess others can't say "fear" because of the extremeness that can be implied which isn't happening.

nice! There's something to be said about political correctness and extremists.

Again, let me emphasise, element = small percentage not wide eyed, panting and urinating. That doesn't even fall into the relm of training, rather it's outright abuse and cruelty.

[Erny]

As a child, one firm word from my Dad and I would come to heel, quick smart. If I did something wrong that I knew my Dad wouldn't approve of, I dreaded receiving his disapproval. I guess in a way it was fear. Fear of being a disappointment. Fear of him not being happy with me. Fear of being in disgrace. But I think all of this only because I respected (and still respect) him so much.

I was NEVER fearful of him in any other aspect. NEVER afraid of him being unfair. Never afraid of him failing me as a parent (leader). Never afraid that he wouldn't be there when I needed him. Never afraid of him physically hurting me.

In fact, sometimes I think I would have preferred him to smack my butt than to see his face showing disappointment or disapproval.

My Mum .... well, I guess we got away with things somewhat more with her. I respected her, certainly (and still do) but didn't have the same reverance as I did and have for Dad.

My point here is not to compare human/human relations with dog/human relations or dog/dog relations, but that there is sometimes a fine line between fear and respect.

[poodlefan]

HerrR:

nice! There's something to be said about political correctness and extremists.

And there's also something to be said for acknowledging that avoiding the word "fear" could be motivated by trying for a more accurate word to describe a type of canine-primate relationship.

I have seen relationships based on "fear". Most of us have. A dog that urinates or tries to defend itself when you go to touch it knows what a "fear" based relationship is.

That is not what I'm talking about. I'm trying to define something more positive ... "respect" is the closest I can get.

Dogs clearly understand leadership and lack of it. If they get that, why not "respect" or "deference" which are synonyms.

[MonElite]

that there is sometimes a fine line between fear and respect.

Thats what I said earlier as well, what is the difference in your mind Erny?

[MrsD]

So where does that put me? I would consider myself a positive trainer.... but if my choice was between my dog running through a property fence and getting killed and an e collar - I would use an e collar without blinking. That is if I had no other choices (ie: building another fence, keeping the dog confined etc,etc,etc).

Perhaps that is where you & I are different LP - you talk about training, but to me, training isnt building a new fence or keeping the dog confined, it's teaching the dog what is acceptable behaviour & what isnt. Talking about getting through fences probably isnt the right analogy because we (collective "we") should have secure fencing anyway, but in general I wouldnt have any hesitation in using an e-collar to train the dog (after trying other training methods - but mine would be a long-line or similar not building extra fences ).

[Erny]

that there is sometimes a fine line between fear and respect.

Thats what I said earlier as well, what is the difference in your mind Erny?

Didn't I explain that in my post?

[ness]

Just asking for those who use a mixture of training methods does that mixture change if you are explicitly trying to teach a dog a particular exercise for the ring as opposed to a life behaviour. For example a nice tight finish or a perfect dumbbell retrieve or some other behaviour WHICH wouldn't be needed in every day life and for which reliablity isn't an issue (other than of course to score well and qualify for titles which to dogs are meaningless).

[Herr Rottweiler]

My point here is not to compare human/human relations with dog/human relations or dog/dog relations, but that there is sometimes a fine line between fear and respect.

5 stars Ern

[MolassesLass]

fear –noun

1. a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.

2. a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights.

3. concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety.

4. reverential awe, esp. toward God.

5. that which causes a feeling of being afraid; that of which a person is afraid: Cancer is a common fear.

–verb (used with object)

6. to regard with fear; be afraid of.

7. to have reverential awe of.

8. Archaic. to experience fear in (oneself).

–verb (used without object)

9. to have fear; be afraid.

- Dictionary.com Edited June 14, 2007 by molasseslass

[MonElite]

You did Erny, I meant as in dog terms. Sorry What do you consider fear in a dog v's respect, something along the lines PF is talking about.

[Erny]

... "respect" ... "deference"

Must admit, these are two words I commonly use when talking to clients.

[Herr Rottweiler]

Just asking for those who use a mixture of training methods does that mixture change if you are explicitly trying to teach a dog a particular exercise for the ring as opposed to a life behaviour. For example a nice tight finish or a perfect dumbbell retrieve or some other behaviour WHICH wouldn't be needed in every day life and for which reliablity isn't an issue (other than of course to score well and qualify for titles which to dogs are meaningless).

Ness, what I believe a balanced trainer to be is someone who will, "use what works" to get the best and most reliable results in anything that needs to be done.

I understand that's a fairly broad description, however it highlights that the trainer will be prepared to use what they have to get the best from any dog.

[MrsD]

Just asking for those who use a mixture of training methods does that mixture change if you are explicitly trying to teach a dog a particular exercise for the ring as opposed to a life behaviour. For example a nice tight finish or a perfect dumbbell retrieve or some other behaviour WHICH wouldn't be needed in every day life and for which reliablity isn't an issue (other than of course to score well and qualify for titles which to dogs are meaningless).

Hmmmmm depends on how you look at it. If my dog refused to do the exercise then it would get corrected, the same as I would correct it for anything else. If the dog did the exercise, but was slow for example, I would use encouragement to get it to do better.

So is that a yes, or a no?

eta, of course assuming that the dog knew the exercise etc etc, I left that bit out, but that's a given in all my training

Edited June 14, 2007 by MrsD

[Cosmolo]

I agree with HR in that our definition of fear is too narrow. That element of fear being referred to (correct me if i'm wrong HR) should also come with the knowledge in the dog that he can control the consequences/ outcomes through his behaviour. Because of this, the element of fear felt is not necesarily produced in the dogs body language (through slinking, submission etc) and in many cases can build a scared or frightened dogs confidence because they can reliably predict the consequences of their actions AND those consequences mean something to the dog.

To me, a positive trainer is one that doesn't use physical aversives or negative reinforcement such as guiding a dog into position. One thing that puzzles me, given that stance is the willingness to use headcollars as an alternative

My biggest problem with some positive trainers (note i said trainers, not training) is their apparent unwillingness to try alternatives often at the dogs expense. I have had a number of clients who were told that euthanasia was the only option for their dog because positive training had not worked to modify a behaviour problem. Some of these people had been told to be very wary of anyone who said they could modify the dogs behaviour, as their methods would be cruel and/ or inhumane. It leads me to wonder how many owners are euthanasing their dogs without seeking an alternative.

[Cosmolo]

Everyone posted other things and my last post is way behind now..

[MrsD]

Everyone posted other things and my last post is way behind now..

Welcome to my world Cosmolo ;)

[MonElite]

My biggest problem with some positive trainers (note i said trainers, not training) is their apparent unwillingness to try alternatives often at the dogs expense. Some of these people had been told to be very wary of anyone who said they could modify the dogs behaviour, as their methods would be cruel and/ or inhumane.

my previous trainer had another client that I met few times. That client trained with the balanced methods the trainer offered. Was very happy with the results. Than got another dog - puppy. As I ahd lost contact with the person I had asked the trainer - how is so and so going with the new dog. The answer was - the client turned pure positive and doesnt want to know me.

Im wondering how many people "turned" pure positive? Is this common?

[Cosmolo]

I know a few trainers that after doing delta courses changed the way they train completely. I am a convert the other way- from positive to balanced.