# The Natural Way



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Having watched a bitch with her pups recently I am wondering if there is some credence to treating or training dogs in a natural way. 
I witnessed a senior dog, reprimand a 16 week old pup recently for being boisterous. This took the form of a low growl, to which the pup didn't respond, so the senior dog barged him twice with his shoulder and moved the pup back a few paces. The pup certainly took notice and became quiet. 
I have also noticed, the bitch put the muzzle of the pup gently in her mouth to quieten them and used herding to bring them back together again. Can we as humans use these techniques to help us train and live in harmony with our dogs?


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

We're not dogs, we can not mimic nor replicate their body language or vocalisations. We can not communicate with them in their language.

Dogs as a species, are aware of this.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Nonnie said:


> We're not dogs, we can not mimic nor replicate their body language or vocalisations. We can not communicate with them in their language.
> 
> Dogs as a species, are aware of this.


I was just about to say the same thing. People have been trying to do this for years, hence the outdated theory of being your dog's pack leader. Dogs understand the body language and signals of another dog, they do not understand ours.

We are not dogs and the dogs know this.


----------



## shibby (Oct 3, 2010)

grandad said:


> Having watched a bitch with her pups recently I am wondering if there is some credence to treating or training dogs in a natural way.
> I witnessed a senior dog, reprimand a 16 week old pup recently for being boisterous. This took the form of a low growl, to which the pup didn't respond, so the senior dog barged him twice with his shoulder and moved the pup back a few paces. The pup certainly took notice and became quiet.
> I have also noticed, the bitch put the muzzle of the pup gently in her mouth to quieten them and used herding to bring them back together again. *Can we as humans use these techniques to help us train and live in harmony with our dogs?*


No..............

Edit: I also fail to see how that is 'the natural way' at all.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Not with great effect. We can use calming signals like yawning, lack of eye contact, lip licking and they appear to help calm situations (they _seem_ to have worked for me before, anyway) but I think most are nearly impossible to really pull off effectively. I yawned at a timid Rottie the other day, whilst looking away, in his kennel and he perked his ears up in the most confused manner! I just laughed and took a treat out.......

With things like growling and other antagonistic gestures and signals, I personally think the dogs are confused seeing such things from a human and can understand and comprehend the hostility 'in the air' so to speak, leading them to act deferent. However, some dogs go ballistic with an adrenaline rush 

Dogs are definitely masters at reading our body language and I find this area quite fascinating. But I don't think we can replicate their body language signals to any satisfactory level and, thus, should not be used in training or behaviour modification.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Adam Palmer said:


> The holding the muzzle and low growl command to be quiet is quite effective with most dogs. I think Stanley Coren writes about it in one of his books!
> 
> Adam


LOL! 
or should that read:
The holding the muzzle and low growl command to be quiet is a very effective way with most dogs of increasing your chances of being bitten :thumbsup:

Stanley Coren's book is best used as a door stop or better still as toilet paper if that is the case.

I don't suppose you are familiar with calming signals?

Dogs are dogs (and they're not wolves either, and dominance and such like in wolves is debunked anyway). We are not dogs. Anyone who attempts to simplify dog behaviour in such a way that they humanize their interactions and further suggest that it is appropriate for us as humans to mimick such behaviours is incredibly foolish.

Dogs have been selectively bred for thousands of years to interact and work with humans. They are the only species on the planet that has adapted to exhibit "left gaze bias" when looking at human faces. Isn't that amazing? Don't you think it's a crying shame that still people seek to simplify dog-dog interactions, the way that we interact with our dogs and simplify their behaviour so much.

Please don't growl at or grab your dog by the muzzle unless you want to seriously damage your relationship with him or her.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Adam Palmer said:


> The holding the muzzle and low growl command to be quiet is quite effective with most dogs. I think Stanley Coren writes about it in one of his books!


yeah, quite an effective way to a) get yourself bitten, and/or b) frighten and confuse your dog.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

lemmsy said:


> LOL!
> or should that read:
> The holding the muzzle and low growl command to be quiet is a very effective way with most dogs of increasing your chances of being bitten :thumbsup:


Great minds think alike, I wrote that and posted before yours came through :lol:


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Adam Palmer said:


> I know plenty about calming signals, don't actually buy into the whole ''everything is stress '' that seems to be the baisis of them though.
> 
> Re the muzzle hold. As a pro trainer who specilises in aggression and off lead control I meet dogs with plenty of character. I've never been bitten getting one to shut up though.
> 
> Adam


But why bother to tell it to shut up? A dog that growls is politely saying it's not comfortable and we should heed that warning and say to ourselves "What can we do to make the dog feel more comfortable in this situation?", e.g. let's feed him a bit of food or introduce a toy or slowly decrease the distance and ignore him/her and let the dog get used to our presence.

People have a very one directional view of undesirable dog behaviours, i.e. that they are 'bad'. They are not 'bad'. They are natural dog behaviours. We deem them as undesirable for us and the dog.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

You use a muzzle holds with aggression cases!!! OMG
And haven't been bitten getting a dog to "shut up"? 
You are very lucky. 

Says alot that you describe the dogs as having "plenty of character" and needing to get them to "shut up!" What the hell does that mean? (I can guess but I'd rather not) 



Just shocking...

ETA- WELL SAID Rottiefan!


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Adam Palmer said:


> I know plenty about calming signals, don't actually buy into the whole ''everything is stress '' that seems to be the baisis of them though.


