Pack Theory?

[leopuppy04]

Interesting thought from many threads recently highlighting the importance of making yourself top dog.

Do you think it necessary for ALL owners to be so concerned about keeping themselves as top do and enforcing it?

Of course I don't mean to have the dog walk all over you, and yes, I do believe it important to have some 'guidelines' in the household so that the dog knows who is boss (for want of a better word) and what you say goes etc.....

For example - I would certainly advocate doing everyday things such as sitting before a meal, 'asking' to come inside/ get up on the couch..... Sitting before going for a walk, give & take with toys etc.....

But I don't pay attention to the fact that sometimes I step over my dog if they are in the way. I don't pay attention to the fact that at times if the dog is on their bed, they may be higher than me.... sometimes they go through the door before me etc....

How important is pack theory to you? How far do you enforce it? Or is it something that you will only pursue further if the dog starts 'pushing the wrong buttons'....

Do you believe that MOST dogs are happy to be the 'happy mediums' and there are only a small handful that want to be the absolute subordinate and absolute alpha??

ETA: Another big question - do you believe in alpha rolling??? Think it works???

To get ahead in your training do you believe that you need to make it REALLY clear to your dog who is boss (ie: you ALWAYS eating before them, they have to work for food etc) or do you think that if you have a driven dog, a good bond, good understanding of each other you'll get ahead fine?

Edited August 14, 2007 by leopuppy04

[Vickie]

I don't do any of it. If I ask my dogs to do something I make sure it happens, but I don't ask them just for the sake of asserting my dominance. I think often you can do more harm than good with these type of programs.

I may ask them to sit before their food, but if I do, it's an opportunity for a training session rather than asserting myself as a leader. Most of what I do with my dogs we do as a team, we trust each other & we each have a part to play in being successful.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Vickie

[jesomil]

Do you think it necessary for ALL owners to be so concerned about keeping themselves as top do and enforcing it?

No, I believe that alot of dogs out there will never challenge their owner for top dog position so it never is a problem. Their owners really dont have to think alot about it as chances are no matter what they do, their dog will never challenge them. So long as the owner is sensible and trains them etc.

But there certainly are some dogs who are more prone to challenging their owners and that is where practises have to be implemented to let the dog know its position.

My dogs all run through the door before me, will sometimes be higher than me, i will step over them when asleep, they may put their paws on me and eat before me but i dont really see these things as pack elevators. They all know that they are at the bottom plus they dont really have the temperaments to want to be leaders.

I think it depends so much more on the owner and the temperament of the dog more than anything. If a challenging dog doesnt have a strong leader then the leader has to concentrate and make sure all they do keeps them at the top. The same dog with a strong leader would probably never challenge as the leader naturally exudes leadership.

To get ahead in your training do you believe that you need to make it REALLY clear to your dog who is boss (ie: you ALWAYS eating before them, they have to work for food etc) or do you think that if you have a driven dog, a good bond, good understanding of each other you'll get ahead fine?

I dont think you have to be really clear to get ahead in training. If you have a good drive, good bond together with good training techniques, then you will get ahead just fine.

ETA: Another big question - do you believe in alpha rolling??? Think it works???

Interesting and controversial topic. I believe it does work . But i also believe that 99% of people couldnt do it effectively or have the correct mindset for why it is done. So i think with the right dog, the right reason and the right handler, it doers work.

But i would always suggest people to never do it because it is so easy to get it wrong and have really negative results.

ETA Vicki just said everything i was trying to say in a few lines. Some people are so much better at saying things and being straight to the point ;) .

Edited August 14, 2007 by jesomil

[leopuppy04]

I don't do any of it. If I ask my dogs to do something I make sure it happens, but I don't ask them just for the sake of asserting my dominance. I think often you can do more harm than good with these type of programs.

I may ask them to sit before their food, but if I do, it's an opportunity for a training session rather than asserting myself as a leader. Most of what I do with my dogs we do as a team, we trust each other & we each have a part to play in being successful.

Yeah these are my thoughts too. The main reason I ask my dog to 'sit' before a meal (they do so automatically) and not eat before told is merely manners as I don't want them to scoff their food before it even touches the ground ;).

Jesomil:

Interesting and controversial topic. I believe it does work flame.gif laugh.gif . But i also believe that 99% of people couldnt do it effectively or have the correct mindset for why it is done. So i think with the right dog, the right reason and the right handler, it doers work.

But i would always suggest people to never do it because it is so easy to get it wrong and have really negative results.

Wow - did you see that?! Jesomil went up in flames!!!

I don't really have an opinion on Alpha rolling - hence the question

[KitKat]

I at times do the 'Alpha Roll' thing with Sabre...more like how Ceaser does it tho...and it's often when Sabe has gone loopy...so drop him (like Bronx will do at times) and i hold Sabe down until he settles and just lays there...you can often see him physically just relax and get a big grin on his face and his tounge will fall out his head ;)

However...i wouldn't do such with a dog i didn't know...as depending on the situation i couldn't say i would be 100% confident to do so without issues arrising - which would take some of the 'assertive energy' out of it all

ETA - for the rest of it ...i am the Pack Leader (even to the cats Bitch that i am ) and my dogs know it - however rules are pretty relaxed...however if I tell them to do something i expect them to do it, if they don't i make sure it happens But i don't go out of my way to do things specifically just to go "Me Pack Leader"

Edited August 14, 2007 by KitKat

[Poodle wrangler]

I think being your dog's leader is a natural progression with training from puppyhood. Having lived with dogs who are trained and not, I can tell you which ones were nicer to live with- those that were trained . No leadership, not much training possible because the dog won't pay you much attention. It gives you a way to communicate with your dog.

