# Leerburg (not for Squeamish)



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

LuvMyDog_Worldwide said:


> Isn't that what we all try to do? Some of us are trying to address the -R/+P... but that seems to be a taboo subject


Don't think this is taboo at all, I've posted many times link to an effective "correction" strategy and Dunbar covers it to, if you listen to him YouTube - Effective Dog Training - Ian Dunbar.

Lets look at material by someone who has a "balanced" philosophy (he claims) and see if you think it's going to be pleasant, safe & effective for the average pet owner :

Ed Frawley's Philosophy on Dog Training
Leerburg | The Theory of Corrections in Dog Training
Dog body language resources (Sticky Thread on Dog Body Language or watch something like YouTube - Zoom Room Guide to Dog Body Language
Now listen to the expert and later on look at his own dog being filmed with him in own home, where the dog ought to be happy & relaxed - Leerburg | Dominant Dog Collar

To me the complexity of the method and the results of this "balanced" expert philosophy are very evident, compare with YouTube - kikopup The Lawrence Frederick Trick!- clicker dog training.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

I've looked up Leerburg many many times for information etc. I signed up to get his regualr emails actually and some of them are very informative to me anyways. I might not like everything he does, but its good to know.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

for many years, Leerberg was a toxic-zone for anybody who trained with reward-based methods. 
Ed Frawley had repeatedly & publicly bashed clickers or food in training, & only the sleeve in Schutz/bitesports 
was, it seemed, an acceptable toy-reward - something to trophy after yanking it off the decoy-person.

recently, Ed has been corrupted :lol: by Michael Ellis, who has chops-enuf to not be laughed off, & Ed has 
begun to sell DVDs which feature *clicker-training... *  Shock & awe! :w00t: incredible...

Ed still firmly believes in punish-during-proofing or once the basics are well-begun, so it is not an entire 
makeover of his beliefs in dog-training, but for Frawley who was for decades a staunch advocate of force, 
the very apostle of coercion, it is an earthshaking change. So while his site is still full of lava-pits for the 
unwary visitor, & he still thinks *dominance ** is a 'character trait' in many dogs, it's no longer 
entirely coercion, aversives & _*U will - or else...*_ from lesson-1, day-1.

 i'd still be very careful when navigating his website.

** dominance:* 
- is about resources 
- is an event between 2 conspecifics 
*deference* is IMO a far-more important concept & appears more often in dogs' everyday lives.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> recently, Ed has been corrupted by Michael Ellis, who has chops-enuf to not be laughed off


Michael Ellis is a big fan of Ecollars. He gives seminars on their use all over the world. His videos on their use are on the list of Leerburg's biggest sellers.



leashedForLife said:


> ** dominance:*
> - is about resources


*Dominance * is at play anytime two dogs are in the same space. That space can be as large as a football field or as small as a closet.

One dog does not lower his head the other does. One dog sniffs the other's butt the other allows it. One dog gets his lips licked the other dog does the licking. One dog keeps his tail higher, the other dog carries his tail lower. In each case the first dog is exhibiting his dominance and the second dog is exhibiting his submission. There are lots more signals than this but these are the most obvious ones.

Dominance and submission are involved in every interaction that takes place between dogs as well as in every interaction of dogs with humans. Dominance and submission are NOT just about resources but they are often involved. Some dogs are dominant about some resources and submissive about others. It's rare that a dog is always dominant about all resources.



leashedForLife said:


> - is an event between 2 conspecifics


Dominance and submission occur between dogs and humans, not just animals of the same species. People who think that it only occurs between animals of the same species have probably never encountered a truly dominant dog. They're very rare but do exist and are dangerous to be around.



leashedForLife said:


> *deference* is IMO a far-more important concept & appears more often in dogs' everyday lives.


Deference is a synonym for "submission." It does not occur without dominance. Just like the concept of outside does not occur without the concept of inside.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

deference is not a synonym for 'submission', which has a very clear definition in behavior science - 
just like *dominance*, which is about *resources,* occurs between *conspecifics,* is an *event* 
not a character-trait or personality-type, & if it is part of a hierarchical social structure, is *consistent*: 
if a hierarchy exists, dog-A is 'always' or over-85% of the time in control of any resource; 
dog-B only gets what s/he is permitted by dog-A.

submissive behavior occurs in many more contexts than *dominance*, it can be active [ingunial exposure, 
licking the dominant canine's lips or jaw, etc] or passive - crouch & pee, sink down & turn one's head away, etc. 
*puppies* often display both active & passive submission to a strange adult-dog; it reduces aggro toward 
vulnerable pups & is a clear behavioral signal of their youth.

*deference* for the unitiated is the *negotiated settling of differences, often over resources - * 
in order to avoid *conflict.* dogs are not keen on conflict, they invest considerable time & effort to avoid 
physical fights... which is why they have that extensive grammar of body-language & posture, specifically 
to reduce the chances of a fight without a bloody-good reason - signaling comes first, only if that fails 
does a fight ensue [normally - there are those dogs who love to fight, ignore signals & simply attack others; 
such dogs will even attack puppies, which is very abnormal. Blessedly, their numbers are few.]

