ron2
Posted : 12/31/2006 7:25:05 PM
Even though I have been entertained by the enigma of your education and creds, in the end, it won't matter to me in how I train and guide Shadow. You already know some of my resources and you are one of them. Truth be known, I have been tempted to try the clicker thing for grits and shins. I've noticed that dogs can respond to certain sounds before they respond to a certain word. As another person pointed out, her dog responds to hand signals more clearly and readily than audibles.
My goal is to always have reliable obedience, with or without treat in my hand. With treats, Shadow will do just about pretty much anything I command but I don't want him food dependent, per the "Third Way" reference. Now, there are times when his obedience and behavior are absolutely stellar, even without a treat in my hand. I think he's generally a good dog, with a mischievous bent, at times. Then again, I've learned better some of his cues and schedules. A behavior at one time of the day means "I want to play and burn some energy." The same cue at about 4:00 p.m. means "I'm hungry."
Then there's the obvious cue "I want training so that I can get some treats" where he keeps bumping the hand I usually give treats with. I'm attempting the "treatbag" route, as well. That is, to have treats on me for random rewarding, not just when he's hungering for treats or always around the same time every day. Then, that could become his hunt for food, rather than actual behavior shaping.
If he is food motivated, as he appears to be, I might as well take full advantage of that as far as I can.
As for dominance, I am dominant to him. And I don't mean soley as to physical control. I mean I lead. I provide the treats. I do the majority of the training. So, being a treatbag wouldn't mean I'm constantly throwing treats for everything but I think it could allow for greater control or dominance if I can treat at random, instead of a set training period. Then, theoretically, he would always be paying attention, not knowing but expecting pretty well any time of the day, he might be getting a treat. But, again, if I have to physically control him, I will.
I hope I wasn't too OT. I know I was some but the original question was when did we drop the dominance theory. If you are talking about physical control or correction, such as scruffing, I haven't used it much for a year now. I think the theory of dominance is helpful only in whatever way it can be used to help the dog see you as the leader and do what is commanded when commanded, as it is for the safety of all involved. IMHO, Shadow might not respond to leash pops but I don't see them as necessary. By adjust leash length or leash position while in harness and giving a sit command, I can still have some obedience. So, one size doesn't fit all. What's important to me about getting a sit in harness while visiting with other dogs is that he is listening to me. The command to sit and expect it are dominance on my part.
So, as others have pointed out, too, some of our greatest debates hinge on the semantics of "dominance."
ETA:
My view of the scruff, something to which Shadow would respond by lowering himself and rolling himself, was that it was a useful tool for a time and has not been necessary once other training methods accomplished more obedience. I would use the scruff for "no." And then, after beginning treat training, I could follow up the no with an obedience command. That is, I fully agree that if you correct or "no" a dog, you need to give them a direction to go in to earn a good boy, even if it's just a sit or down.
And there are times when we all-out bribe him. If we need him to go outside because we'll be gone for more than a couple of hours, we will lead him out with cheese or meat. Shameless of me, I know. Sue me for luring him outside with honey ham.[
]