From the dog's point of view, there's no yelling for no reason. An untrained dog doesn't understand they've done something wrong- like steal your dinner or pull on the leash or bark/nip/whine for attention.

Some people confuse leadership with being domineering, bossy or demanding. Or think it will somehow "crush" ther dog's personality. I think it's the opposite. My dogs are much happier because they know what's expected and I reward them all the time for doing the right thing. Because they behave, they can come inside, go in the car, go on outings. It's fun to take them out because they come when called and don't pull me down the road. They gets rewards for being good dogs to live with. Both dogs like to hear a "good dog" and love the positive attention.

The better your dogs are, through you being a good leader, the more time you want to spend with them, so it's all good. It's the dogs who jump up, whine and pull on leads that are stuck in the backyard because taking them for a walk is such hard work. Boredom then causes more behaviour "problems" and the cycle goes on ;).

I've only alpha rolled my smaller dog when he nipped Mr PW once (never again!). I was right there to act immediately- not hurting him, but grabbing him by the scruff of neck and telling him off, then outside and ignored. I'd only do this if I was confident of not being bitten! I didn't think about it and I'm not a trainer, so don't know if this was the right thing to do. I think putting the dog back in his place was a more important step. He thought he was no.2 (out of 5) in the house as I'd spoiled him while Mr PW was away. I went back to basics- no bed, no lounge, no eating before family and more training/ feeding from other family members. Later relaxed the 'rules'. He's a dog with a dominant temperament.

[Sarah L]

Most dogs are happy to be followers and guided into the correct behaviour if you know what you are doing. I have never believed in "Alpha " or "Dominance" theories as I have seen the damage they can do. A lot of it is myth and rubbish.

One training school a while back I went to have a look at just to see what they were teaching horrified me. At the start of the class everyone had to put their dogs in the down roll them over, which some had to use force to do it and lie on top of them pinning the dogs to the ground. What the! Great way to put your dog off training for life. This was done to show the dog who was "boss"

To many people out there are being given such wrong information. A lot of these theory's will make dogs challenge you because you are teaching them to do so.

My dogs have always been allowed on the couch, on my bed and I feed them before me. This is my personal choice and may not be for every one but it has never caused me any problems. My dogs have always done what I have asked of them, and we have worked as a team with fairness and an understanding on my part of what the dog needs mentally and physically and providing the best environment for them to function in. As well as having just plain old fun for a good time with my dogs. ;)

[Rom]

But I don't pay attention to the fact that sometimes I step over my dog if they are in the way. I don't pay attention to the fact that at times if the dog is on their bed, they may be higher than me.... sometimes they go through the door before me etc....

I think that sometimes the people who support such stuff or promote it on a broad scale are the types of people who are generally bossy or control freaks anyway...not all the time though because if a dog presents with dominance issues and the handler is basically uneducated, then such leadership training for the handler as opposed to dominating the dog doesn't go astray. I think it makes it easier for said owners because it gives them definitive cues as to when to enforce which behaviours.

Next time you're out in the bush or another natural setting, have a look around and see how many doorways or gates that you see. Imagine a pack out there...is the Alpha going to spend all its time reprimanding a dog that gets ahead of him? And if he did, what impact would this have on the ability of the pack to perform an effective and efficient hunting expedition as a cohesive unit? There are times however when I need my dog to wait before going through a door or gate...I train for these times.

I step over my dog sometimes too, but if I need her to move she does because I've trained her to.

I don't worry if my dog is higher than me because I know that if I ask her to she will get down.

I also don't worry if my dog eats before me. If a subordinate pack member found some small tasty morsel to eat do you think that it won't eat it until the Alpha has had first pickings? Or would it just eat it unless the Alpha challenged it over the morsel? My dog will leave a piece of food if I tell her to.

How important is pack theory to you? How far do you enforce it? Or is it something that you will only pursue further if the dog starts 'pushing the wrong buttons'....

I'd make the above non negotiables if the dog was challenging me after I commanded.

To get ahead in your training do you believe that you need to make it REALLY clear to your dog who is boss (ie: you ALWAYS eating before them, they have to work for food etc) or do you think that if you have a driven dog, a good bond, good understanding of each other you'll get ahead fine?

No. I think that when you know what your dog is willing to work for then you show them how to get it you are more of a guidance counsellor than a Boss. Thats the type of relationship I'd prefer to have with my dog.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Rom

[Erny]

I think that first some terminology needs to be clarified.

I have always regarded the terms "Alpha" or "Top Dog" to simply mean being a leader ..... being the one who governs behaviour. For me it does not conjure up images of strong, big and physical maneouvers of the dog. But because the words "Alpha" or "Top Dog" do conjure these images to many people (even though IMO this should not be the case), I have changed from using those words to using words such as "pack leader" or "leader".