Clearly.  You must see them alot by the sounds of things.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

I instantly picked up this thread from its title as I like to say I breed and rear my dogs the natural way, lol! This is more as I feed and rear pups on the raw diet though, rather than training purposes.

I will comment though, that, to my mind, nothing is more fascinating than watching older dogs, including mam, interact with a litter of baby puppies. I have always allowed my pups to mix with my lot once they are up on their feet and running about. For instance, today, all 5 big 'uns, and pups have been out in the back garden mixing. I have a split level patio and the pups stay on the lower level whilst the adults have access to both levels and so can 'escape' from the pups when they want to. All of the adults will play with the pups, but all of them will also reprimand them when necessary. Cleo especially will mother them and 'love' them. may I also say though, they are never left unsupervised! I know many breeders who never let pups mix with any other dogs they own, other than the mother. I think this is a mistake, as pups learn a lot from others as well as the mother and it allows them to become a lot more socialised amongst bigger, older dogs, giving them perhaps an advantage when they go to new homes, especially those with other dogs, as they already know how to behave with them, at least to a certain extent.

I love watching the pack behaviour that comes out naturally in my adults, I know many discount the pack theory, but its alive and well in my house! Each dog has its own role, and I have a top bitch and a top male, with the top bitch ruling the roost over the males too. They all know their 'place' and have never overstepped the mark. 

As for copying dog behaviour myself, no, the only I do do is to squeal when baby puppies bite and nip me, they soon stop, lol! Thats the simple 'bite inhibition' thing. I wouldnt dream of alpha rolling and that sort of thing, thats best left to the experts themselves - the dogs!!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Adam Palmer said:


> I know plenty about calming signals, don't actually buy into the whole ''everything is stress '' that seems to be the baisis of them though.
> 
> Re the muzzle hold. As a pro trainer who specilises in aggression and off lead control I meet dogs with plenty of character. *I've never been bitten getting one to shut up though.*Adam


Isn't that because you are a few feet away with your remote control? What "everything is stress" are you talking about? Calming signals are not the only body language that dogs possess - they have different body language for different states of mind, some of them stressful situations, some of them not.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Ceearott said:


> I love watching the pack behaviour that comes out naturally in my adults, I know many discount the pack theory, but its alive and well in my house! Each dog has its own role, and I have a top bitch and a top male, with the top bitch ruling the roost over the males too. They all know their 'place' and have never overstepped the mark.


No one discounts that in groups of dogs there are hierarchies and social relationships that need to be abided by- that's never been in question really. What people do discount is that 1) the high ranking dogs use physical force to put dogs in their place and are in a constant mode of domination (Except for learning pups, dogs have a natural understanding of their place, meaning reprimanding is very seldom needed) 2) that there are power struggles within the pack for top position (the very term 'power struggle' for a top place shows it to be a inaccurate theory) and 3) that dogs pack up with humans in the house and see us as another member.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Ceearott said:


> I instantly picked up this thread from its title as I like to say I breed and rear my dogs the natural way, lol! This is more as I feed and rear pups on the raw diet though, rather than training purposes.
> 
> I will comment though, that, to my mind, nothing is more fascinating than watching older dogs, including mam, interact with a litter of baby puppies. I have always allowed my pups to mix with my lot once they are up on their feet and running about. For instance, today, all 5 big 'uns, and pups have been out in the back garden mixing. I have a split level patio and the pups stay on the lower level whilst the adults have access to both levels and so can 'escape' from the pups when they want to. All of the adults will play with the pups, but all of them will also reprimand them when necessary. Cleo especially will mother them and 'love' them. may I also say though, they are never left unsupervised! I know many breeders who never let pups mix with any other dogs they own, other than the mother. I think this is a mistake, as pups learn a lot from others as well as the mother and it allows them to become a lot more socialised amongst bigger, older dogs, giving them perhaps an advantage when they go to new homes, especially those with other dogs, as they already know how to behave with them, at least to a certain extent.
> 
> ...


I am not sure that people discount pack behaviour altogether, just the idea that the dog and human have to be part of the same pack with the human as the leader. Obviously this is impossible, since the human is a different species and the dog knows that.

I would love to come visit and see your dogs playing with your puppies. Sounds great. I have a video which I posted on here a while ago of Ferdie, aged two and about 65kg at the time, with Joshua, aged eight weeks, playing together. Adult dogs are gentle with puppies as a rule and the only shot I have of Ferdie getting a little fed up and growling, and Joshua instantly backing off. They understand each other - they do not understand us.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> No one discounts that in groups of dogs there are hierarchies and social relationships that need to be abided by- that's never been in question really. What people do discount is that 1) the high ranking dogs use physical force to put dogs in their place and are in a constant mode of domination (Except for learning pups, dogs have a natural understanding of their place, meaning reprimanding is very seldom needed) 2) that there are power struggles within the pack for top position (the very term 'power struggle' for a top place shows it to be a inaccurate theory) and 3) that dogs pack up with humans in the house and see us as another member.


Very true!!

But I still have people saying to me either -

1) I should expect a big fight one day due to power struggles
2) They cant be living as a pack as they dont live in the wild

LOL!!!

What people dont understand is I let my dogs be dogs, I dont humanise them, something many people do then wonder why they have problems!!

And, above all, ALL 4 of us living in house are 'above' the dogs and they know it!!


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Ceearott said:


> Very true!!
> 
> But I still have people saying to me either -
> 
> ...


