# The scary scope of the Alpha concept



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Had an interview for a postgraduate course today and we got onto the topic of canine behaviour and, naturally, the two opposing camps of thought: Alpha/dominance advocates and PRT advocates, which I'm sure everyone is aware of. 

Well, he told me about a bad experience of his with a dog, where it bit him in the face. To which he explained was because the dog thought it was Alpha! I explained that 1) this idea of a dog using aggression purely to show its rank is silly as, on pure evolutionary terms, it is a complete waste of energy and time, for which the dog could end up being hurt themselves and 2) there are many other factors that he or the dog's owners probably missed, like was the dog under stress or was the victim looming over the dog etc. He then went on to describe the two owners and how they reacted. The woman apparently treating the dog like a baby and the man immediately slapped the dog hard, which the victim thinks is the best course of action as it demotes the dog. I never thought that the person who was interviewing me could be so out of tune with simple learning theory. Granted, he wasn't an expert in dog behaviour but was a Dr of ecology and, thus, I thought he would know something about the topic. 

I found this quite bewildering and am shocked at how far the Alpha concept has spread and is applied to any aggressive attacks like the one the man was a victim of. Especially amongst professionals. :mad2:


----------



## Fuzzy_moo (Mar 9, 2011)

I'll be honest, I'm no expert as you would know from the problems I'm having with Amy. I don't know what to believe, there is obviously a clear divide of some people believeing dominance exsists and others believing it doesn't.

I only ponder the question of the happy medium. The first behaviourist I had believed there was no such thing as dominance and the third one I had completely believed there was dominance and beating the dog was the way to solve any problem. The second behaviourist acknowledged dominance but believed in positive reinforcements as well. It is this method (at this present time) that has got Amy from attacking every dog, to only attacking a dog once in a while.

So from my experiences at the moment, it seems there could be a happy balance between the two maybe. I'm sure many will disagree, I'm not sure what I think, but I just beg the question of whether there is a happy medium or not.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Dominance exists in many animals- in the sense that they use force and aggression continuously to maintain relationships with other animals. E.g. One male sea lion fighting another for mating privileges, and as a result that one sea lion will mate with all the females. However, in canines, including wolves, there is a much more subtle hierarchy involved. Packs are family groupings, with the parents having a natural control over their offspring. This is not a definition of a dominance relationship. In domestic dogs, it could be argued that since dogs rarely stay in family groupings, if ever, there could be linear, dominance hierarchies. However, we have seen that dogs do not go around vying for power and that positive reinforcement methods have a much larger success rate than any force-based punishment methods. 

There is fierce debate about this, but I think we need to stick with the current beliefs and, as it stands, you'd have a hard job finding any professional, qualified dog behaviourist who advocates these methods.


----------



## Fuzzy_moo (Mar 9, 2011)

I managed to find two of them within a few years! Only I could manage to do that :sad:


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Good point. I might have been idealising the situation, but people who have went through formal qualifications (like from the APDT etc.,) will be strongly advised against these methods and philosophies.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Rottiefan said:


> Had an interview for a postgraduate course today and we got onto the topic of canine behaviour and, naturally, the two opposing camps of thought: Alpha/dominance advocates and PRT advocates, which I'm sure everyone is aware of.
> 
> Well, he told me about a bad experience of his with a dog, where it bit him in the face. To which he explained was because the dog thought it was Alpha! I explained that 1) this idea of a dog using aggression purely to show its rank is silly as, on pure evolutionary terms, it is a complete waste of energy and time, for which the dog could end up being hurt themselves and 2) there are many other factors that he or the dog's owners probably missed, like was the dog under stress or was the victim looming over the dog etc. He then went on to describe the two owners and how they reacted. The woman apparently treating the dog like a baby and the man immediately slapped the dog hard, which the victim thinks is the best course of action as it demotes the dog. I never thought that the person who was interviewing me could be so out of tune with simple learning theory. Granted, he wasn't an expert in dog behaviour but was a Dr of ecology and, thus, I thought he would know something about the topic.
> 
> I found this quite bewildering and am shocked at how far the Alpha concept has spread and is applied to any aggressive attacks like the one the man was a victim of. Especially amongst professionals. :mad2:


Did you get a place? Did you want one? No wonder the poor dog bit somebody; he must be so confused. On the one hand you have some idiot hitting him and on the other you have some silly woman reinforcing his behaviour with cuddles, both for the same action. The poor canine is probably schizophrenic.

Dogs might fight or dominate among each other over resources, and one dog might get his message across and win the prize, but that is not a permanent state. Given another resource, the other dog might be the one to win. And the idea of a pack leader between different species is laughable, or would be if it were not for people like Fuzzy Moo who have suffered because of it.

Fuzzy Moo, if what you are doing is working for you, then carry on doing it. But rest assured, he isn't even noticing who eats first or who goes through doors first - why should he?

Many years ago, when the pack leader theory was well established, I had a trainer out. She was only young and very good. She went through all the pack leader rubbish about eating first, etc, but she never mentioned the word dominance and everything was done with treats and praise. I still use a lot of her methods today, as they fit in well with today's thinking, but without the pack leader stuff.

So, you can have it both ways.


----------



## Jonesey (Dec 30, 2010)

I know some intelligent people who believe in Cesar and the dominance theory. Like a surgeon who can't fix a leaky tap people are often smarter only in certain areas.

One of the things I'm interested in at the moment with Biscuit and other dogs is how they perceive their place in the dog world - how they rank themselves. Certainly some dogs have much stronger personalities than others. I'd love to find a book...


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

There are lots of books available, Jonesy. Have a look on Amazon :

The idea that dogs are "ranked" within a group has been well and truly debunked (it was based on bad research). Dogs aren't wolves, and anyway, wolves are not ranked either within a breeding group. 
The term "alpha" refers to the breeding pair, unfortunatly the CMs of this world seem to have made up their ideas from snippets of information they once heard from "a man in the pub"! They know nothing about canine behaviour and it shows.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Jonesey said:


> I know some intelligent people who believe in Cesar and the dominance theory. Like a surgeon who can't fix a leaky tap people are often smarter only in certain areas.
> 
> One of the things I'm interested in at the moment with Biscuit and other dogs is how they perceive their place in the dog world - how they rank themselves. Certainly some dogs have much stronger personalities than others. I'd love to find a book...


Certainly some dogs have stronger personalities than others, just like people do, but does not mean they consider themselves as higher or lower rank. I doubt very much whether a dog is that self-aware, to know that he is a dog. For instance, my Ferdie has a fairly strong personality in that he will always go and interact with other dogs, but if they tell him off he will back off immediately and come running back to his mum! Like some people, he likes to talk to strangers, but is totally non-confrontational.

Some small dogs run away as soon as they see mine, others will race toward them barking their heads off!


----------



## Jonesey (Dec 30, 2010)

Argh, I worded that wrong. Not whether they perceive themselves as above or below other dogs, but more of a confidence level and how they communicate that to each other and us. Dogs that are used for therapy for example, wouldn't they tend to have a higher level of communication? Or when people suggest having your reactive dog visit with one that is calm and laid back? I would think that the calm, non reactive dog would have confidence in itself, be very good with signaling and perhaps able to calm other dogs. Is it innate or is all that just training and a stable home life? Am I barking up the wrong tree? I do that a lot.