I also do NOT think that the common things pronounced as part of leadership programs (eg not on beds, couches etc) are "a lot of rubbish" either.

I have seen first hand, and you can even read here on DOL, where this one thing IE not allowing a dog on the bed, has made a beneficial difference in the behaviour of SOME dogs.

However ................... I regard a leadership program which comprises of these actions on perhaps a different plane and a different level than many seem to express appreciation for.

Foremostly I believe that it is doing the dog ...... ANY dog a huge favour for it to be able to perceive its owner as "leader" (or "Alpha"). Without this perception, our human daily lives and commitments cause conflict to a dog's role as "Alpha". By way of clarification and example .......

A dog who perceives itself as "Alpha" certainly adopts (by nature) the privileges that go with that role. But it also adopts the

responsibility

of things such as guarding and protecting

ITS

pack. A good deal of stress and conflict is placed on the dog when it is precluded from observing its role (that we have inadvertently imposed on it) by us leaving the pack (eg going to work) and confining/preventing the dog from fulfilling this important "job".

I believe that MUCH of dog's issues develop from the sense of "Alpha" that we've given it and that this occurs (in general) as a result of not having set limitations; not being assertive (perhaps because of nature or by design); and not being consistent in our expectations.

Now - for the dog owner who has a dog/s who do not exhibit problematic behaviours and who are not stressed animals ..... chances are that is because their owners possess a natural assertiveness. Dogs not only "observe" this, but also "sense" it. But there are people to whom this 'talent' is not natural to them, so they need to learn it.

But how do you teach someone to simply be "assertive" when that is NOT their nature? Natural assertiveness comes from within rather than without, IMO. The beginnings of teaching people this is by firstly getting them to change their ways with their dog/s. And this involves not only setting limitations but also in certain ways and more subtly, to altering their perception of their dog.

So, programs such as "not on couch", "not on beds" etc. is a start. It is a way of training people to set limitations and to be consistent with them. It is a subtle way of altering their own perception of what a dog is and what IT needs. They are 'tangible' things that people can see and understand. They may not realise it, but they are 'learning' to be assertive simply by the fact that they are beginning to govern their dog's actions - and that is one major component of being a "leader", being "Alpha" ........... being calmly and firmly assertive. And when people fairly quickly begin to recognise the beneficial effects their changes have made, they are encouraged. And with that encouragement, confidence. And with that confidence, "natural assertiveness" has a chance to develop.

On another angle, I hear people tell me that they don't have any problems with their dog, so they don't need to follow any "leadership" program (so to speak). This can often be the truth. But sometimes it is a case where these people are looking at it from THEIR point of view, and not the dog's. They (the people) may not be concerned about some of the behaviours their dog is exhibiting, but that does not always go to follow that no problems FOR THE DOG exist. And it would be nice if what they do could be simply for the dog to be the best that it can be.

I do agree that following "leadership programs" as we commonly know them can be harmful in certain circumstances. Certain things can give rise to challenge from a dog when it recognises its leadership is in question. And this is another reason why advice of "what to do" over the internet is not recommended. These "programs" can be tailored to suit the dog's perception of its status and how intensly it might be inclined to protect that status.

So, the basic "things" that people do MIGHT not be seen by some as bearing any relevance to a dog's behaviour or perception of leadership, but I see it differently. I see it as something that people who don't know or find it too difficult to comprehend how, to at least begin to be and do something else. And so begins the ball to roll in a different direction ......

ETA: By not having dogs on beds, couches etc. also by its very action can serve to tone down, to reduce, the amount of affection we continually feed our dogs. Humans are overboard (generally, not specifically speaking) in heaping on affection in over abundance. Dogs need affection, sure. But they need it the least of all. Many people don't or won't recognise the imbalance of affection they give their dogs in comparison to exercise (physical and mental).

Edited August 14, 2007 by Erny

[Sarah L]

I have seen to many times a dogs natural growth stages from a puppy to adult dog being labelled as dominant behaviour. Also owners who have been given the wrong info on how to approach a dog properly around feed bowls or bones ect.... then being told their dog is being dominant There are very few real dominant dogs out there IMO.

Examples:

Un desexed male dogs around 9 to 12 months old have a huge influx of testosterone and chemicals in their bodies at this time which causes the dog to act with more excitement, lack of concentration and increased energy to name but a few things that happen to them at this stage. The dog is not really capable of controlling itself to well even if training has been given up to this point so through lack of understanding what is actually happening to the dog it gets labelled with dominance behaviour.

An owner who has been given the wrong information about how to take bones off a dog safely or be able to reach for its feed bowl safety is told the dog is being dominant. Most often the poor owner is given even more bad info on how to fix this and ends up getting bitten.

As I said before a lot of these theories are teaching the dog to challenge the owner or defend itself through fear of loss, which is what most humans do in the same circumstances.

I agree Rom that fair leadership and understanding what a dogs needs and wants are will make the owner a better handler of the dog.

[Erny]

I have seen to many times a dogs natural growth stages from a puppy to adult dog being labelled as dominant behaviour.