Our far more superior brain automatically makes us in a more (superficially) commanding position than dogs- we control everything in their lives more or less.

I am eagerly awaiting a new term for a group of domestic dogs. People still use the term 'pack' but it's not that accurate as groups or dogs behave differently to groups of wild wolves.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Ceearott said:


> Very true!!
> 
> But I still have people saying to me either -
> 
> ...


That is because that is where they want you to be. You wouldn't be much good to them if you couldn't provide their food and their resources, and they know that as well.

I humanise my dogs to a certain extent, I tend to treat and train like children, though they are far less trouble, don't answer back! But they are well behaved, not perfect, I wouldn't want that, and if I started trying to act like a dog, I think it would scare them quite frankly.

someone came on this forum the other week stating that if you show weakness to a dog he will try to overpower you! How bizarre. Who would want to live in fear of their animal in case he decided to overpower them?


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> Our far more superior brain automatically makes us in a more (superficially) commanding position than dogs- we control everything in their lives more or less.
> 
> I am eagerly awaiting a new term for a group of domestic dogs. People still use the term 'pack' but it's not that accurate as groups or dogs behave differently to groups of wild wolves.


How about calling them a gang?? LOL!!

I call mine the Ceearott Lot


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Rottiefan said:


> Our far more superior brain automatically makes us in a more (superficially) commanding position than dogs- we control everything in their lives more or less.
> 
> I am eagerly awaiting a new term for a group of domestic dogs. People still use the term 'pack' but it's not that accurate as groups or dogs behave differently to groups of wild wolves.


Why are dog babies called pups but wolf and fox babies are called cubs? Why are cat babies called kittens but lion and tiger babies are called cubs? I have often wondered, and the correct term is a pack of dogs, so I doubt the idea will ever change. Pity.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> That is because that is where they want you to be. You wouldn't be much good to them if you couldn't provide their food and their resources, and they know that as well.
> 
> I humanise my dogs to a certain extent, I tend to treat and train like children, though they are far less trouble, don't answer back! But they are well behaved, not perfect, I wouldn't want that, and if I started trying to act like a dog, I think it would scare them quite frankly.
> 
> someone came on this forum the other week stating that if you show weakness to a dog he will try to overpower you! How bizarre. Who would want to live in fear of their animal in case he decided to overpower them?


LOL! I still get similar to this too!! peeps cant understand why I choose to live with 5 rotties and have 2 kids. Hmm, why not?? They seem to think one day the dogs will just attack the kids and tear them to shreds. I just cant seem to get through to some folk, my dogs are well trained and well-socialised and thats doown to me and my OH (and the kids too) to getting them this way. I still have people who want a pup and say things like, you have t be hard to have a rottie havent you?? You have to beat the crap out of a rottie dont you?? Needless to say, these people dont even make it to the house!!

Behaviour of dogs fascinates me no end, and its something I hope to study indepth sometime in the future.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> Why are dog babies called pups but wolf and fox babies are called cubs? Why are cat babies called kittens but lion and tiger babies are called cubs?


Domestication I imagine!


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> They understand each other - they do not understand us.


That sums it up in one small sentence :thumbsup:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Ceearott said:


> LOL! I still get similar to this too!! peeps cant understand why I choose to live with 5 rotties and have 2 kids. Hmm, why not?? They seem to think one day the dogs will just attack the kids and tear them to shreds. I just cant seem to get through to some folk, my dogs are well trained and well-socialised and thats doown to me and my OH (and the kids too) to getting them this way. I still have people who want a pup and say things like, you have t be hard to have a rottie havent you?? You have to beat the crap out of a rottie dont you?? Needless to say, these people dont even make it to the house!!
> 
> Behaviour of dogs fascinates me no end, and its something I hope to study indepth sometime in the future.


It is this very attitude that has caused aggression is some rotties and given them a bad name. They were perfectly acceptable dogs until they appeared in the Omen as the Devil's guard dogs, then the "hard nuts" decided they had to have one. It is so sad. I have met rotties who have to be muzzled and I have met rotties who are more soppy than mine.


----------



## shibby (Oct 3, 2010)

Adam Palmer said:


> I know plenty about calming signals, *don't actually buy into the whole ''everything is stress '' that seems to be the baisis of them though.*
> 
> Re the muzzle hold. As a pro trainer who specilises in aggression and off lead control I meet dogs with plenty of character. I've never been bitten getting one to shut up though.
> 
> Adam


You never appear to 'buy in to' anything other than using physical methods to modify a dog's behaviour. You undermine dogs and it is a great concern that you would invade the space of a dog with aggression issues. I find it very unfair that you're putting vulnerable dogs (and owners, who have placed trust in you) in this position. Not professional at all and it really is fortunate (for you) that you've not been bitten yet. This to me is a prime example of why the field of 'dog training/behaviourists' needs more regulation than there currently is.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Sigh........................................

Can't really have a decent debate on this forum. There seems to be a certain "type" who are sworn to venting their anger at every opportunity, but seem be unable to let people have a view. RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY. Keep your emotions in check, it really is annoying when intelligent people want to have a discussion. 

