Pack Theory?

[Erny]

Well, they want to stop people who aren't pro trainers attempting the kinds of things Cesar Milan does without the benefits of his speed, confidence and experience and I can understand that.

I disagree here. It's not like they are saying "this is good when you know how to do it". It is more like they are saying that there is no place for "force". And to sell their own theory, they project the assumption that trainers who use force ONLY use force.

If people are going to make a comparison between one method -vs- another, IMO they should take in the whole equation and not simply use one smaller part of it (conveniently making it sound very bad) in an attempt to bolster and sell their own views.

Which brings me to a further (although far from new) observation, that being that often when the "positive only" advocats debate against any form of physical correction being used upon a dog, they write with a literary style that more often than not comprises of emphasis on frequently applied BIG corrections. Words such as "reefing"; "jerking"; "jabbing" spring to mind.

But I'm sorry, this IS taking the matter of "Pack Theory" off topic and was not my intention.

Back on subject, I reflect back to my earlier post in relation to the link on "Dominance Theory" and still recognise what I would consider a major flaw (one that subsequently but obscurely impacts the the whole document generally). That is that they have tried to degenerate Dominance theory by highlighting a hypocrasy between on one hand "Dominant aggression" and on the other hand a leader being Calm-Assertive.

It certainly reads with hypocritic flavour, but only because, IMO, they have paired the wrong comparison.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Erny

[SkySoaringMagpie]

The sole use of rewards and praise will not correct a dog really pushing the boundaries;

Just so we're clear, I agree with you. If my dogs push it, I use negative punishment. I take something away that they want - usually just taking them away from the pack and isolating them in a boring room for 5 minutes does the trick. I will send them back if they try it again, but nearly always once is enough to produce a more well mannered demeanor.

I also think that NILIF deals with boundary pushing very effectively. And as to the pack, they act up amongst themselves sometimes but I have never had any issues taking bones or toys off them, or getting them to move from furniture. Neither has my partner. That says to me that whether we are seen as those crazy human overlords, or whether we are seen as alpha, they recognise that we're boss.

To be fair, our dogs are sighthounds. Historically sighthounds have not done well on correction-based training and are also fairly sensitive. I am not going to attempt to speak for the more robust guarding and working breeds. OTOH, sighthounds are certainly independent and pigheaded (in a good way!!)

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Well, they want to stop people who aren't pro trainers attempting the kinds of things Cesar Milan does without the benefits of his speed, confidence and experience and I can understand that.

I disagree here. It's not like they are saying "this is good when you know how to do it". It is more like they are saying that there is no place for "force". And to sell their own theory, they project the assumption that trainers who use force ONLY use force.

I think you have a good point. I would rather see people mount the kinds of arguments I have made around use of force than alleging that people who train with correction never bother showing their dogs what they want. However, there is a good proportion of people who do use correction without doing anything else to show the dog what they want. I see them at shows, in obedience classes and in free running areas all the time. Perhaps the solution is a website that says that once you have your dog's attention (appropriately), you had better show it what you want in a way it understands.

If people are going to make a comparison between one method -vs- another, IMO they should take in the whole equation and not simply use one smaller part of it (conveniently making it sound very bad) in an attempt to bolster and sell their own views.

Which brings me to a further (although far from new) observation, that being that often when the "positive only" advocats debate against any form of physical correction being used upon a dog, they write with a literary style that more often than not comprises of emphasis on frequently applied BIG corrections. Words such as "reefing"; "jerking"; "jabbing" spring to mind.

Unfortunately, I see more heavy handed corrections where I see corrections than I see light ones. I have no doubt from what you've written that you're a careful trainer, but out there in dog world are a lot of heavy handed people. If I use the word "reef" I mean "reef". If I use the word correction, I'm more likely to be talking about a properly administered correction.

But I'm sorry, this IS taking the matter of "Pack Theory" off topic and was not my intention.

Back on subject, I reflect back to my earlier post in relation to the link on "Dominance Theory" and still recognise what I would consider a major flaw (one that subsequently but obscurely impacts the the whole document generally). That is that they have tried to degenerate Dominance theory by highlighting a hypocrasy between on one hand "Dominant aggression" and on the other hand a leader being Calm-Assertive.

It certainly reads with hypocritic flavour, but only because, IMO, they have paired the wrong comparison.

Yep, I think I agreed with you on that one. By the way Erny, I really like what you write and I always read your posts.