Selecting this sentence only because it serves the purpose of a point I would like to make. And that is that "dominance" seems to carry the stigma of a dirty word. I agree that there are natural growth stages, but the nature of those same growth stages is also often about exploration and testing of its place within the pack. Dominance is not a bad word and is often a very relevant one. It is not bad for a dog to express dominance. But it is deleterious for us to not be aware of it, to ignore it and not take those usual fairly early and easy steps to impress upon these young doggy minds that there is no room for it, given that the status of "leader" has been (and continues to be) filled.

To suggest to people that these are "natural growth stages" IMO can leave a novice person interpreting to mean the dog will grow out of it. That's not a good nor wise perception to even inadvertently leave a person who otherwise wouldn't know with. In/during those times, I believe it is good to "tighten the reins".

Also owners who have been given the wrong info on how to approach a dog properly around feed bowls or bones ect.... then being told their dog is being dominant

I agree here. In fact, in my mind, I question ANY right that we have - even as leaders - to venture near and/or remove food/objects from a dog. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and so it stands for the wild pack dog law too.

BUT - the dilemma is that we MUST for the dog's sake and sometimes for our own, be able to remove an item/food from its mouth. So what we are doing must be something that the dog is accustomed to, but it is in opposition to "dog law" - therefore needs to be approached with careful consideration/planning and foreward thinking.

There are very few real dominant dogs out there IMO.

I would agree with this if we were talking "aggression". But if "dominance" means "having control; influence; governing; ruling" then I see quite a lot in many varying degrees - from subtle to obvious. However, I agree that many behaviours are simply 'learnt' by way of inadvertent reinforcement. How they developed in the first place for them to have been able to be inadvertently reinforced may well have been through the early developmental (ie "natural growth") stages. But the continuation of a "dominant" behaviour here and a "dominant" behaviour there may not necessarily always be dominant assertion for heirarchy status by the dog. The problem is though that it can lead to that occurring.

Not to argue directly with you Pinnacle - it's just that your post raised some points I felt worth discussing.

ETA: The pack "theory" ie the things commonly prescribed to those whose dogs do exhibit problematic (to the dog and/or the owner) behaviour is designed along lines as closely as possible to what we know of or see in the wild pack. Eg. Leader's right to eat first; right of space; right of way; etc. How precisely these individual acts are perceived by the individual dog is only something we would know if we could literally read the dog's individual thoughts. If only ..................

Edited August 14, 2007 by Erny

[Sarah L]

Erny.....

Now - for the dog owner who has a dog/s who do not exhibit problematic behaviours and who are not stressed animals ..... chances are that is because their owners possess a natural assertiveness. Dogs not only "observe" this, but also "sense" it. But there are people to whom this 'talent' is not natural to them, so they need to learn it.Now - for the dog owner who has a dog/s who do not exhibit problematic behaviours and who are not stressed animals ..... chances are that is because their owners possess a natural assertiveness. Dogs not only "observe" this, but also "sense" it. But there are people to whom this 'talent' is not natural to them, so they need to learn it.

Or it could be the owner chose the right breed of dog to suit their lifestyle and living arrangements. For people who are not naturally assertive Erny then it could take longer to teach them how to be and probably longer than what the dog would be alive for. Human nature is far harder to change as we both know. Many good trainers have learned to work around this than force someone to do something they are not capable of.

Erny.....

Selecting this sentence only because it serves the purpose of a point I would like to make. And that is that "dominance" seems to carry the stigma of a dirty word. I agree that there are natural growth stages, but the nature of those same growth stages is also often about exploration and testing of its place within the pack. Dominance is not a bad word and is often a very relevant one. It is not bad for a dog to express dominance. But it is deleterious for us to not be aware of it, to ignore it and not take those usual fairly early and easy steps to impress upon these young doggy minds that there is no room for it, given that the status of "leader" has been (and continues to be) filled.

The reason the word dominance is now a dirty word is because it was miss labeled and came with training programs that put too many control freak issues into dogs behaviour that was not there in the first place and caused many dogs as I have said to challenge owners through these limitations on their behaviour. The example I gave was undesexed male dogs around 9 to 12 months who's natural physical development at this time causes the dog to have high energy, which is often not given an out let for but under dominance theory has more limitations put upon it. Lack of focus and high excitability and yet again with dominance theory more limitations is put upon the dog. No where did I say you ignore it or not take any steps to help the dog through this time. In one sentence you say it not bad for a dog to express it dominance yet in another you say there is no room for it. I will say once again many dogs are happy to be followers. If the correct training at this time is given without to many limitations being put on the dog then this would avoid real dominance issues in dogs appearing at about 2 years old when they have had enough of the limitations are are fully grown to do something about it.

Erny....

To suggest to people that these are "natural growth stages" IMO can leave a novice person interpreting to mean the dog will grow out of it. That's not a good nor wise perception to even inadvertently leave a person who otherwise wouldn't know with. In/during those times, I believe it is good to "tighten the reins".

If the example I gave above is not a natural growth stage then what is it? tighten the reins to much in a dog at 9 to 12 months stifles a lot of the dogs ability to become adaptable later. Erny for your sake and worry of what novice handlers impressions will be of my comments then just for you at the top of my posts in future I will add NOT FOR NOVICE HANDLERS so they will get the message loud and clear.