There are tons of books Shep! Unfortunately there are so many different views out there. I tend to buy ones that are recommended - got any hints for me?


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Rottiefan said:


> Had an interview for a postgraduate course today and we got onto the topic of canine behaviour


In an interview it's not a popularity or conformity contest, perhaps you were tested to see how you would argue your case.

That said, you can't expect a Prof of Ecology to necessarily be up to date on dog behaviour, it's not so long ago that pack leader stuff was the dominant school of thought. I remember for example a view of some scientists was that dog greeting the owner wagged it's tail & when you meet it, not because it was happy to see you but because it was nervous encountering the pack leader.

There's a whole load more known now than in fairly recent past, and the Prof may have very little contact with dogs. Probably getting bit in the face, would not encourage you to gain more experience.

Dominance can exist between dogs, it can be stable; but that does not mean that the Human Owner is seen as a dog, nevermind the "top dog".

They clearly recognise each other by breed and know the smallest funniest looking dogs are still dogs, so I think it's rather an insult to their intelligence, to presume they do not have more discrimination. After all they are evolved to understand human facial expression and gestures to some extent, even returning by giving us smiley greetings where normally teeth showing is hostile.

R+ does not preclude good effective leadership, the dogs are following when obedient to commands, and behaving in ways we find acceptable. It's just far more down to earth, than all the mystic posturing.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Rottiefan said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> ...we got onto the topic of canine behaviour and, naturally, the two opposing camps of thought:
> Alpha / dominance advocates and [Positive-Reinforcement Training] advocates, which I'm sure everyone is aware of.
> ...


horrifying, isn't it? :nonod: there are at least 2 parenting-groups which use the Dawg-Wrassler's methods with dogs 
as a template for how to deal with children - all i can say is, *there's a reason they say, 'Don't do this at home.'*

must have been a stunning experience - i know i was speechless when i heard a local doctor declare that 
the Dawg-Wrassler was the _"most effective trainer [he'd] ever seen"._ 
[all i could think was 'U don't get out much around trainers, do U?...']

i blinked, swallowed, pulled myself together & asked if that was how he'd trained his dogs? he said, _'yes, Why?'_ 
i said it explained why his female ducked when he reached for her collar, and sank belly-down when he went to clip 
her leash on... with his permission, i then called his little bitch over & played a game - click the leash-snap, 
get a treat. In less than 5-mins, i had a dog who couldn't wait to get the leash on - or off, :thumbup:
in order to get it back on again.

but 20-mins later, when he called the dogs off the beach to go home, she still went belly-down licking her lips 
when he reached for her collar - :nonod: pity.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> horrifying, isn't it? :nonod: there are at least 2 parenting-groups which use the Dawg-Wrassler's methods with dogs
> as a template for how to deal with children - all i can say is, *there's a reason they say, 'Don't do this at home.'*
> 
> must have been a stunning experience - i know i was speechless when i heard a local doctor declare that
> ...


It is like talking to a non-English speaking foreigner sometimes - you just cannot get through to them. I had a colleague recently telling me how him and his wife always eat first and go through doorways first, to make sure the dog knows that they were the pack leaders. I told him that wild dogs don't use doorways and it would be more likely to be the babies that eat first if food is scarce, and I doubt his dog is even noticing who is eating first anyway. The only reply I got was that you have to be specialised when you have a "hound"! Waste of breath really.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> horrifying, isn't it? :nonod: there are at least 2 parenting-groups which use the Dawg-Wrassler's methods with dogs
> as a template for how to deal with children - all i can say is, *there's a reason they say, 'Don't do this at home.'*
> 
> must have been a stunning experience - i know i was speechless when i heard a local doctor declare that
> ...


Absolutely, I was shocked. But it did help to release my tension a bit, as I was naturally quite nervous beforehand, so as soon as I heard him say it I was completely focused. I think I did well and got my point across as he quickly changed topics and think maybe he'd put his foot in it.

Of course I don't expect him to be an expert- he said that himself. But since dog behaviour is a big thing in the current media- with CM, attacks, status dogs etc.- and a large part of ecology is to do with animal behaviour, I was surprised he was that adamant.

In terms of rank, I think dogs and wolves do form hierarchies (but for domestic dogs you'd need to have a large group and minimal contact with humans), no one disputes that. What people dispute is that there are linear, dominance hierarchies. In reality, it is a subordinate hierarchy and a much more dynamic and cohesive collection of personalities. Aggressive behaviour is the trademark of a mid-ranking, usually male, dog and would never achieve respect that way. Aggression implies insecurity and fear- adolescent dogs are good examples. The Dr who got bit in the face didn't tell me the context, although I should have asked I think! But I am pretty sure that he was 1) very close to the dog at the time and 2) putting the dog under stress, albeit unconsciously perhaps.

I think I'm having forum _de-ja vu_


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Jonesey said:


> Argh, I worded that wrong. Not whether they perceive themselves as above or below other dogs, but more of a confidence level and how they communicate that to each other and us. Dogs that are used for therapy for example, wouldn't they tend to have a higher level of communication? Or when people suggest having your reactive dog visit with one that is calm and laid back? I would think that the calm, non reactive dog would have confidence in itself, be very good with signaling and perhaps able to calm other dogs. Is it innate or is all that just training and a stable home life? Am I barking up the wrong tree? I do that a lot.
> 
> There are tons of books Shep! Unfortunately there are so many different views out there. I tend to buy ones that are recommended - got any hints for me?


This is how I think of it. Not in terms of rank, as any two dogs meeting eachother for the first time would go through processes of finding out about each other- just like humans. Dogs that have had good socialisation and positive experiences will be confident in themselves and relaxed, whereas other dogs that have not had as good experiences may be more tense- standing over, stiff, unsure etc...all the perceived 'dominant' dogs. If two dogs live with each other, they learn to repsect each other and be sensitive to each other's feelings. I'm not anthropomorphising here, I'm giving dogs the respect they are due.:thumbup:


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I know of a Malamute breeder/shower and worker who also uses the alpha concept. He has taken many Mals for training, especially aggressive ones and has worked wonders with them - quite litterally!

He's not abusive but he won't take any nonsense from a dog and strangely enough the dogs seem to know it. He's a fantastic guy, has wonderful dogs who actually work on his farm, which is rare for Mal and is respected by many in the breed. If it weren't for him many Mals would have been pts i'm sure.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

The easiest way to get it across to them is this:

If you want a Killer Whale to jump through a hoop are you going to use a fish or a stick? If I was to teach you how to write your name would you rather I punch you in the face when you get it wrong or give you a sweet when you get it right?

They always choose the fish or the sweets  Dam!!!


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

hutch6 said:


> The easiest way to get it across to them is this:
> 
> If you want a Killer Whale to jump through a hoop are you going to use a fish or a stick? If I was to teach you how to write your name would you rather I punch you in the face when you get it wrong or give you a sweet when you get it right?
> 
> They always choose the fish or the sweets  Dam!!!