Back to speaking about the natural way similar to Turid Ruugas and her advocation of calming signals. I have used calming signals and taken many of her observations on board when dealing with my dog. Seems the nice and natural thing to do, whether my dog has understood my attempts at his language or not is in question. using calming signals surely has an effect on my mind set and usually calms me down. 
Do we really know if the dog is not acting onout body language, how many times have we gone to move our hand to send a dog off to the right and they have anticipated our move. And this slight movement has been at distance. 
I'm not so sure that a frown or a smile doesn't mean something to a dog. Perhaps it is they that have conquered our language and we are still no nearer understanding theirs. However I still think it is possible to use K9 body language to help train dogs. Maybe I just don't know how yet )


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

a frown and a smile is the reason most dogs look confused. our natural expression when concentrating is to frown, learn to smile and watch the difference when training a dog


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

grandad said:


> I witnessed a senior dog, reprimand a 16 week old pup recently for being boisterous. This took the form of a low growl, to which the pup didn't respond, so the senior dog barged him twice with his shoulder and moved the pup back a few paces. The pup certainly took notice and became quiet


I actually think one can learn something, and that is how subtle and proportionate dogs generally are. Most people, start off at level 5 of 7 in the dog's discipline scale, rather than at 1 or 2.

With a pup, simulating a yelp seems clearest way to have softer nipping, and blocking off can also help before you've had time to teach commands.

The reason not to mimic doggy corrections, is probably that humans suck at timing. A dogs mind can react very fast, and we are burdened by greater flexibility but more complicated "wetware" in the head, likely slowing us down.

How often has your dog, appeared telepathic or completed a command within split second of you starting to say it? Even if you try and avoid telegraphing intentions.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Statler said:


> a frown and a smile is the reason most dogs look confused. our natural expression when concentrating is to frown, learn to smile and watch the difference when training a dog


How true a statement is this and how I agree with it. Especially when you are learning a new skill with your dog. We are concentrating so hard we frown and the dog misinterprets this for .....................annoyance, anger, frustration certanily not pleasure.


----------



## shibby (Oct 3, 2010)

grandad said:


> Sigh........................................
> 
> Can't really have a decent debate on this forum. There seems to be a certain "type" who are sworn to venting their anger at every opportunity, but seem be unable to let people have a view. RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY. Keep your emotions in check, it really is annoying when intelligent people want to have a discussion.
> 
> ...


Oh sigh yourself! No one is venting their anger, although you seem a bit het up. It is a public forum and members will express themselves anyway they wish. You have no right to tell others how they should contribute to a discussion, get your own emotions in check. Intelligent?  And if you're referring to my post, it was not in response to you, so if you don't like it, don't read it, but I am entitled to my opinion.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Think you may need some calming signals yourself.....and breathe

The natural way, if I play bow to my dog does he not read this correctly? I have and do instigated play in his language, is this not part of the natural wsy?


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

shibby said:


> Oh sigh yourself! No one is venting their anger, although you seem a bit het up. It is a public forum and members will express themselves anyway they wish. You have no right to tell others how they should contribute to a discussion, get your own emotions in check. Intelligent?  And if you're referring to my post, it was not in response to you, so if you don't like it, don't read it, but I am entitled to my opinion.


I rest my case


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

I think there is a place for a certain amount of trying to communicate with animals in a "natural" way. In some cases it can be very effective, and calming signals may well be such an example.

That said, I do believe this method is limited, because we are human. We may be able to mimic certain behaviours fairly well, but are hopeless at most, and there are many we can not do at all - anything involving scent, tails, raised hackles etc is physically beyond us.

I also believe there is a risk with some things - if your attempt at calming signals has no effect, so be it (so long as you take no unnecessary risks), but get it wrong when trying to do something aversive, especially involving physical contact, and you could be in serious trouble.

As to whether or not animals understand us - to a certain extent I think they do, but again within certain limits. Some animals certainly learn a fair amount of human behaviour - dogs reacting positively to a toothy smile for example.

A little off topic though not entirely, for added interest, an example of each issue (being understood as a human and being understood when mimicking) in monkeys...

Monkeys, like other animals, do not smile in the way we as humans do. They have various open mouthed postures, may show teeth etc but they do not smile as a show of happiness.
In many cases, smiling at a monkey will elicit no response (it means nothing to them). In some it will elicit a fearful or aggressive response (if the show of teeth is seen as a threat display).
However, there have been cases of hand reared monkeys, having spent extensive time with humans but little to no time with other monkeys, that do indeed learn to smile as we do. These animals present a problem when they are reintroduced to other monkeys, as their usual appeasement or "happy" smile is seen as threatening.

Lip smacking is a common appeasement signal is certain monkey species. They will often use it to aggressive or higher ranking animals to defuse a stressful situation or prevent violence from occuring. Many monkeys will also use it on human carers.
As a human, lip smacking can appear to have a positive effect - many monkeys respond to it by doing it back, and often become bolder and will approach. They certainly seem to get the idea that you are not a threat.

Finally; where do you draw the line if you want to train in a natural way? Dogs do not naturally use technology or physical restraint - if you wanted to be truly natural in your approach you would not use a collar or lead of any sort, no electricity or spray, no clickers, no stair gates.
It always astounds me that some of the "yank and stomp" trainers advocating bitey hands, alpha rolls, etc because they are "natural" then rely on lead corrections, shocks, hitting and kicking....


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

lemmsy said:


> You use a muzzle holds with aggression cases!!!
> And haven't been bitten getting a dog to "shut up"?


Somone told me, their JRT nipped well into adolescence, and she was advised to use this muzzle grab, and it worked for them. I was quite surprised as he seemed quite sociable and politely playful with my Collie.