Erny.....

On another angle, I hear people tell me that they don't have any problems with their dog, so they don't need to follow any "leadership" program (so to speak). This can often be the truth. But sometimes it is a case where these people are looking at it from THEIR point of view, and not the dog's. They (the people) may not be concerned about some of the behaviours their dog is exhibiting, but that does not always go to follow that no problems FOR THE DOG exist. And it would be nice if what they do could be simply for the dog to be the best that it can be.

Ok Erny tell us what problems would exist for the dog and what type of behaviours the dog displays, when someone says what they do with their dog works for them.

Erny....

I would agree with this if we were talking "aggression". But if "dominance" means "having control; influence; governing; ruling" then I see quite a lot in many varying degrees - from subtle to obvious. However, I agree that many behaviours are simply 'learnt' by way of inadvertent reinforcement. How they developed in the first place for them to have been able to be inadvertently reinforced may well have been through the early developmental (ie "natural growth") stages. But the continuation of a "dominant" behaviour here and a "dominant" behaviour there may not necessarily always be dominant assertion for heirarchy status by the dog. The problem is though that it can lead to that occurring.

Now I am worried, "Govern", "Ruling", "Tighten Reins" you make it sound like prison system regulation training. Are we still talking about pet dogs and ther owners or criminals who need to be locked up and have the key thrown away never to have freedom again. All jokes a side Erny and I am joking with you on this point. Some people read to much into a dogs behaviour in what it does as being dominant and inadvertantly reinforce over control of the dog only to have issues surface later and then cannot conect what caused it.

Can you all tell I have insomnia tonight

[leopuppy04]

I'm glad I started this topic now - the replies are most interesting!

Or it could be the owner chose the right breed of dog to suit their lifestyle and living arrangements. For people who are not naturally assertive Erny then it could take longer to teach them how to be and probably longer than what the dog would be alive for. Human nature is far harder to change as we both know. Many good trainers have learned to work around this than force someone to do something they are not capable of.

I think this is a huge factor when it comes to how we get along with our dogs. Personally I think that a 'neutral' tempered owner is likely to choose a 'neutral' tempered dog, given that it is not an impulse buy and they are making an educated decision, I think this would ring true. Think of the breeds that you are attracted to and see how similar their temperaments are and how that would relate to yours. If the dog is OTT and you are naturally a quiet person, I'd say that you would struggle a lot more than someone who just 'happened' to get the right pup. I think inadvertently we are drawn to those dogs that are like-tempered to us.

The reason the word dominance is now a dirty word is because it was miss labeled and came with training programs that put too many control freak issues into dogs behaviour that was not there in the first place and caused many dogs as I have said to challenge owners through these limitations on their behaviour. The example I gave was undesexed male dogs around 9 to 12 months who's natural physical development at this time causes the dog to have high energy, which is often not given an out let for but under dominance theory has more limitations put upon it. Lack of focus and high excitability and yet again with dominance theory more limitations is put upon the dog. No where did I say you ignore it or not take any steps to help the dog through this time. In one sentence you say it not bad for a dog to express it dominance yet in another you say there is no room for it. I will say once again many dogs are happy to be followers. If the correct training at this time is given without to many limitations being put on the dog then this would avoid real dominance issues in dogs appearing at about 2 years old when they have had enough of the limitations are are fully grown to do something about it.

Again - I agree with this. The word dominance and 'alpha' 'top dog' etc have become dirty words, but it has almost become paranoia in some owners, particularly new owners. They want *everything* to go right and due to things they may have heard or read, dominance is a main key. I repeat that MOST dogs are not naturally dominant. BUT almost every dog between 9-12mths will push the boundaries. I wouldn't treat these dogs the same as I would a truly dominant dog. Gentle but firm guidance for a dog going through the 'teenage' years is usually enough to get them through.... but a truly dominant dog will in some ways ALWAYS be challenging you and disregarding the 'rules' etc. Teenagers are simply 'pushing the boundaries' and seeing how much they can get away with ;)...... Now if someone can just speak to Kinta and tell her she is meant to be getting OUT OF this stage and not 'just getting warmed up', i'll be most grateful :rolleyes:

Just some additional thoughts from the responses i've read.

[Erny]

Or it could be the owner chose the right breed of dog to suit their lifestyle and living arrangements. ... For people who are not naturally assertive Erny then it could take longer to teach them how to be and probably longer than what the dog would be alive for. Human nature is far harder to change as we both know. Many good trainers have learned to work around this than force someone to do something they are not capable of.

Completely agree that these factors (ie wrong breed for lifestyle/living) have an impact in some people/dog combinations.

But don't know what you mean by "force someone" . Giving a plan for people to follow (and it goes without saying that the 'plan' comprises of actions that are safe and as non-confrontational as to preclude presentation of a challenge and hence risk of serious retaliation by the dog) can actually help people to unconsciously develop the assertiveness they otherwise lack through the sheer confidence of what they are doing and the good results they begin to recognise as being achieved.