*deference* is familiar to anyone who lives with more than one dog, or sees dogs interact freely with toys, 
food, treats, etc; it's also called *differential allocation of resources*, but i think U'll agree that deference 
is handier for use.  any 2 dogs agree between them that X is for one, & Y is for the other: one dog loves stuffies 
& squeaky-toys passionately, the other is a maniac about any ball or frisbee - whenever there's one or the other, 
*the dog who wants it less, defers to the dog who wants it more.*

very simple, very effective, & even stranger-dogs can negotiate in a matter of seconds: 
2 dogs on the beach, one dog's owner has flung a ball, which floats by the other dog, swimming. 
that dog picks it up, turns for the beach, & the dog to whom it 'belongs' intercepts her on the beach. 
rapid signals, the dog with the ball drops it, the ball-owning dog triumphantly trots off to return it 
& continue the game; no bloodshed, no long-drawn point-by-point diplomatic hoohah at a long table - 
simple, safe, rapid.

*deference* is much-more fluid & flexible than dominance; deference can be renegotiated endlessly, 
on the fly with housemates, on the moment with strangers, it can change by the hour - or be consistent 
for years on end, as Sneakers *always* gets the squeaky-toys & Ginger *always* gets the ball. 
dogs in the same household tend to have pretty consistent deference patterns about things truly important 
to them, & more variable deference over stuff that they don't really care much about.

deference is about what matters, & how much it matters to this individual, compared 
to that one; they negotiate to decide who gets what, based on who *wants it most*.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Michael Ellis is a big fan of Ecollars. He gives seminars on their use all over the world. His videos on their use are on the list of Leerburg's biggest sellers


Here we go again, mods! What did Lou say yesterday? Wasn't true was it?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> deference is not a synonym for 'submission', which has a very clear definition in behavior science -


I find it fascinating that some folks want to avoid the language of operant conditioning because they claim that it's not needed by and is confusing to the average pet owner (whatever that means) and then a few moments later *practically demand *that lay people, (for whom this is written) use the language of _"behavior science."_ FOR ALL PRACTICAL purposes deference is the same as submission.



leashedForLife said:


> just like *dominance*, which is about *resources * occurs between *conspecifics,* is an *event*


Except that it occurs between all animals that a dog comes into contact with (and contact is not limited to physical contact) including other dogs, humans and prey animals. Dominance is NOT an event, it is a state of mind. Each contact could be considered to be an event in which a given dog will either be dominant or submissive.



leashedForLife said:


> not a character-trait or personality-type, & if it is part of a hierarchical social structure, is *consistent*:
> if a hierarchy exists, dog-A is 'always' or over-85% of the time in control of any resource;
> dog-B only gets what s/he is permitted by dog-A.


Dominance can be consistent, but it rarely is. A dog may keep others away from his food bowl but not give a toss if someone (and this can be another dog or a human) plays with a toy.



leashedForLife said:


> submissive behavior occurs in many more contexts than *dominance*,


Submissive behavior only occurs when another dog exhibits dominance. It's impossible for it to exist in a vacuum. This display does not have to be one of aggression. Usually it's quite subtle. It can merely be the way that the dominant dog stands and carries himself. It can be established with a glance.



leashedForLife said:


> it can be active [ingunial exposure, licking the dominant canine's lips or jaw, etc]


As I said, this licking can't occur if the dominant dog is not present!



leashedForLife said:


> or passive - crouch & pee, sink down & turn one's head away, etc. *puppies* often display both active & passive submission to a strange adult-dog; it reduces aggro toward vulnerable pups & is a clear behavioral signal of their youth.


Ditto. Dogs don't do these things when another dog (or human) is not present. MANY of us have had the experience of an extremely submissive dog peeing when we approach or bend over the top of him. Yet, here we have someone saying that it does not occur across species, only within them. This behavior is obvious.



leashedForLife said:


> *deference* for the unitiated is the *negotiated settling of differences, often over resources - in order to avoid conflict.*


Anyone who has a couple of dogs knows better. *There is no "negotiation." * If the dog is dominant in the situation, he is in charge, and the other dog knows it to he may soon be reminded of it. In the case where the submissive dog (at this moment and regarding this situation) picks up a chew toy and starts chewing on it; the dog that is dominant at that moment regarding that toy will see this, stand up, show some body language that displays his dominance and walk towards the dog with the toy. The submissive dog will drop the toy and move away from it with his head low, displaying his submission. In extreme circumstances he may even show his submission by rolling onto his back exposing his groin. The dominant dog may take the toy or he may leave it. The choice is his and that's clear. There is no _"negotiation,"_ the dominant dog simply displays his dominance and does as he pleases.