Exactly! I also use the grizzly bear example: males fight for different privileges and use tactile communication between each other, but you don't see bear trainers smacking and fighting with bears to train them. Just because dogs are more 'beatable', they get so much abuse.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I know of a Malamute breeder/shower and worker who also uses the alpha concept. He has taken many Mals for training, especially aggressive ones and has worked wonders with them - quite litterally!
> 
> He's not abusive but he won't take any nonsense from a dog and strangely enough the dogs seem to know it. He's a fantastic guy, has wonderful dogs who actually work on his farm, which is rare for Mal and is respected by many in the breed. If it weren't for him many Mals would have been pts i'm sure.


But what's his methods? There are those that use positive reinforcement methods but still believe in the Alpha concept. This isn't that bad a position, if you know the value of positive reinforcement training, but I think promoting the Alpha concept allows a platform for more force-based, rank reduction training methods to flourish.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Whether you refuse to admit that the dominance theory is wrong or not. there is one thing that can't be denied.

We don't need to resort to it to change a dogs behavior. So from a pragmatic standpoint the question of dominance is moot.... well except for the dogs that get abused in it's name.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Corinthian said:


> Whether you refuse to admit that the dominance theory is wrong or not. there is one thing that can't be denied.
> 
> We don't need to resort to it to change a dogs behavior. So from a pragmatic standpoint the question of dominance is moot.... well except for the dogs that get abused in it's name.


Absolutely. People distinguish between the training and rehabilitation 'paradigms', when in reality, they are two very similar issues: we use training methods to rehabilitate or solve behavioural problems.

A more pertinent distinction is between behaviour and training/rehab: we don't necessarily need to know _why_ to train or solve behavioural probelms.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

elledee said:


> You raise an interesting question here... what about dogs or bitches that, as they mature, become unable to live in the same household as each other without fighting. What causes this? How do you deal with it?


Can you give some examples. There could be many issues. The main one, I think, would be due to them maturing, i.e. the onset of the barrage of hormones and chemicals during adolescence.

The way to deal with it? Again, it depends on the case. But you need to build positive associations between the two animals. If they are male, castration is a good option. It's difficult in the same house hold as the two are inevitably going to meet/see each other at some points and, thus, could be counter-productive to training.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

elledee said:


> I was thinking about this killer whale thing. First of all, most importantly, you missed out the bit where you have to contain it in a very small pond and be controller of all its food. Also, even if you train it to jump through a hoop using a fish, it might still kill you by grabbing you and pulling you under water (as has happened to some trainers unfortunately who trained in this manner). Would the same training technique of offering it a fish still work on the open seas? What if the killer whale was a shark, would you still use the same techniques? So, it's not really a very good example to use...


These are not domesticated animals so, naturally, more risks are involved. But the same stands for dogs- someone could use positive reinforcement but does not pick up on some crucial aspects of their dog's behaviour or health, which could lead to a bite.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Oops, sorry haven't been on for a while but this is on his website and is basically how he handles dogs.
Thought i'd put the link up in case it's not good copying it! Don't want to get in trouble with Tel.

http://www.alaskanmalamuteuk.co.uk/?p=p_24&sName=pack-leader


----------



## HWAR (Jul 19, 2010)

elledee said:


> So, you think that when the hormones have settled down the dogs would learn to live together? Why do you think that? Would you castrate one or both of them? If they still fought, why do you think that would be?
> 
> .


Firstly, not all bitches will reach maturity and start fighting their housemates. Often bitches fighting is brought about over a trivial squabble (a bone, a ball, a chew stick) and is normally where two bitches are similar in personality (ie both confident or both anxious, etc) and it becomes a simple clash of personailities - the difference is that bitches are a lot less forgiving as a general rule than males and once the war begins its very difficult to undo.

Some bitches do mellow with spaying and then relearn to live happily with their counterparts, some don't.

A bit like most species really, they don't have to like another member of their species and by having them in such close quarters together with nowhere to 'escape' in a home environment this will make personality clashes far more apparent.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

elledee said:


> I was thinking about this killer whale thing. First of all, most importantly, you missed out the bit where you have to contain it in a very small pond and be controller of all its food. Also, even if you train it to jump through a hoop using a fish, *it might still kill you by grabbing you and pulling you under water *(as has happened to some trainers unfortunately who trained in this manner). Would the same training technique of offering it a fish still work on the open seas? What if the killer whale was a shark, would you still use the same techniques? So, it's not really a very good example to use...
> 
> Your other scenario reminded me of a film, I think it was called Shogun, where some chap had to learn Japanese in a weekend, or all the inhabitants of a Japanese village would be killed. *I'm pretty sure he did so.* I'm not suggesting that is how you should teach dogs, but what the film was suggesting was, when the chips are down, you can sometimes be capable of anything very quickly and efficiently.


You would drowned, or more likely be attacked and killed, a lot quicker trying to use force or harsh treatments. There is no reason to train a whale or anything else in the open seas, so the reference is irrelevant. When trainers have been drowned whilst training a killer whale or any other large sea mammal, it is not done deliberately as an act of aggression.

As to the character who had to learn Japanese, I presume he was a human being, with a purpose to learn, and the intelligence to know what would happen if he didn't. That is hardly a similar analogy to teaching an animal without those reasoning powers.



elledee said:


> So, you think that when the hormones have settled down the dogs would learn to live together? Why do you think that? Would you castrate one or both of them? If they still fought, why do you think that would be?
> 
> A well known and respected agility competitor had 3 dogs, which just couldn't get along. They certainly didn't become sensitive to and respectful of each other. He had to keep them crated when they were on their own. One day, it all went wrong, not sure what happened, and the dogs got out. When he came home, at least one dog was dead, and another survived because it had got attacked so much, it looked like it was dead, so it got left alone. Not sure if the other dog died, survived or had to get put down. But it was very heartbreaking...


I should like to know what the owner tried before giving up and simply crating them. I am certainly not saying that all dogs can be reconciled to each other, but the easy way is to crate them, isn't it? I know of someone who keeps her three, huge entire male bull mastiffs crated all the time because they fight, which they would not do if they were neutered. Why aren't they? Because they are _her_ hobby, showing them at top shows, so they have to be entire. This is the sort of case of dogs suffering for the enjoyment of the owner which makes my blood boil. The most important thing for my dogs is that they are happy, not me. Disgusting way to carry on.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

elledee said:


> But it isn't really positive and kind training, when you take a killer whale out its natural environment, coop it up and make it jump through hoops for its food. Or in the case of a dolphin make it walk backwards on its tail? I seem to remember that I read somewhere some of these mammals end up with ulcers because of the stressed life they lead.


Well that's a whole different issue entirely, isn't it? We're not talking about the ethics of taming un-domesticated animals, we're talking about the training methods.

If the above post from Malmum is correct, I don't want nor need to prove anything to a pack theory advocate. Science and most respected professionals have moved on from medieval dog training and behaviour, just as they have in astronomy, ecology, taxonomy etc., etc., etc. Pack theory is a gross underestimation and simplification of dog-dog and dog-human social structures.

Goodbye.