The example I gave was undesexed male dogs around 9 to 12 months who's natural physical development at this time causes the dog to have high energy, which is often not given an out let for but under dominance theory has more limitations put upon it. Lack of focus and high excitability and yet again with dominance theory more limitations is put upon the dog. No where did I say you ignore it or not take any steps to help the dog through this time.

Sorry - given that there was no suggestion that anything needed to be done, I (obviously wrongly) deduced that you might have been implying exactly that. My mistake.

In one sentence you say it not bad for a dog to express it dominance yet in another you say there is no room for it.

What I said was : "It is not bad for a dog to express dominance. But it is deleterious for us to not be aware of it, to ignore it and not take those usual fairly early and easy steps to impress upon these young doggy minds that there is no room for it, given that the status of "leader" has been (and continues to be) filled."

The whole should be read in this case, not the part. Perhaps I am wrong, but I see this as self explanatory.

I will say once again many dogs are happy to be followers. If the correct training at this time is given without to many limitations being put on the dog then this would avoid real dominance issues in dogs appearing at about 2 years old ... ... ... when they have had enough of the limitations are are fully grown to do something about it. ... ... tighten the reins to much in a dog at 9 to 12 months stifles a lot of the dogs ability to become adaptable later.

Sorry - I've had to break up these points of your sentences due to "quotation limitations" within a post. I agree that many dogs are happy to be followers ..... provided they perceive leadership, without which there is nothing to follow. What do you regard as "too many limitations"? I'm getting the impression you might think that commonly known limitations such as "not on couch"; "not on human beds" etc. would stifle the dog to the point of retaliation later? I genuinely not sure what you are alluding to in this.

If the example I gave above is not a natural growth stage then what is it?

It wasn't that I intended to suggest they aren't natural growth stages (in fact I think if you reflect, you'll see that I have agreed that they are). But when said without follow-up explanation it can illude people to think that you mean the dog will grow out of it (not something that is uncommonly advised by some, either). That's what I meant.

Erny for your sake and worry of what novice handlers impressions will be of my comments then just for you at the top of my posts in future I will add NOT FOR NOVICE HANDLERS so they will get the message loud and clear.

Ok Erny tell us what problems would exist for the dog and what type of behaviours the dog displays, when someone says what they do with their dog works for them.

Ok Pinnacle .....

One example : the little dog (eg. Maltese x). Owners don't have high expectations by many people's standards. Just want "sit". Dog generally complies. Owners don't really take the dog to many places, nor allow off lead when they do/might, so for them the dog is deemed 'compliant'. At home - no rules; no limitations. Dog is permitted complete freedom. During a part of the day the owners work. Because the dog barks excessively when alone, it is housed inside so as to not disturb the neighbours. No complaints from neighbours - owners happy. When visitors come, the dog is anxious and exhibits the anxiety by pacing around. There's no growling, but the dog - who is in conflict between flight and approach .... but errs towards approach .... tends to hesitantly come nearer to sniff, but then quickly darts away. Owners think this is cute and kind of funny. They love their dog. They pick it up and cuddle it and laugh.

I don't think that's a happy dog. But for its owners "it works for them".

I'd be interested in your thoughts given the purpose for which you asked for explanation.

Now I am worried, "Govern", "Ruling" ... you make it sound like prison system regulation training.

Well actually, they are the dictionary definition of "leadership" - or is that also a word that conjurs for you "criminals who need to be locked up and have the key thrown away"?

All jokes a side Erny and I am joking with you on this point.

Oh ......

Edited August 15, 2007 by Erny

[Muttly]

I am with Erny on this

And coming from a position of rescuing as well as managing the ongoing pack.

I look for social niceties and reward them. Where they don't happen I do make a point of enforcing them. Yes some people may have a happy equilibrium with their dogs running over them, with them; reprimanding at times if needed; training as a response sometimes. Sometimes they may co-exist very happily with unclear and shifting hierarchies. But this is potentially dangerous IMO, and especially to the dogs and any being added in if you don't have clear leadership.

Where a dog with "issues" comes into you pack whether it be canine or human problematic or both or the myriad of possibilities - without clear leadership there isn't clear boundaries which creates all the possible spaces for a dog reasonably determining that it will chance it and sort it out itself. Just can be very dangerous. And the capacity to rehabilitate and generally train is shot if you do not have leadership. Doesn't mean being a nazi, just having a clear determination of how we all co-exist.

I think basic leadership can be obtained by training to basic obedience generally and some basic dog handling skills imparted on the way with tip sheets etc that clubs hand out. Don't think it is rocket science but people can be very anthropomorphic and whilst with some dogs this will work to a degree, it is a disaster for others. Some of which require rescue once in the pound, some too damaged. I don't think however that 'most people' can manage multiple dog household or domininant dogs by having them on the couch or eating first

[Sarah L]

Hi Erny, I decided not to bother with the quote marks, I know what you mean by having trouble with them they gave me the poops last night.