Occasionally there will be mock battle with lots of growling and showing of teeth but it's extremely rare that there are injuries from this. VERY rarely there will be real combat, when there is a lack of submission from the mock combat. In some cases neither dog is dominant at that moment or regarding that situation and neither one cares who has what toy. They may even chew on the opposite ends of the same toy. Some dogs may even feed from the same bowl at the same time.



leashedForLife said:


> dogs are not keen on conflict ...


The problem here is that you use the term _"conflict"_ to mean only _'physical fights."_ There is far more to conflict than just physical fights. Dominance and submission have conflict at their base, but it has nothing to do with physical fights. In fact, it's about the avoidance of physical fights.

But since you bring this up, there are some dogs that enjoy combat and physical fights. We prize them in police and military patrol work. But there are a few such dogs in the pet world as well. Scum who fight their dogs also value this when it's directed against other dogs. Some of these dogs love combat and don't care whether it's with another dog, a human or whatever comes down the road.



leashedForLife said:


> *deference* is familiar to anyone who lives with more than one dog ... , or sees dogs interact freely with toys, food, treats, etc; it's also called *differential allocation of resources*, but i think U'll agree that deference is handier for use.


Actually, "dominance" and "submission" are _"handier."_ lol



leashedForLife said:


> any 2 dogs agree between them that X is for one, & Y is for the other: one dog loves stuffies & squeaky-toys passionately, the other is a maniac about any ball or frisbee - whenever there's one or the other, *the dog who wants it less, defers to the dog who wants it more.*


ROFL. This * does not happen. * Dogs don't _decide _ that one is going to take the _"stuffies"_ and the other will take the _"squeaky toys."_ the dominant dog takes whichever he likes (sometimes both) and the submissive dog takes what is left, if anything. If the dominant dog is busy elsewhere, the submissive dog may take possession of the other dog's toys. But as soon as he shows up and the dominant dog decides that he again wants it, he'll take it. It's important to remember that who is dominant about what can vary and it can change as well. It's rare that one dog is dominant about everything.



leashedForLife said:


> very simple, very effective, & even stranger-dogs can negotiate in a matter of seconds


There's no negotiation going on. That implies some give and take. It's obvious that what happens is that the dog that is dominant at that moment (and this can change from moment to moment and with various toy) displays his dominance and the other dog displays his submission.



leashedForLife said:


> 2 dogs on the beach, one dog's owner has flung a ball, which floats by the other dog, swimming. that dog picks it up, turns for the beach, & the dog to whom it 'belongs' intercepts her on the beach. rapid signals, the dog with the ball drops it, the ball-owning dog triumphantly trots off to return it & continue the game; no *bloodshed *


No one has said a word about _"bloodshed."_ It's extremely rare. Usually there's an exchange of glances. Sometimes it get drawn out for a few seconds and there's some posturing, but rarely more than that.



leashedForLife said:


> , no long-drawn point-by-point diplomatic hoohah at a long table - simple, safe, rapid.


Yes, we know. This _"diplomatic hoohah"_ is negotiation. It doesn't happen.



leashedForLife said:


> *deference* is much-more fluid & flexible than dominance


Since deference is a synonym in common language for submission it's just as _"fluid"_ as dominance.



leashedForLife said:


> deference can be renegotiated endlessly, on the fly with housemates, on the moment with strangers, it can change by the hour - or be consistent for years on end


Except that there's no negotiation. The dominant dog decides what he wants and what he wants to do. Then he takes it or does it.



leashedForLife said:


> as Sneakers *always* gets the squeaky-toys & Ginger *always* gets the ball. dogs in the same household tend to have pretty consistent deference patterns about things truly important to them, & more variable deference over stuff that they don't really care much about.


Yep, different dogs at different times are dominant about certain things. With other things, they don't care and allow the other dog to do as he pleases.



leashedForLife said:


> deference is about what matters, & how much it matters to this individual, compared to that one; they negotiate to decide who gets what, based on who *wants it most*.


* Dominance and submission * are about what matters, & how much it matters to this individual, compared to that one; *The dominant dog *in any given situation decides who gets what, based on *what he wants, doesn't want or doesn't care about*.

One does not get submission (deference if you insist) without dominance. In this context, a dog can't defer (submit) to an entity that is not present.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Here we go again, mods! What did Lou say yesterday? Wasn't true was it?


What I said yesterday (and before as well) was that I don't go into discussions about the so−called "kinder gentler methods" and badmouth those methods. This isn't about the so−called "kinder gentler methods," it's about dominance and submission. That comment about Mr. Ellis was just a side note. Get over yourself.

Anything to add to the topic?


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> recently, Ed has been corrupted :lol: by Michael Ellis, who has chops-enuf to not be laughed off, & Ed has
> begun to sell DVDs which feature *clicker-training... *  Shock & awe! :w00t: incredible...


I attended a seminar with him once. A good trainer, could still evolve some more as he occasionally veers off into the dominance myth


----------