----------



## HWAR (Jul 19, 2010)

Does anyone seriously believe that dogs see humans as other dogs?  This is a serious question BTW to those who still believe in the whole pack theory stuff.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Kali must be the typical bitch then! She has to be watched very carefully and has had a pop at all of the dogs in this house except Britches. She did bite Flynn (her son) once but I don't think she thought it was him. I know many Malamute owners, even some very experienced breeders who have to keep seperate packs, as I do to some extent. I can trust her implicitly with Flynn but no one else and she was like this before being spayed at three years, so I can't say it's a hormonal thing.

Malamutes are known to not be very tolerant with dogs, especially same sex even within their own household and this girl will take on any of mine, doesn't matter that she's 15kgs smaller than Marty either. What's more is she does it with intent and has drawn blood on all of them!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

elledee said:


> But it isn't really positive and kind training, when you take a killer whale out its natural environment, coop it up and make it jump through hoops for its food. Or in the case of a dolphin make it walk backwards on its tail? I seem to remember that I read somewhere some of these mammals end up with ulcers because of the stressed life they lead.


If you are trying to say that it is cruel to remove these creatures from the wild and train them to perform tricks for the benefit of holidaymakers, I could not agree more. I think it is unnatural and barbaric. But this thread is not about whales and dolphins, it is about positive reward training versus the old outdated packleader theories.

The analogy is that whales and dolphines _can_ be trained this way, not whether it is right to do so.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I say if it works for you, use it - if not try something else.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

HWAR said:


> Does anyone seriously believe that dogs see humans as other dogs?  This is a serious question BTW to those who still believe in the whole pack theory stuff.


Well..........I suppose they could get a bit mixed up first thing in the morning with my hair all over the place

I am not sure I ever really believed that, to be honest. It is just the thing that trainers used to preach years ago, and I have done a google search on "pack leader" and found loads of websites of trainers still preaching this rubbish. I do wish they would get themselves up to date, but they won't will they, because they have been doing it this way for years and therefore they must be right. When I was young we spent years driving about without seatbelts, but I don't see anyone saying they still do it because they have been doing it for years.

It seems to be only in the world of dog training that certain people will not move on and will not listen to scientific discoveries. Seatbelts save lives; do they question that? No, they just accept it.

Sorry, going off on a tangent now.

Just think of all the time and effort people waste pretending to eat first so the dog will know they are the pack leader, when the dog isn't even noticing.:mad2:


----------



## HWAR (Jul 19, 2010)

elledee said:


> So, not actually as was described by Rottiesfan, two dogs in the same household being sensitive and respectful of each other. If dogs are both confident, and the use of that word usually means balanced and at ease with themselves, why would they squabble over a toy?


There could be many many reasons, far too many to list here - I'm afraid dog behaviour isn't black and white - anything from resource guarding because the owner has made the item into a high value reward or that the toy is a stimulant to that dog. It could also be a simple case that the dogs just don't get one and they are the wrong 'match' together. Like I said, there are no black and whites.

On a seperate note - bitches at war isn't something that happens in every household every day its very individual to the dogs in question so Rottiefan is correct that the vast majority of dogs do actually rub along together and learn to 'fit' with each other and be sensitive to each others needs.

I'll give you a real life example. My Bitch has very limited eyesight and has had since she arrived with me 5/6 months ago. At first my dog was very unsure of her as she bumped into things and he spent a lot of time sniffing her completely blind eye. In the last few months he has learned that she cant see on one side so in play fighting uses it to his advantage  however, out on a walk he will always walk on her blind side and be her second eye - no one has taught him this he has become sensitive to her needs and he looks out for her.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> You would drowned, or more likely be attacked and killed, a lot quicker trying to use force or harsh treatments. There is no reason to train a whale or anything else in the open seas, so the reference is irrelevant. When trainers have been drowned whilst training a killer whale or any other large sea mammal, it is not done deliberately as an act of aggression.
> 
> As to the character who had to learn Japanese, I presume he was a human being, with a purpose to learn, and the intelligence to know what would happen if he didn't. That is hardly a similar analogy to teaching an animal without those reasoning powers.
> 
> I should like to know what the owner tried before giving up and simply crating them. I am certainly not saying that all dogs can be reconciled to each other, but the easy way is to crate them, isn't it? I know of someone who keeps her three, huge entire male bull mastiffs crated all the time because they fight, which they would not do if they were neutered. Why aren't they? Because they are _her_ hobby, showing them at top shows, so they have to be entire. This is the sort of case of dogs suffering for the enjoyment of the owner which makes my blood boil. The most important thing for my dogs is that they are happy, not me. Disgusting way to carry on.





elledee said:


> Who's the pack theory advocate? I'm not sure how you could apply pack theory to killer whales, if it's me you're referring to, as you don't specify. I've no idea how whale pods operate, but I do find their use as entertainment for holidaymakers and doing tricks in order to survive very sad.


Actually, my fault. I thought Malmum posted about you Elledee, but in fact it was referring to an earlier post about a Malamute trainer.

But you seem to be constesting something, so what is it?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Rottiefan said:


> Actually, my fault. I thought Malmum posted about you Elledee, but in fact it was referring to an earlier post about a Malamute trainer.
> 
> But you seem to be constesting something, so what is it?


You have to wonder, don't you? Elledee, this thread is not about the rights or wrongs of training wild creatures. It is about pack leader theory for the training of dogs.


----------



## HWAR (Jul 19, 2010)

elledee said:


> Here's what Rottiesfan said: *If two dogs live with each other*, they learn to repsect each other and be sensitive to each other's feelings. No "vast majority" in there...


Do you not think you may be being slightly pedantic?  Sometimes if we took the time to read and digest rather than pick holes we can learn something (and I am not directing this at you personally just people in general, myself included )


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

elledee said:


> Here's what Rottiesfan said: *If two dogs live with each other*, they learn to repsect each other and be sensitive to each other's feelings. No "vast majority" in there...


Oh, give over. My comment was made with the implication of *all things being equal*. Everyone else understood. You are obviously picking at something and have a point to prove, so let's just get it out there before we all die of old age.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

elledee said:


> I'm used to debating on forums where there are a lot of scientists and everything is put as accurately as possible, with people providing evidence and talking about primary and secondary sources, and the difference between opinion and evidence. Sometimes, I forget...


What would like evidence for?


----------



## HWAR (Jul 19, 2010)

elledee said:


> Let's see...
> 
> How about evidence about what causes dogs or bitches to get to the point that they can't live in the same house? We know that you have agreed that some dogs/bitches can't.


What 'evidence' exactly would you like to see  as stated it can be as simple as a clash of personalities or lack of mental stimulation leading to frustration to something as complex as resouce guarding or underlying behavioural issues - I don't understand which part of this your aren't getting?

Unless there is an particular case that a behaviourist has witnessed and been able to try and work with and then given their account of the situation there is no evidence.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

If you think this is the place people write comments and include primary and secondary sources, you are completely mistaken- who would believe such a thing? The whole point of a forum is to have informal chat and offer help. 