I think both of our second posts to each other explained alot more than our first ones did if you had of given the example of the little dog in your first post then I would have totally agreed with you. I thought you meant the people who had posted before us on what they did with their dogs. My mistake. I do have a second thought as well now that you have explained it. Which is...... how do we really know the dog is unhappy when displaying this behaviour. This is not as silly as it sounds as you said the dog gets shown affection/approval for this behaviour. I have often wondered if what we see in some dogs is the correct perception of what they are actually feeling. Unless we can put them through some sort of physical testing at this time to find out or they could talk and tells us do we really know? because of what we know of how a dogs memory works, if it is unhappy at these times then at least because they live in the now it's not as if it's going to remember it was unhappy at this time for the rest of its day or week until it happens again. Hope this last part made sense

The to many limitations I was talking about have come through clients I have had who had a bad trainer come to their house and gave them the following recommendations on how to assert pack leadership. The following examples are in brief description but you will get the idea.

(1) Do not pat the dog at any time (until it has learned to behave)

(2) Take all its toys away and do not give it any (until it has learned to behave)

(3) Tie the dog up when it gets to excited (until it learns to behave)

(4) Take its food away after 15 mins if it has not eaten and only feed dry dog food.

(5) Do not allow the dog on the couch, on the bed etc.....

(6) spray it with water.

(7) throw a chain at it.

This was to be done to the dog every day. Now.... the above done on such frequency will make the dog unhappy and also make it remember it is unhappy on a daily basis.

By the time I got to these clients both the dogs and owners were very unhappy. They thought they were being given the right information so tried to follow what they had been told. However every single owner told me this was not what they wanted to do to their dogs so paid the trainer lip service on the second visit. They had already given up on the dog and themselves of ever being able to fix their problems by the end of their first weeks attempt at the training program.

I wonder how many other trainers just get paid lip service by clients who blame them selves for failing at a bad training program in the first place. I think the main things trainers forget is that the average pet dog owner does not want to delve into the deep meaningful philosophy of dog behaviour and we cannot expect them to learn our grasp of what the dog ideally needs in 2 lessons or so that has taken us 20 odd years to gain learning and experience in. I never have and never will recommend the above examples I have given to and owner whether they are naturally assertive or not. This is also what I meant by forcing someone to do something they did not want to do. There are other ways to show a dog leadership.

Hey Erny I think you and I should write a book, we would have it written in 2 days. But it might take us a year on agreeing what to put in it

[Sarah L]

I am with Erny on this

And coming from a position of rescuing as well as managing the ongoing pack.

I look for social niceties and reward them. Where they don't happen I do make a point of enforcing them. Yes some people may have a happy equilibrium with their dogs running over them, with them; reprimanding at times if needed; training as a response sometimes. Sometimes they may co-exist very happily with unclear and shifting hierarchies. But this is potentially dangerous IMO, and especially to the dogs and any being added in if you don't have clear leadership.

So if the dogs and people live like this to a happy old age then your saying its potential dangerous. How do you enforce your clear leadership?

Where a dog with "issues" comes into you pack whether it be canine or human problematic or both or the myriad of possibilities - without clear leadership there isn't clear boundaries which creates all the possible spaces for a dog reasonably determining that it will chance it and sort it out itself. Just can be very dangerous. And the capacity to rehabilitate and generally train is shot if you do not have leadership. Doesn't mean being a nazi, just having a clear determination of how we all co-exist.

Can you explain exactly what you mean by issue's are you talking aggression, fear, overexcitability, timidness Any of the above needs far more than leadership skills to solve these problems in dogs.

I think basic leadership can be obtained by training to basic obedience generally and some basic dog handling skills imparted on the way with tip sheets etc that clubs hand out. Don't think it is rocket science but people can be very anthropomorphic and whilst with some dogs this will work to a degree, it is a disaster for others. Some of which require rescue once in the pound, some too damaged. I don't think however that 'most people' can manage multiple dog household or dominant dogs by having them on the couch or eating first

Your last paragraph above I totally disagree with. Just ask any other people on this forum who have multiple dog households. This way of thinking is now rapidly becoming out dated. Dogs do not end up in pounds because people put to much human emotion into dogs its the lack of human emotions that puts dogs in pounds.

ARF Muttly do you take into consideration the age of the dog you are fostering, the reason for the issue? or do you just go straight ahead in dealing with what you think the issue is? How many dogs do you foster at the one time? and do you deal with every foster dogs issue's with the same training program?

I am no stranger to working with pound dogs. I always treat every dog as an individual and not with a general consensus of how it is thought a dogs behaviour should be. More so what it is capable of.

[Erny]

... how do we really know the dog is unhappy when displaying this behaviour. This is not as silly as it sounds as you said the dog gets shown affection/approval for this behaviour. I have often wondered if what we see in some dogs is the correct perception of what they are actually feeling. ... because of what we know of how a dogs memory works, if it is unhappy at these times then at least because they live in the now it's not as if it's going to remember it was unhappy at this time for the rest of its day or week until it happens again.

Would you suggest that a dog who is hypervigilant; unrelaxed when its pack leaves the house; and exhibiting tension towards visitors is "happy"? And think further of the neurological affect longterm stress can have on the dog. That is not merely a "now" thing.

The to many limitations I was talking about have come through clients I have had who had a bad trainer come to their house and gave them the following recommendations on how to assert pack leadership. The following examples are in brief description but you will get the idea.