Now probably muzzle grab is not the most pleasant thing, and I don't see "nipping" as aggression more an inability to self-supress. So there's likely better ways addressing the root of the issue, rather than suprressing the symptoms, but I'm very sure there's far worse ways to deal with it.

Having seen how coarse grained the "aggression" diagnosis appears to be by some dog professionals, it may explain why they get away with it.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

I don't see what emotions have to do with the posts on this thread, to be honest. We are just imparting our knowledge and experience and as you say, a dog does know some of our body language, but a dog correcting another dog is a different matter. If you come up to a dog, especially one you do not know, with your teeth bared in a smile, how is he going to interpret that? You have to be circumspect with ways to communicate with a dog, some doggie language will work, some will just wind him up.

It is a fairly civil debate, as far as I can see, so I don't know what your beef is really. As Shibby has pointed out, you asked for opinions and that is what you are getting.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> Think you may need some calming signals yourself.....and breathe
> 
> The natural way, if I play bow to my dog does he not read this correctly? I have and do instigated play in his language, is this not part of the natural wsy?


Haven't we all done this a some point in our lives


----------



## shibby (Oct 3, 2010)

grandad said:


> I rest my case


Is it really that hard to ignore what I or any other member says if you think it is beneath your level of discussion? "it really is annoying when intelligent people want to have a discussion" *wipes tear from eye* Do I detect a bit of a superiority complex?

Regarding your original question "Can we as humans use these techniques to help us train and live in harmony with our dogs?" were the particular examples you used included being physical and growling, then the answer (from me) would be no. However, I am all for calming signals and their use has a positive effect on both our dogs.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

for example

*


newfiesmum said:



Isn't that because you are a few feet away with your remote control?

Click to expand...

*


newfiesmum said:


> What "everything is stress" are you talking about? Calming signals are not the only body language that dogs possess - they have different body language for different states of mind, some of them stressful situations, some of them not.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't see what emotions have to do with the posts on this thread, to be honest. We are just imparting our knowledge and experience and as you say, a dog does know some of our body language, but a dog correcting another dog is a different matter. If you come up to a dog, especially one you do not know, with your teeth bared in a smile, how is he going to interpret that? You have to be circumspect with ways to communicate with a dog, some doggie language will work, some will just wind him up.
> 
> It is a fairly civil debate, as far as I can see, so I don't know what your beef is really. As Shibby has pointed out, you asked for opinions and that is what you are getting.


Opinions are fine and welcome. Personal attacks I abhor.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Adam Palmer said:


> I use the muzzle grab to silence an attention seeking dog, without giving it attention!


No you are silencing an attention seeking dog, by giving it attention of a kind it does not like.

To not give a dog attention, you ignore it.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

grandad said:


> Opinions are fine and welcome. Personal attacks I abhor.


What personal attacks are you referring to?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Adam Palmer said:


> Either way I'm stopping the noise and not reinforcing the behaviour.
> 
> Adam


Of course you are reinforcing the behaviour. The dog wants attention, you are giving it to him. Doesn't matter what the attention is, he is still getting it.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

I agree with ignoring dog, Fold arms look the other way until it controls itself. I believe that dogs have the intelligence to have self control and good manners. So usiing body language or the body to block bad manners until self control has been adopted by the dog is a method of training that I think can work in an everyday situation. For example charging through doors ahead of the human, a body block or several until the dog waits calmlly until it is invited through the door is more natural.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> What personal attacks are you referring to?


The personal slight on Adam Palmer quote "your not very far from your remote control"

Does something like that really have to be said in this context. I thought that remote collar issue had been dealt with in another thread. It's because of remarks like that, I really cannot take you seriously. Are these comments an dcomment like them really for a public arena. How would the house of commons look or the house of lords look, if our peers carried on like that. Why not take them off line and write the guy a letter telling him what you think of him and get it off your chest once and for all.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> It is a fairly civil debate, as far as I can see, so I don't know what your beef is really. As Shibby has pointed out, you asked for opinions and that is what you are getting.


The actual problem is shibby disagreed with the guy grandad joined the forum to support, they seem to share a fascination with gadgets. It's blowing smoke, an attempt to control the flow of debate.

Compared to what some other people have got away with, actual personal abuse, shibby's critical opinion hardly rates as "personal attack".

Hopefully the mods will start to see why, other forums took action. Until then expect acrimony and much time wasting.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

grandad said:


> How would the house of commons look or the house of lords look, if our peers carried on like that


People who have hissy fits get laughed at there!


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> The actual problem is shibby disagreed with the guy grandad joined the forum to support, they seem to share a fascination with gadgets. It's blowing smoke, an attempt to control the flow of debate.
> 
> Compared to what some other people have got away with, actual personal abuse, shibby's critical opinion hardly rates as "personal attack".
> 
> Hopefully the mods will start to see why, other forums took action. Until then expect acrimony and much time wasting.


Oh please, please grow up. Support the guy? hardly. there is a faction on here though that seems to get a little anal when there is other opinion around that is not to their liking.

I found this site a few days ago, contributed in hope of being educated on a subject I was interested in learning about, and do you know what, I never really felt at home here, so to each their own. Grandad has brought up well behaved dogs without the childish people on here before and will do so again in the future.


----------



## PennyH (Dec 30, 2008)

I have found that stroking my pup's neck very gently calms him - this is something mother dogs do isn't it? Gently holding the pup by it's scruff. So I suppose that is a natural way of calming him.