As HWAR said, dog training and behaviour is not black and white. There are a myriad of ways in which dogs and bitches could not get on with each other in the same house hold.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

elledee said:


> I was thinking about this killer whale thing. First of all, most importantly, you missed out the bit where you have to contain it in a very small pond and be controller of all its food. Also, even if you train it to jump through a hoop using a fish, it might still kill you by grabbing you and pulling you under water (as has happened to some trainers unfortunately who trained in this manner). Would the same training technique of offering it a fish still work on the open seas? What if the killer whale was a shark, would you still use the same techniques? So, it's not really a very good example to use...
> 
> Your other scenario reminded me of a film, I think it was called Shogun, where some chap had to learn Japanese in a weekend, or all the inhabitants of a Japanese village would be killed. I'm pretty sure he did so. I'm not suggesting that is how you should teach dogs, but what the film was suggesting was, when the chips are down, you can sometimes be capable of anything very quickly and efficiently.


Sorry I missed some key points, but even wild killer whales show learned behaviour at the hands of humans and there are no records of any human ever being killed by a wild killer whale. Luring sharks to where you want them with bait has been going on for millenia so there is reward for the desired behaviour allbeit not as direct as with the behaviour we come to associate with dogs but you are still producing a behviour.

So if you're used to scientific debate and both primary and secondary evidence why did you choose a film to try and get your point across? The actual gist is still using negative reinforcement but something tells me in a Hollywood film the villagers were always going to be quite safe. 
When the chips are down and the dog is thinking "I am fed up of getting reprimanded" they will only think of self preservation and therefore will shut down and cease offering behaviour for fear of consequences or they will seek to distance themselves away from the negative experience. They do not rationalise as we do and therefore will not see the consequence of action quite the way we do. I've yet to see a single sheep dog trained by negative reinforcement that has performed well at trials. I have yet to see a dog that will only do the agility course for fear of being reprimanded, I have yet to see a search and rescue dog, a guide dog, a sniffer dog or a dance to music dog do what it does so it doesn't get a beating or a neagtive reinforcement. I have yet to have a job where I am told I must hit a deadline or my first born will be slaughtered or my parents will face the guillotine. You talk about ridiculous analogies and then you give an example that is glammed up for audiences to provide suspense and hold attention where the character, or "subject", is aware of negative actions taking part on a third party. Dogs do not think in third parties, nor even do they make it to the second really, all they think about is "What's in it for me?" and if it isn't anything good they will not learn as fast, it won't offer any new behaviour for fear of consequence and it certainly won't trust you. Not a very good relationship to have with something that can rip your skin like wet newspaper.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I have to say I don't use the pack leader theory myself but I do have a ritual at feeding times and just before I take the dogs out, my dogs don't get anything for nothing except cuddles and even then only when they are calm. There are lots of pack leader things I think are codswallop and I do feed the dogs before us, if only to stop them scrounging.  With a dog like Flynn I have to have some rules otherwise he'd go bonkers most of the time, but on the whole he learns very well from positive reinforcement.

I think there are good sides to both ways of training and like has been said it's not all black and white - if it were we'd all have perfect dogs - wouldn't we?


----------



## HWAR (Jul 19, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I have to say I don't use the pack leader theory myself but I do have a ritual at feeding times and just before I take the dogs out, my dogs don't get anything for nothing except cuddles and even then only when they are calm. There are lots of pack leader things I think are codswallop and I do feed the dogs before us, if only to stop them scrounging.  With a dog like Flynn I have to have some rules otherwise he'd go bonkers most of the time, but on the whole he learns very well from positive reinforcement.
> 
> I think there are good sides to both ways of training and like has been said it's not all black and white - if it were we'd all have perfect dogs - wouldn't we?


Rules and routines are a good thing, provides stability and manners (and prevents those of us with big dogs being trampled on or bounced of the wall!) But to me that's nothing to do with being the pack leader or dominant its to do with teaching good manners much the same as I would expect from my Son as he grows up.

I wouldn't expect my son to sit at the table banging his knife and fork or shouting at me and harrassing me for his dinner much the same as I don't expect my dogs to be leaping all over me to get their dinner - simple manners.

When going out I expect my son to sit and have his shoes and coat put on without running around like an excited loon lol - I expect the same with my dogs.

Before anyone says it I do not overhumanise my dogs or treat them as children I am just giving an example of how I can place rules/routines without being pack leader or being dominant. I am merely their care giver and being their care giver means i have a responsibility to teach them good manners and good behaviour much the same as I would with my son.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Just my two cents....

I happen to like the killer whale analogy. The same could be said for a great many captive wild (ie non-domesticated) animals these days.

The science of animal behaviour, and the use of positive reinforcement training (PRT), has boomed in recent years in many fields - and much of it started with those whales and dolphins in places like Sea World. 
Positive reinforcement, with only negative punishment (so no physical punishment at all) is the ONLY way to train marine mammals - you can't beat them, jerk at their necks, give them electric shocks etc. Either you use PRT or you don't train.

The same principle is now spreading around the world and across various industries - including zoos and labs. There are many such places now routinely using PRT for the benefit of both animals and staff.

As to the ethics of this.... Whether or not people find it acceptable to keep non-demoesticated animals in captivity is a different matter. This is a discussion on training. Once the animals are in captivity, then humane training is a very good thing which can significantly improve their welfare.

For example:

1) One of the biggest welfare concerns in captive animals is boredom. Boredom causes chronic stress, which leads to poor welfare, health problems, etc.
Training programmes give the animals something to do, the opportunity to think and problem solve and keeps them entertained and occupied. It prevents boredom.
Looking at those killer whales... for those already in captivity, the ones being trained are the ones better off because they are occupied. The others just swim around going out of their minds.

2) Training can be used to get animals to co-operate with necessary procedures rather than needing to be forced. This may be training animals to present certain body parts for inspection, sit on scales to be weighed, take medication, move to certain areas of their enclosure etc.
This can negate the need for darting, chasing, using crushes, etc. making the whole process safer and less stressful for animals and handlers alike.

So, training in itself can be a very good thing - and the same goes for pet dogs. Trained dogs are allowed more freedoms (eg going off lead), are less likely to be bored, less likely to get hurt or rehomed.

However, not all training is equal. 

Some training methods, ie PRT, are particularly good as they are by their very nature rewarding for the animal, free from stress, pain or fear, they are fun, etc. Most animals seem to actively enjoy training.

Others methods are the exact opposite - with many methods relying on causing pain, and training through fear of pain, resulting in both chronic and acute stress, which in turn can lead to further problems, both behavioural and physiological.

Dogs seem to get it the worst here.

The basic "dominance theory" has been discredited for decades. Much of it is simply pointless (like eating first) whilst some is cruel and dangerous (alpha rolls). 
Yet so many owners / trainers use this outdated, inaccurate theory of dog behaviour to justify brutal treatment in the name of training. 

But look at some of those captive wild animals - there are certainly species that DO have strict linear hierarchies maintained using violence. Yet these animals in labs and zoos are still being successfully trained using PRT, with no mention of dominance. The idea of a human handler forming part of the dominance hierarchy isn't even entertained. It certainly isn't used as an excuse to abuse animals in order to train them.