(1) Do not pat the dog at any time (until it has learned to behave)

(2) Take all its toys away and do not give it any (until it has learned to behave)

(3) Tie the dog up when it gets to excited (until it learns to behave)

(4) Take its food away after 15 mins if it has not eaten and only feed dry dog food.

(5) Do not allow the dog on the couch, on the bed etc.....

(6) spray it with water.

(7) throw a chain at it.

Discussing on the loose assumption that the things you have listed are "boundaries/limitation" (and I debate that point in the next para) IMO that's not a case of "too many limitations" but perhaps more a case of the wrong limitations. As to whether they were wrong or not would be the subject of another discussion for another thread. Much would depend on what the dog was doing at the time and what its problematic behaviour was and of course, the cause of it. Although I still fail to see how not being allowed on the couch; bed etc. can be recognised as a limitation that could have inclement affect on a dog. In addition and moreover, one needs to take into account the good interactions that are occuring in between the times of the 'boundaries/limitations' that have been set. ETA: #4 ... "only feed dry food" - have no idea what bearing that is supposed to have on anything as far as it relates to "pack theory" .

The other thing about that list is that all save for numbers 4 & 5 (with a question mark towards number 1 and possibly 2) sound more like punishments, rather than "boundaries/limitations" for the dog to observe in its day to day life. On the list you've given and without understanding the circumstances more fully I would not suggest this to be any good cause to shun general "leadership" activities as are presently and commonly known.

They had already given up on the dog and themselves of ever being able to fix their problems by the end of their first weeks attempt at the training program.

That would be an "argument" (for want of better word) on "good trainer -vs- bad trainer" (again, for want of better words). I don't see this as anywhere near reflective of the effects/affects of application of boundaries/limitations for a dog to observe (eg. not on couch; not on bed; earning its rewards etc. etc.)

I think the main things trainers forget is that the average pet dog owner does not want to delve into the deep meaningful philosophy of dog behaviour and we cannot expect them to learn our grasp of what the dog ideally needs in 2 lessons or so that has taken us 20 odd years to gain learning and experience in.

There is some truth in this. Although explanation as to "why" certain procedures/practices are to be followed is good for the dog owner to know and have some basic awareness of. This aids towards the confidence of the owner which otherwise may have been lacking - lacking confidence is not a happy state for owner nor dog. I don't think iit's a matter of teaching them all we have learnt over the years - but an explanation of the hypothesis doesn't take much to hear and grasp.

I never have and never will recommend the above examples I have given to and owner whether they are naturally assertive or not.

As mentioned - your examples seem to comprise of "reactionary treatments" (ie punishment/s) in relation to specific behaviours. The good ol' water squirt bottle has been proven very positively instrumental in assisting with the decisting of numerous varied unwanted behaviours including aggression, coupled of course where relevant with the implementation of other behaviour modification methods such as we have been discussing in this thread (ie leadership/dominance/alpha etc. etc. etc.).

Pinnacle :

Dogs do not end up in pounds because people put to much human emotion into dogs its the lack of human emotions that puts dogs in pounds.

(My highlights)

This was in your post in response to ARF Muttley above, but it really did perk my interest so hope you don't mind me bringing it in here. Would you mind explaining what you mean by "it's the lack of human emotions that puts dogs in pounds" and how you come to that conclusion?

ETA - general comment to all : "Outdated" is a word I generally hear from people (trainers, behaviourists) who don't agree with what has been in "vogue" (can't think of a more appropriate word at the moment, although I know there is one) for a considerable period of time. This applies to training equipment as well as to the trialled and tested "leadership" activities that we speak of here.

What I usually don't hear is WHY they are being refuted other than being "outdated". What's the new "theory", what does it comprise of and why do people think it works overall and why do they see it as more beneficial than what has been known and tried (and proven with successes) over the decades? Just because something is "old" doesn't (well .... it shouldn't) mean it is no good.

To simply suggest something is "outdated" does not constitute good reason to divert away from it. Explanations please .....................

Edited August 16, 2007 by Erny

[TNT]

Being new to dog ownership and dog training- its not only confusing but very interesting to see all the different view points and theory's on the establishment of the pack. I'm currently reading a few different books which discuss the pack etc- and I'm still confused where I stand, or infact where my two dogs stand in relation to each other. I think it all is a wonderful learning process. I also think that what works for one person, may not work for another- and the same with dogs.

But its great to see so many people in the know sharing their wisdom...

[Muttly]

I assess each dog individually (again not rocket science but leadership is one part of rehabilitation and/or training), age has varied from 7 weeks to 10 years +. Largest pack I have had or will have has been 6. Have had 2-3 of my own dogs for 20 odd years, and dogs for 35 years of my life....

I would be very interested in what is 'outdated' about the idea that for some people and some dog temperaments and pack-mixes that unclear leadership is not related to dogs being out of control, undisciplined and sometimes dangerous? The pound dog tearfully surrendered over and over and over again in pounds around the country because he "is so loved" but bit the child who tried to climb ON TO the lounge with him, he'd only ever growled before and the humping of legs had previously been funny etc.

JTA your questions were already answered in my comments.

Edited August 16, 2007 by ARF Muttly