Why do these discussions always escalate into personal attacks?
:::


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Colette said:


> That said, I do believe this method is limited, because we are human. We may be able to mimic certain behaviours fairly well, but are hopeless at most, and there are many we can not do at all - anything involving scent, tails, raised hackles etc is physically beyond us.
> ..
> I also believe there is a risk with some things - if your attempt at calming signals has no effect, so be it (so long as you take no unnecessary risks), but get it wrong when trying to do something aversive, especially involving physical contact, and you could be in serious trouble


Interestingly dogs greet humans with that bottom lip grin, imitating a smile I suppose, aren't they clever, trying to communicate with us. Also they have adapted to focus on the more communicative side of our faces, it has been shown.

Quite agree on the benefit of fail safe approaches, it beats me why so many have an instinctive appeal to immediately choose a fairly extreme measure, something disproportionate.

What is unnatural about those forceful trainers, is their sheer beligerence. Quite why physically forcing the dog to do something, it would happily do for you, if you were more subtle is beyond me. Perhaps there's a personality disorder that attracts those who enjoy coercion, and they find a generally accepted outlet against dogs.

What's also funny, is how persistently stupid Humans are, I saw a group say "No!" to their exciteable yappy dogs, which they were foolish enough to put, where everyone had to pass about 200 times, over one meal in a garden. Did they once think of asking the dog to lie down, or do anything different, nope... Quite a few ppl around were observing, that the people were effectively "barking".


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

grandad said:


> The personal slight on Adam Palmer quote "your not very far from your remote control"
> 
> Does something like that really have to be said in this context. I thought that remote collar issue had been dealt with in another thread. It's because of remarks like that, I really cannot take you seriously. Are these comments an dcomment like them really for a public arena. How would the house of commons look or the house of lords look, if our peers carried on like that. Why not take them off line and write the guy a letter telling him what you think of him and get it off your chest once and for all.


There was nothing personal about it, and as you say you have nothing to do with Palmer, I don't see why you should take offence. The remote collar discussion has not been dealt with in any way, shape or form, and he was the one who brought the discussion into the forum, not me. Am I supposed to disregard every other post he has made when answering this one? That is asking too much.

Whether you take me seriously or not is irrelevant.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

grandad said:


> Oh please, please grow up


That looks like the rankest hypocrisy!

grandad, you cannot have your cake and eat it. Your very first forum post involved terms like "psycho babble", and then you moaned about "emotive responses" that you actually provoked.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Anyway.......

I think this is an interesting topic and I don't think its possible to totally discount the value of signaling in our daily lives with other species.

But its also difficult to ascertain truly what is going on - how much of our signaling speaks (excuse the pun) to some innate ability to respond to universal canine signals from a human or is it their canny ability to form associations with our behaviour that we are not even consciously aware of?

Communication is an unbelieveably complex area of study among anthropologists, psychologists, ethologists and so on. There are universal species typical signals (e.g. eyebrow flashes among humans) and whether or not these translate and elicit the same responses within interspecies communication is up for much debate.
There are several well studied examples of interspecies communication that have developed naturally e.g. displays indicating mutual, cooperative behaviours such as those between tiger groupers and cleaner wrasse or even honeyguide birds and humans.
Domestic dogs have been somewhat ignored when it comes to studying cognitive ethology as they are seen as having been morphed and moulded to human purpose - but that is changing thankfully.

In recent years there has been some work on domestic dogs' ability to read so called human signaling such as eye line, pointing etc. Eyeline is an important one - humans are unusual among primates in that we have much white to our eyes so it seems to emphasise eye line. Work from some of the 'canine cognition' labs have highlighted just how in tune our dogs are with humans.
This is no doubt as a result of our extensive history alongside dogs. As such their evolution has been heavily affected by this relationship and it is thought that our evolution has also been shaped as a reuslt of having paired up with truly the most amazing creature on the planet.

Regardless of whether dogs respond innately to human signaling (dog like and universally human) or whether its learned (no thick black line between the two) there seems to be some use to it.
It seems that us using doggie signaling may not be as important as dogs seem to be pretty well tuned in to our human signaling 


I don't know if vocalisations have the same impact but certainly its easy to see that visual signaling is very influential when it comes to dog-human communication.
I know Suzanne Clothier has written about using a growly voice but as with any time 'tone of voice' is used by humans I have to wonder how much "meaning" is attached to the sound or is it just sufficiently intimidating to give the appearance of compliance.

Because of the possibility of 'misunderstanding' I think its important to attach real meanings to signals we use with our dogs through conditioning. Especially when it comes to using potentially aversive signaling. The extent to which physical reprimands are used and the escalation, thresholds and general restraint exhibited by canids should also be looked at. 

Signaling isn't just about reading one body part so a message isn't necessarily complete by attempting to interpret signaling by looking at just lip licking or just ear position or whatever. We obviously will have trouble emulating that being very different in morphology. 

Early imprinting will also have an impact.

'Natural way' doesn't really cut it for me as it means too many different things and therefore doesn't really mean too muich at all  
But certainly our dogs will have some sort of exposure history to human signaling and therefore there is value in communicating with dogs in this way - whether that's down to having an innate 'understanding' or just years and generations of living and learning with humans is up for debate.

Patricia McConnell uses lots of body cues such as body blocks and turning away too. But these are certainly not the only tools to be used when it comes to training and communicating with dogs.