Of course, accidents can - and do - happen. And the risk is considerably higher with non-domesticated animals. But again, this is a separate issue, not necessarily related to training. Animals may attack their handlers for many reasons - anyone that claims it is because they were (humanely) trained is very much mistaken.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Completely agree that the route of training depends on what you are training. I have never had to be as strict with my other dogs, any of them which includes a GSD, Dane three Staffs and cross breeds as I have with the Malamutes - thats why I have some rules in place which would be considered pack leadership, I think if I didn't I would have been amognst the many who give them up after the first year.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

elledee said:


> I was thinking about this killer whale thing. ...you out the bit where you have to contain
> [the orca] in a very small pond and [control] all [] food. Also, even if you train [the orca] to jump thru a hoop
> [by rewarding with] a fish, [the orca] might still kill you...​



* many species of marine-mammals have been trained & worked in the open ocean, using food rewards - 
several species of dolphin & porpoise, respectively; seals, sea-lions, pilot whales, etc.

* considering the extremely confining life in captivity, the number of humans killed by captive orca is miniscule.


> Would the same training technique of offering it a fish still work on the open seas?
> What if the killer whale was a shark, would you still use the same techniques?
> So, it's not really a very good example to use...


* see above - it's been done in open seas, with dead fish, when all around them were live-fish & open water. 
* sharks, too, have been trained - with rewards.

if U would like to try training a shark with a shock-stick, i'll stay out of the water & wait for the movie... 
:thumbup1: _ got any more popcorn, hun?..._​


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

hutch6 said:


> ...there are no records of any human ever being killed by a wild killer whale.


i wish this were true, but it is not: orca have been well-documented as deliberately hunting humans, especially 
on ice-floes, in the same fashion as they do seals who pull out to rest, or pups on the ice - by tilting the slab, 
or overwashing it with a roll as they pass, to sweep the person into the sea & into their environment.

Inuit hunters have been killed by orca in open-ocean when they overturned their boats, or when crossing 
from ice-floe to ice-floe across narrow leads. Inuit recognize that polar-bears & orca are both human-hunters, 
one on land, the other in the water.


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

"people periodically reinvent the wheel, but last time i looked it was still round" when i asked a trainer of 40 years what he thought of all this new found behaviour and training knowledge that is bandied about these days


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> i wish this were true, but it is not: orca have been well-documented as deliberately hunting humans, especially
> on ice-floes, in the same fashion as they do seals who pull out to rest, or pups on the ice - by tilting the slab,
> or overwashing it with a roll as they pass, to sweep the person into the sea & into their environment.
> 
> ...


Really? I have never found a record of these incidents in the many years I have read about killer whales and the documentaries I have watched on them. 
I am planning a trip to go Kayaking with them in Johnstone Straight, BC in the next few years as it has been a dream to see them in the wild so I guess I will see if they want to eat me when I get there but I very much doubt they will.

How can one analogy lead to a dog behaviour section being thrown into a roundabout discussion on killer whales? Ah well.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Statler said:


> "people periodically reinvent the wheel, but last time i looked it was still round" when i asked a trainer of 40 years what he thought of all this new found behaviour and training knowledge that is bandied about these days


So, you don't think we deserve to improve behaviour and training knowledge to give our dogs better lives and experiences?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Statler said:


> "people periodically reinvent the wheel, but last time i looked it was still round" when i asked a trainer of 40 years what he thought of all this new found behaviour and training knowledge that is bandied about these days


He sounds like the drivers you come across who tell you that they know what they are doing because they have been driving for forty years. Of course, they haven't picked up a Highway Code since, have no idea what to do with a roundabout or all the new road signs, let alone a motorway, but he doesn't see why he should change. After all, he knows how to make the thing move and stop how to steer it round corners.

New knowledge is good for all of us, and should be made use of and when it comes to dogs that new knowledge is better them and better for us.


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

new knowledge is a good thing as long as it turns out to be correct in the long term. often as in all walks of lives it turns out to be incorrect.

dog ownership and training is a simple concept complicated by humans


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Statler said:


> new knowledge is a good thing as long as it turns out to be correct in the long term. often as in all walks of lives it turns out to be incorrect.
> 
> dog ownership and training is a simple concept complicated by humans


How so? What's complicated? I agree that, in 10 years time, we may be re-thinking some things again. But we've come a long way from the Alpha/dominance myths of the past (well, most people have).

To me, it's due to humans complicating matters that the Alpha/dominance myths are still circulating. Humans love to be in control and, when they are given a 'reason' to physically dominate dogs (it's what they do in the wild- wrong), all sorts of abuse appears. Rather than think of things logically and see a dog's motivation as being for food, shelter, protection, social bonding, many still believe that a dog's sole role in life is to get to the top of a pack and control everything.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Statler said:


> new knowledge is a good thing as long as it turns out to be correct in the long term. often as in all walks of lives it turns out to be incorrect


You're confusing new knowledge and novelties. Novelties are what is marketed in books & courses and make big claims with words like *revolutionary, simple, quick and easy*.



> dog ownership and training is a simple concept complicated by humans


The qualities for an excellent Dog Trainer are not typical human ones, it is unnatural.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Statler said:


> new knowledge is a good thing as long as it turns out to be correct in the long term. often as in all walks of lives it turns out to be incorrect.
> 
> dog ownership and training is a simple concept complicated by humans


But in this particular field it is not incorrect, is it? New thinking regarding dog training and behaviour is down to scientific research, not mere statistics. Dogs are not trying to take over the household, if you let them on the sofa they will not think they are in charge, if you keep taking their food away to show them who the pack leader is, all you will achieve is a dog who is food aggressive.

These are facts, not, as someone already said, a new novelty.


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

not wishing to be inflamatory but since ive walked this planet, dairy and milk has been good for me, bad for me, good for me again, all based on scientific fact, tomorrow who knows


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Statler said:


> dairy and milk has been good for me, bad for me, good for me again, all based on scientific fact, tomorrow who knows


Nutritional scientist will tell you it is both, it can be good and bad, people often want a simple black/white message but the real world is more complicated than that.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Video already posted. 

I am too slow..... shut it you lot!!!


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

One thing is for certain and that's that there seem to be many more dog aggressive dogs around now than years ago when I was growing up in London. Probably owner realted, breeding related and possibly training related. So I sometimes wonder if the old methods where the best and that some newer techniques are too politically correct to deal with some dog problems. I mean if you treat a dog like a dog you feel like you're a horrible person. It appears that way with children too these days, some right little rotters about!
Seems everythings gone to pot and dogs are no exception.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Malmum said:


> One thing is for certain and that's that there seem to be many more dog aggressive dogs around now than years ago when I was growing up in London. Probably owner realted, breeding related and possibly training related. So I sometimes wonder if the old methods where the best and that some newer techniques are too politically correct to deal with some dog problems. I mean if you treat a dog like a dog you feel like you're a horrible person. It appears that way with children too these days, some right little rotters about!
> Seems everythings gone to pot and dogs are no exception.


But there are more puppy farms as well, back yard breeders, people crossing breeds for no better reason than for the money. This all has to be taken into account. As for children, when a child behaved badly in the old days it was reprimanded, perhaps sent to bed with no supper, or even physically smacked. Nowadays they are taken to a psychologist and told they have a syndrome.


