Did You Dump the Dominance Theory?

Even if you had a dog that was a problem, that doesn't mean you couldn't address it with operant conditioning, so I fail to see how that makes any difference.

I appreciate the fact that you are a professional trainer.

Do you have any videos, or any media source that would show us how you deal with an aggressive dog?
That would compliment our discussion here.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs


I find it interesting that two of you who have expressed an appreciation for CM's methods of "leadership" now say that there is no need to push a dog to the ground (yet he does that), and that for you "dominance means leadership", which is what a lot of positive trainers assert.  The reason most of them dislike the word "dominance" is that it does, at least for them, imply a method of training that relies on coercion or force, however benign.  So, does this mean that you guys also share a desire to be leaders to your dogs, but not by those means?  If so, perhaps you are ready to take additional steps along the journey of reading and observing even more about dog behavior and if so, that's really a good thing.  I believe that leadership implies a presence that encourages dogs to follow even though they are not forced.

 
I would invite you to quote me one just one time when i said that i roll my dog or you need to roll him to gain leadership, actually i remember that when i talk about it i always add that should be done by a professional only and as a last resort when the owner is in danger of being attacked
 
I dont know what made you think that dominance for us was a different thing, as far as i know even you-know-who has the same opinion that us, misconceptions, misconceptions []

ORIGINAL: espencer

I would invite you to quote me one just one time when i said that i roll my dog or you need to roll him to gain leadership

 
I think spiritdogs was referring to snownose saying you don't need to push a dog to the ground at that point.  Which doesn't necessarily mean the alpha roll.
 
I think we're taking different meanings from the word "dominance" on this thread.... I also think that we will all agree that dogs should be treated as dogs and not furry humans.  I also think we will all agree that we should be a "leader" to our dogs.
 
I think what is on discussion here is the way of achieving this.  The outdated "dominance theories" of the 1940s, based on flawed research and involving a great deal of coercion, which simply refuse to die out.  Or the more modern, forward thinking techniques which rely on gaining the dog's trust and compliance without force.
 
I see myself as better with dogs now than I was way back when I was trying to put the outdated "dominance theories" into practise.  I think, in a way, I pity people who are still stuck in the "Dark Ages" and still use and/or recommend these kind of techniques.  I think if you have resorted to making the dog do something because you couldn't make him do it willingly, that's a failure on your part.  I think anyone who prides themselves on being good with animals yet uses coercion to make them comply is deluded because there is  no pride or pleasure in bullying an animal into submission and compliance. Staring a dog down, pushing and pulling him into various positions, yanking his neck with a chain, using overbearing and frankly threatening body language to get what we want..... it all smacks to me of "do as I say or I will hurt you".  I'm glad I ditched it.  I'm loads happier now and (here;s the key point) so are my dogs.

Chuffy:
 
How would you approach an aggressive dog, and how would you proceed with future training?

Depending on the level of the problem, I would go to an experienced trainer who used positive methods and understood the psychology of the dog and how they learn. I would not attempt to rehabilitate a dangerous dog myself and nor should any other member of "JQP".  

The use of the term "aggressive" is an open one - aggressive towards dogs or humans?  There are many diferent kinds of aggression; fear, territorial, sexual, predatory, frustration, dominance.... If I was in a position where I had to approach a strange dog and he was displaying aggression, determining which one it was would be my first step and the next step would be different depending which one it was.

In any case, the question is OT and irrelevant to the discussion, which was about how members felt about the outdated "dominance theories" and how they evolved into new ways of thinking. 

ORIGINAL: snownose

Chuffy:

How would you approach an aggressive dog, and how would you proceed with future training?

Maybe you should start a new thread on this topic?

Back to topic.

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs


I find it interesting that two of you who have expressed an appreciation for CM's methods of "leadership" now say that there is no need to push a dog to the ground (yet he does that), and that for you "dominance means leadership", which is what a lot of positive trainers assert.  The reason most of them dislike the word "dominance" is that it does, at least for them, imply a method of training that relies on coercion or force, however benign.  So, does this mean that you guys also share a desire to be leaders to your dogs, but not by those means?  If so, perhaps you are ready to take additional steps along the journey of reading and observing even more about dog behavior and if so, that's really a good thing.  I believe that leadership implies a presence that encourages dogs to follow even though they are not forced.