Sorry for the ramble, just typing as I think :tongue_smilie:


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

tripod said:


> I know Suzanne Clothier has written about using a growly voice but as with any time 'tone of voice' is used by humans I have to wonder how much "meaning" is attached to the sound or is it just sufficiently intimidating to give the appearance of compliance


I've found a quiet growly noise, does seem to get through, when done to anticipate a Collie nipping behaviour in an exciting fast moving situation, like running alongside a cycle. Freddie looks up and distances just enough, to avoid doing what he's trying not to do, if I let him complete the nip, it's a slow motion ritual gentle grip, though obviously moving at speed any physical tooth contact risks some pain due to the canines.

A happy pleased tone, seems to reinforce desirable polite movement at speed.
I would not say the "growly voice" punishes the behaviour, just more interrupts it and gets distance. What does punish the nipping, is the postive-reinforcement of what I like.

With Freddie, encouraging him to do something is key, and suppressing unwanted behaviour is very futile, so many I am sure would label him as "stubborn".


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Adam Palmer said:


> If it was reinforcing the behaviour the behaviour would not be reduced/stopped!
> 
> Ignoring can work but the dog will go through a nosiy extinction burst (which may not be appreciated by the neighbours or you) and will experience stress/frustration that its not working, by making the dog be quiet I created rewardable behaviour straight away.
> 
> It probably also establishes that I'm top dog and not to be pushed around


I agree, you punished the noisy behaviour in at least the very short term. I think you risk having the dog shun you, showing avoidance behaviour however.

Having seen fair bit of adolescent dog doing "pushy" attention seeking barking when excited, I can say ignoring them totally tends to create rewardable behaviour rather quickly.

I have to disagree on the effects of coercion, being less stressful, I do not want sullen reluctant compliance or nervousness. I like a happy dog relaxed or eager for action, offering a calm behaviour like sitting, because I rewarded that in past it tends to occur rather quickly. It works on other ppl's dogs to, who seem to be highly motivated for positive attention, because of having a good time on a previous meet. Most owners are too slow to notice good behaviour when they have it, so they become in effect guards; rather than enjoy a true partnership.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Adam Palmer said:


> Either way I'm stopping the noise and not reinforcing the behaviour.
> 
> Adam


Yeah, by using an aversive in 'training'. Again, what's the rush? Is a dog on death row because he attention seeks? Well, we'll have to put them all on death row then, waiting for you to come and muzzle grab because you can't teach a behaviour from scratch. :nono:


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Adam Palmer said:


> If it was reinforcing the behaviour the behaviour would not be reduced/stopped!
> 
> Ignoring can work but the dog will go through a nosiy extinction burst (which may not be appreciated by the neighbours or you) and will experience stress/frustration that its not working, by making the dog be quiet I created rewardable behaviour straight away.
> 
> ...


By allowing a dog to go through extinction bursts, and finding out for themselves what we want of them and reinforcing the desired behaviour, we train in a much happier, positive manner and training is a lot more consistent. Using a muzzle grab may result in behavioural fallout and the next time a child reaches out to the dog when it's excited, it could get bitten. It's happened before and it won't be the last.

*Touching a dog should be an earned privilege.*


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

Newfiesmum
hence the outdated theory of being your dog's pack leader.
|
SleepyBones
No your out of date, you mean the Bristol study.

I understand your mistake, Bristols publicity about that study was very tabloid style but they missed out the most important thing in their release, the actual data & sampling was never published by any of the free net public media or the Bristol University web site release, no mention at all of the data.

Then someone found out about that study and the almost unpublished Cordoba University study which involved high quality sampling methods. They have come under a tremendous amout of criticism because they kept 19 dogs homeless at the dogs trust for 6 months

As a result of the abysmal Bristol sampeling that stuudy is not a valid study on dominance, it's discredited, your not the only one who was mislead.

Heres video exposures of both Bristol & Cordoba University studies WITH the data (easy to understand).
YouTube - 1.Bristol University vs Cordoba University. Dr John Bradshaw, Bringing UK Science Into Disrepute?

.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Newfiesmum
> hence the outdated theory of being your dog's pack leader.
> |
> SleepyBones
> ...


I'm a bit unsure what your point is with this post. Dr Bradshaw's study analysed the usefulness of utilizing the concept of dominance to describe behaviours in domestic dogs, using data from wild wolf packs as well as feral dog groups, in addition to domestic dogs. He concluded that the common concept of 'dominance' is not useful in describing behaviours like resource guarding as it does not account for the dynamic nature of these contexts. Instead, the Resource Holding Potential was put forward.

Perez-Guisado & Munoz-Serrano's study looked at the factors involved in territorial aggression. It was concluded that, quite simply, "Territorial aggression depends on modifiable factors connected to the owner (environmental factors) and non-modifiable factors connected to the dog." (2009: 1416), namely if the dog has been exposed to obedience training, has a favourite toy etc., as well as the guarding breeds have a greater propensity to become aggressive. What's more, territorial aggressive bites seem to be inflicted on strangers and they were placed on upper and lower limbs in adults (an adult reaching out or standing up, most probably) and around the head and neck with children (because it was the closer place). This data indicates territorial aggression originates in fear and that the dogs who demonstrate aggression have not been socialised well with strangers. There is hardly any mention of dominance aggression, and the one time it is mentioned, there is no definition given or real discussion about it, other than "Results confirm that as well as for dominant aggression, for territorial-aggression the decreasing order in English Cocker Spaniel is also golden, black and finally particolour" (2009: 1415).