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> . As for children, when a child behaved badly in the old days it was reprimanded, perhaps sent to bed with no supper, or even physically smacked. Nowadays they are taken to a psychologist and told they have a syndrome.


could be kids, most definately dogs


----------



## coaches pets (Mar 10, 2011)

elledee said:


> You raise an interesting question here... what about dogs or bitches that, as they mature, become unable to live in the same household as each other without fighting. What causes this? How do you deal with it?


My answer to this sometimes is that can you imagine sexually maturing and never, ever being allowed to have sex, wouldn't that 
do your head in and turn you into a grumpy sod? It would me! 



elledee said:


> But it isn't really positive and kind training, when you take a killer whale out its natural environment, coop it up and make it jump through hoops for its food. Or in the case of a dolphin make it walk backwards on its tail? I seem to remember that I read somewhere some of these mammals end up with ulcers because of the stressed life they lead.


I don't think the stress is down to training, it's down to these animals being kept in captivity, and have you seen the film The Cove? 

Just to add that Karen Pryor (who of course brought clicker/marker training to the masses!) trained dolphins in sea conditions when she was at Hawaii...her book Lads Before the Wind about that time is very good. 



hutch6 said:


> Sorry I missed some key points, but even wild killer whales show learned behaviour at the hands of humans and there are no records of any human ever being killed by a wild killer whale. Luring sharks to where you want them with bait has been going on for millenia so there is reward for the desired behaviour allbeit not as direct as with the behaviour we come to associate with dogs but you are still producing a behviour.
> 
> So if you're used to scientific debate and both primary and secondary evidence why did you choose a film to try and get your point across? The actual gist is still using negative reinforcement but something tells me in a Hollywood film the villagers were always going to be quite safe.
> When the chips are down and the dog is thinking "I am fed up of getting reprimanded" they will only think of self preservation and therefore will shut down and cease offering behaviour for fear of consequences or they will seek to distance themselves away from the negative experience. They do not rationalise as we do and therefore will not see the consequence of action quite the way we do. *I've yet to see a single sheep dog trained by negative reinforcement that has performed well at trials. I have yet to see a dog that will only do the agility course for fear of being reprimanded, I have yet to see a search and rescue dog, a guide dog, a sniffer dog or a dance to music dog do what it does so it doesn't get a beating or a neagtive reinforcement. *I have yet to have a job where I am told I must hit a deadline or my first born will be slaughtered or my parents will face the guillotine. You talk about ridiculous analogies and then you give an example that is glammed up for audiences to provide suspense and hold attention where the character, or "subject", is aware of negative actions taking part on a third party. Dogs do not think in third parties, nor even do they make it to the second really, all they think about is "What's in it for me?" and if it isn't anything good they will not learn as fast, it won't offer any new behaviour for fear of consequence and it certainly won't trust you. Not a very good relationship to have with something that can rip your skin like wet newspaper.


What about positive punishment? That does go on....Guide Dogs wearing choke chains is just one example. :blink:



Malmum said:


> One thing is for certain and that's that there seem to be many more dog aggressive dogs around now than years ago when I was growing up in London. Probably owner realted, breeding related and possibly training related. So I sometimes wonder if the old methods where the best and that some newer techniques are too politically correct to deal with some dog problems. I mean if you treat a dog like a dog you feel like you're a horrible person. It appears that way with children too these days, some right little rotters about!
> Seems everythings gone to pot and dogs are no exception.


Mmm...people also used to be a lot more tolerant of things too didn't they?

Don't you remember when that kid got bitten at school and it was just 'oh well' whereas now we sue everybody!

The people I know who still talk about dominance either haven't picked up a dog book in 20 years, or just like to be the boss and tend to be bullies in other areas of their lives.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Wow - so many things to remember...

In response to the original point Rottiefan made in starting this thread - I agree it is quite scary how pervasive the concept of dominance / alpha in dogs has become. It had been dying a death until fairly recently (gee I wonder why) but now it is back with a vengence. Even people who have nothing to do with dogs seem to think they are experts - then spout this old nonsense.

As for there being more aggressive dogs now than there used to be - I think there must be numerous reasons for this. For one thing, there used to be the old wives tale that once a dog "tasted blood" there was no going back. Many dogs that bit would have been immediately destroyed. Now we seem to have swung so far the other way that we have morons on the streets who know their dogs are potentially dangerous and don't care, and fail to do anything to manage the situation. That of course brings us on to status / weapon dogs being bandied about by thugs instead of guns or knives.

Elledee - I'm curious as to what your position is on all of this?

You have made it quite clear how you feel about wild animals in captivity and animals in labs - but what about dog training / dominance theory etc seeing as that is what we are discussing in a roundabout way?

And what sort of evidence are you after? There are published articles on animal behaviour (inc wolves, ferals, domestic dogs etc) which provide evidence that dominance theory (in its usual format) is inaccurate. On the flip side, there is a total lack of evidence _for_ dominance theory - save one study which has long since been recanted.

Of course there is unlikely to be any clear evidence about why some dogs end up unable to live together - but surely this is because each case should be judged on an individual basis? In some cases it may simply be two incompatible personalities, it may be hormonal, it may be due to limited resources etc. There isn't going to be one answer for every case.

As I said in my previous post I am not going to enter into any debate about the rights and wrongs of keeping wild animals in captivity or using animals in research. That is a whole other kettle of fish. My point was - as I stated before - that humane training can improve animal welfare, whilst inhumane training can result in poor animal welfare.

And I just want to say that I believe this is the best thing I've read in a long time - I wholeheartedly agree!!


> The qualities for an excellent Dog Trainer are not typical human ones, it is unnatural.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Malmum said:


> One thing is for certain and that's that there seem to be many more dog aggressive dogs around now than years ago when I was growing up in London. Probably owner realted, breeding related and possibly training related. So I sometimes wonder if the old methods where the best and that some newer techniques are too politically correct to deal with some dog problems. I mean if you treat a dog like a dog you feel like you're a horrible person. It appears that way with children too these days, some right little rotters about!
> Seems everythings gone to pot and dogs are no exception.


As has been said, this is a bit of a sweeping statement and, if we really delved into it, I think many reasons would appear, but with a very slim amount down to training methods.

Science can be wrong. But there is _*so*_ much evidence for positive reinforcement methods- not only in dogs- that makes it the best option we have.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I think a lot of bad breeding is definitely causing some dog aggression, no doubt about that along with illnesses too. Don't think your average jp even considers a dogs temperament when putting two dogs together. We all know about food additives in human food and how they can affect behaviour, so another possible reason for bad behaviour. At least most dog foods now state no additives, colouring etc.