I would invite you to quote me one just one time when i said that i roll my dog or you need to roll him to gain leadership, actually i remember that when i talk about it i always add that should be done by a professional only and as a last resort when the owner is in danger of being attacked

I dont know what made you think that dominance for us was a different thing, as far as i know even you-know-who has the same opinion that us, misconceptions, misconceptions []

I didn't ever say that you roll your dog - I said that CM sometimes pushes a dog to the ground.  Saw it again last night in fact. 


snownose, every aggression situation is different, but here's what I do initially.  I take a complete history on the dog from the owner, and that includes info on diet, socialization, where the dog sleeps, what he gets for exercise, what kind of training he's had, what commands he knows, is he intact, under what circumstances he becomes aggressive, etc.  I want to know about his bite history with people or with dogs or both, and how serious the incidents were (did he give someone a black and blue, or did he make multiple punctures?).  I want to know if he has been evaluated by a veterinarian (general physical, what vax & when, thyroid testing, etc.)  If possible, I want to see the dog and owner together, or I want video of the bad behavior.  That's just a start.  But, once I feel I have a handle on the dog's problem, I try to work with the owner to put a regimen in place that will help the situation, and that the owner can safely manage on their own once I am no longer there to help.  The protocols I use are similar to the ones that other behavior professionals use (Hetts, Estep, Overall, Dodman, Aloff, Clothier, King, etc.)

Is there ever a situation where anyone here could see that displaying "Dominance" (not abuse) could benefit a dog, say a dog that has reached it's training potential, and is not responding to reward, basically as a last effort before being put down?

spiritdogs - By "King" do you mean Stephen G King?  Or a different King?
 
edited to add in reply to snownose - I have not personally encountered such a situation, but there are people on here with more experience than me who might have a different take.  I've seen dogs on their last chance saloon rehabbed without using "dominance" (in the context it was used in the OP).  It's my belief (as yet unshaken) that this is possible with all dogs. (medical problems, like brain abnormalities, notwothstanding.)  Perhaps in a few years I will be more wordly-wise and will have a different viewpoint.  I hope not.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
I didn't ever say that you roll your dog - I said that CM sometimes pushes a dog to the ground.  Saw it again last night in fact. 

I saw that too last night, i tried to see it with "+R eyes" but when he said that the dog was in a red zone and could strike at any moment then i rather see that that having a dog PTS, 3 weeks after the dog was still alive and better than ever

CM = professional that knows how and when (red-zone dogs) before they strike

But i have always wonder how a person like you would handle a dominant aggressive dog (regardless of last night episode) and dont take this question as an attack or trying to prove you cant but just as trying to understand how a +R person could help in a case like that if i am a normal guy asking for help to a trainer []

It IS the word "dominance" that nobody can agree on. However, this whole obsession with status is weird to me. Yes, it's there, but we've turned some 40-year old study into this Freudian-like truism about the constant nature of dogs.
 
BTW, there are many parts of Freud that don't apply in today's world--just talking of dogs being like wolves seems to be the same sort of deal. They really aren't wolves fending for themselves--they don't need a bite on the ear to know what to do and what not to do.

Dogs have been known to form a pack as strays,and hunt.
That pretty much seems like wolf behavior to me. Even after many years of breeding, we haven't erased the predatory drive in many dogs.
Maybe, it is much simpler than what all the books are about.

I'm not denying pack mentality is there--what I am suggesting is that we're way overfocused on that. Way too much.
 
Have you taken a CM-like class? One all about dominance and how to deal?

Its true - its the "d-word" people are not agreeing on.  Half the people who seem opposed to the other half are not even singing off the same hymn sheet with regards to which definition of dominance they are using.  I've tried using it only in the context it's used in the OP - that is to say I don't have any truck with the old "dominance theoeries" that involved alpha rolling and the like.  But I do see the benefit - and even necessity - of showing your dog that you are a competent, benevolent "leader" without using force.  Not the same thing at all - completely different techniques with a different end result.

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
I didn't ever say that you roll your dog - I said that CM sometimes pushes a dog to the ground.  Saw it again last night in fact. 

But i have always wonder how a person like you would handle a dominant aggressive dog (regardless of last night episode) and dont take this question as an attack or trying to prove you cant but just as trying to understand how a +R person could help in a case like that if i am a normal guy asking for help to a trainer []

I think snownose and I were left without our response about how to handle an aggressive dog by a +R person like Anne

For me moving away from "dominance theory" style training was mostly instinctual, which is a little unusual for me as I'm typically more of a rational decision maker than an intuitive one... but when I first began training Russell as a puppy we had a trainer who mixed PR techniques with more old-fashioned Monks ideas. My reading up to that point was Woodhouse, Applebaum, Kilcommons - so, in tune with our trainer essentially. I started out doing the leash pops (yes, on a puppy) and using gentle versions of the alpha roll as we were shown in class, but it never for a moment felt right or as though I was making progress with him. I just felt like I was engaged in this battle with my dog and that I had to wrest him into the form of a good dog over a long period of time. Whenever I backed off mentally and gave him more leeway and actually less discipline, I thought I perceived that he responded better and was more likely to follow commands. One day I found a clicker in the park and finally decided to try it. In only a few minutes I taught him a new command and I was converted on the spot.