So what has this to do pack dynamics and dogs seeing us as being their pack leader?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Newfiesmum
> hence the outdated theory of being your dog's pack leader.
> |
> SleepyBones
> ...


No, I am not out of date. I am talking about the original study with captive wolves carried out about 60 years ago or even more and discredited even by the person who came up with the theory. Apart from that I have no idea what you are talking about.



Rottiefan said:


> I'm a bit unsure what your point is with this post. Dr Bradshaw's study analysed the usefulness of utilizing the concept of dominance to describe behaviours in domestic dogs, using data from wild wolf packs as well as feral dog groups, in addition to domestic dogs. He concluded that the common concept of 'dominance' is not useful in describing behaviours like resource guarding as it does not account for the dynamic nature of these contexts. Instead, the Resource Holding Potential was put forward.
> 
> Perez-Guisado & Munoz-Serrano's study looked at the factors involved in territorial aggression. It was concluded that, quite simply, "Territorial aggression depends on modifiable factors connected to the owner (environmental factors) and non-modifiable factors connected to the dog." (2009: 1416), namely if the dog has been exposed to obedience training, has a favourite toy etc., as well as the guarding breeds have a greater propensity to become aggressive. What's more, territorial aggressive bites seem to be inflicted on strangers and they were placed on upper and lower limbs in adults (an adult reaching out or standing up, most probably) and around the head and neck with children (because it was the closer place). This data indicates territorial aggression originates in fear and that the dogs who demonstrate aggression have not been socialised well with strangers. There is hardly any mention of dominance aggression, and the one time it is mentioned, there is no definition given or real discussion about it, other than "Results confirm that as well as for dominant aggression, for territorial-aggression the decreasing order in English Cocker Spaniel is also golden, black and finally particolour" (2009: 1415).
> 
> So what has this to do pack dynamics and dogs seeing us as being their pack leader?


Absolutely sod all apparently!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

if U refer to the same study/ journal-published article by Cordoba Univ that extolled aggression to treat aggro, 
their references were 30 and more years old, by & large - and i thought it was a really shabby 'study'.

this of course presumes we refer to the same *study - * so including a link to the abstract would be appreciated. 
:001_smile: thanks in advance, 
- terry


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

so including a link to the abstract would be appreciated. 
thanks in advance, 


The link to thew free download is in the video at end of the cordoba study

.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

SleepyBones - I'm almost speechless; watching that link I couldn't decide whether I was annoyed, amused or just bored! Is this seriously intended to back up your argument?

1) The Spanish study claims to have selceted dogs in a random way, yet 
"every breed studied had a minimum of 4 dogs". So not random then - they had to select dogs of a certain breed to fit their criteria.

2) Without knowing all the details, I still can not comment on how accurate this study was.

For example, the term "dominance aggression" is used. Are we sure about that? Could the aggression have been fear based, either due to a lack of socialisation or an aversive event in the dogs past? Could it have been resource guarding - very common and nothing to do with dominance?

Who decided that these were in fact cases of dominance aggression as opposed to any other sort? Or was it simply assumed that they were - which would suggest a definite bias.

The clip also claims that there was a correlation between a lack of obedience training and aggression. That may well be - but what has that got to do with either dominance, or the use of aversives? Obedience training can be conducted perfectly well using humane methods and positive reinforcement without the eed for physical punishment.

3) The Bristol study is criticised because they selected dogs fitting a specific criteria and kept them in kennels. Oh no, quick, lets tell all the scientists they've been doing it wrong for years!

It is usual when conducting a scientific study to reduce all other variables as much as possible, save for those you are looking at. If you do not, it is much more difficult to accurately determine causation.

For example - you want to know if food A or food B causes more weight gain, so you feed one group food A and the other food B. If you do not restrict the other variables (eg treats, exercise, etc) your results would be meaningless.

4) I'm not sure why the APBC member is being targetted. Thousands of dogs are destroyed for behavioural reasons every year. Many will have seen trainers, or "whisperers" etc. Some may have seen qualified behaviourists. 

Should we perhaps consider all the "yank and stomp" or "dominance" based trainers who have failed the dogs they tried to treat? They exist too you know.

Not to mention, the decision to PTS rests with the owner. Perhaps they failed to carry out the plan correctly, or simply could not be bothered. I don't know. Neither, I suspect, do you.

So really, all we have is a Spanish study that doesn't appear to prove dominance theory or the need for abusive methods, a British study that does appear to do so being ridiculed for no clear reason, and a witch hunt against a single behaviourist.
All neatly packaged in a tedious, biased and downright offensive clip that I regret wasting 10 minutes of my life watching.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Have been watching some of your other vids, Sleeping Bones- if the original one is actually by you.

You do seem to have a thing with professional organisations and give no reason why, other than that a trainer has caused harm. This is not a stereotype of the organisations.

For those wanting to read the Spanish study, here's the link:
Factors Linked to Territorial Aggression in Dogs


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

(goes to YouTube) Good god!! What invective! Who will take that seriously, when they get to the "Dept of Baloney" section. Makes the complaint about shibby's criticism of shock collar, look like total hypocrisy!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

YouTube - Clicker training a heel with a 10 week old American Bulldog

a 10-WO AmBull learning to heel off-leash - she wears a drag just in case, they are working in an indoor equine arena, 
& running off to harass a horse could get her hurt.


----------