I do use some dominance, all be it very limited and def not physical but I don't use it in everything I do, I never go through the door first except on walks and do allow dogs on the sofa but I let them know in no uncertain terms if they p*ss me off, usually with a loud "hey" and a prod with my fingers, which stops them in their tracks. I don't have bad dogs however so it's difficult for me to have to be dominant with them. Unfortunately I lack the confidence I have in the home outdoors with Flynn, so he can have the upper hand when he see's another dog, my confidence dwindles on those occasions. That's where positive reinforcement come in, I can use treats in a very difficult situation and gain control. So can see both sides of the coin with all this training lark.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I think a lot of bad breeding is definitely causing some dog aggression, no doubt about that along with illnesses too. Don't think your average jp even considers a dogs temperament when putting two dogs together. We all know about food additives in human food and how they can affect behaviour, so another possible reason for bad behaviour. At least most dog foods now state no additives, colouring etc.
> 
> I do use some dominance, all be it very limited and def not physical but I don't use it in everything I do, I never go through the door first except on walks and do allow dogs on the sofa but I let them know in no uncertain terms if they p*ss me off, usually with a loud "hey" and a prod with my fingers, which stops them in their tracks. I don't have bad dogs however so it's difficult for me to have to be dominant with them. Unfortunately I lack the confidence I have in the home outdoors with Flynn, so he can have the upper hand when he see's another dog, my confidence dwindles on those occasions. That's where positive reinforcement come in, I can use treats in a very difficult situation and gain control. So can see both sides of the coin with all this training lark.


Fair enough. But, if I can, why not train Flynn using positive reinforcement outdoors all the time- teaching a 'watch me' or using a clicker to reinforce calm behaviour? Then you wouldn't have to worry as Flynn will understand that dogs= good things and to pay attention to you. Using treats and phasing them out (which is the whole point of PRT) allows us to teach acceptable behaviours so a dog will voluntarily choose it. It isn't a 'plan B' to physical dominance methods- e.g. finger prodding, which doesn't do anything but make a dog feel threatened at those moments.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

OOw no - i've never used the hey, prodding thing when out with Flynn as I know it's not his fault - it's mine! Flynn can be walked by my daughter and doesn't react when he see's a dog, so I know it's me who's scared and pass it to him. Flynn had a hip replacement 6 months ago and is having the other done 11th April, so he lost a lot of his social skills - which i've always had to work on - because of his restricted walks and not being able to walk too far due to the other hip. It's something that we'll be going back to our trainer for once he's recovered from this next op, didn't see much point in doing it til the other op's over as he'll probably lose it all again. I've also lost confidence and have been over protective of Flynn since his op, so I too need to gain confidence again that's why he'll be going back to our trainer. 

You know he gets such bad vibes from his silly ole mum that he even reacts at his own reflection in a window if i'm holding his lead, yet indoors he does everything I ask of him. I know it's me so I intend to get me fixed once he's all done.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

hutch6 said:


> Really? I have never found a record of these incidents in the many years I have read about killer whales and the documentaries I have watched on them.
> I am planning a trip to go Kayaking with them in Johnstone Straight, BC in the next few years as it has been a dream to see them in the wild so I guess I will see if they want to eat me when I get there but I very much doubt they will.


there are resident orcas, who eat *fish. * they don't eat seals or people.

there are transient orcas, who eat *marine mammals - * other, larger whales, especially their calves & tongues; 
seals, sea-lions, walrus... and now & then, a human when one is vulnerable.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I never go through the door first except on walks


And I do have the dog wait, so I can go through doors & gates first, but it's for safety reasons; I can check what's on other side and it avoids tendency to develop bolting out of eagerness. Indoors it avoids a situation where the dog's under my feet, and slowly backing up, wondering where to go to get out of my way.

I'm not going to stop doing something sensible, that helps practice impulse control, just because Dominance theory people say you should do it.


----------



## coaches pets (Mar 10, 2011)

Malmum said:


> I think a lot of bad breeding is definitely causing some dog aggression, no doubt about that along with illnesses too. Don't think your average jp even considers a dogs temperament when putting two dogs together. We all know about food additives in human food and how they can affect behaviour, so another possible reason for bad behaviour. *At least most dog foods now state no additives, colouring etc.*


No way!  Do you buy your pet food in a supermarket....if you do it's probably next to all the lovely bakers, pedigrees and frolics of this world that are stuffed with them. 



Malmum said:


> I do use some dominance, all be it very limited and def not physical but I don't use it in everything I do, I never go through the door first except on walks and do allow dogs on the sofa but I let them know in no uncertain terms if they p*ss me off, usually with a loud "hey" and a prod with my fingers, which stops them in their tracks. I don't have bad dogs however so it's difficult for me to have to be dominant with them. Unfortunately I lack the confidence I have in the home outdoors with Flynn, so he can have the upper hand when he see's another dog, my confidence dwindles on those occasions. That's where positive reinforcement come in, I can use treats in a very difficult situation and gain control. So can see both sides of the coin with all this training lark.


I think you're sort of muddying the dominace definition there....I'd say what you do when you say 'hey' and give a prod to your dogs is an interruptor, in fact I wouldn't say any of the things you do are 'dominant' per se


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> there are resident orcas, who eat *fish. * they don't eat seals or people.
> 
> there are transient orcas, who eat *marine mammals - * other, larger whales, especially their calves & tongues;
> seals, sea-lions, walrus... and now & then, a human when one is vulnerable.


Pretty basic stuff that Terri, but still no documented evidence to be found. I have found plenty of evidence that killer whales work alongside humans to hunt fish and other whales, have eaten a dog, a caribou, birds and all manner of marine creatures and mammals but no human. Not even touched cameramen that have been in the water filming them hunting seals.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

hutch6 said:


> Pretty basic stuff that Terri, but still no documented evidence to be found.


sorry that i cannot provide photographs of an orca being necropsied, with a human in the stomach; 
as i said, it is rare - but Inuit hunters tell of orca hunting humans along leads in the ice, and of hunters 
who were taken by orca.

believe, don't, think i'm lying in my teeth - whatever.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> sorry that i cannot provide photographs of an orca being necropsied, with a human in the stomach;
> as i said, it is rare - but Inuit hunters tell of orca hunting humans along leads in the ice, and of hunters
> who were taken by orca.
> 
> believe, don't, think i'm lying in my teeth - whatever.


Wait!!!!

Found it 

YouTube - Killer Whale Eats Ice Fishing Guy


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

hutch6 said:


> YouTube - Killer Whale Eats Ice Fishing Guy


very funny - it's a CAD-fake.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

coaches pets said:


> No way!  Do you buy your pet food in a supermarket....if you do it's probably next to all the lovely bakers, pedigrees and frolics of this world that are stuffed with them.
> I think you're sort of muddying the dominace definition there....I'd say what you do when you say 'hey' and give a prod to your dogs is an interruptor, in fact I wouldn't say any of the things you do are 'dominant' per se


No I do not, unless you call this a supermarket!  The Dog Food Company - Products Page My dogs are barf fed, always have been I wouldn't dream of putting anything commercailly made into them!

And how do you know what form of dominance I am talking about? since I haven't actually stated what I do! You are very presumptuous and *totally wrong*!


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Malmum said:


> And how do you know what form of dominance I am talking about? since I haven't actually stated what I do! You are very presumptuous and *totally wrong*!


I think very few people actually understand what 'dominance' means. It describes a relationship between organisms, one brought about through continuous force and aggression, and one that needs to maintained in this manner to keep the relationship stable.


----------

