Is dominance really so bad?

No, using reward or punishment is not dominance. That's where the fundamental misunderstanding comes in. Dominance cannot be used in terms of training. The term is entirely inappropriate, as it is ethological. Punishment and reward are behavioural. It's a totally different ballgame.

In terms of how you treat a dog "showing dominance" compared to a "dog not showing dominance"....I treat every dog as an individual, and as is needed. They all follow the same basic rule structure in my home, with different levels of freedom, decision making, and management depending on their training and how they make choices. Dominance doesn't even factor in to what I do, as it just doesn't fit as a "training philosophy". You can't train with dominance....you can only witness it when it occurs between dogs. You can't alter dominance interactions....again, you can only witness them.

corvus

 But my point is, what's the difference in how you treat a dog prone to dominance and a dog not prone to it?

More control and diligence, NILIF 100%, different corrections....but I'm thinking of handler-aggressive Schutzhund or police dogs.  There are some "man eaters", very dominant.  The owners of these dogs basically accept that they will probably get bit.

Liesje

More control and diligence, NILIF 100%, different corrections.

Our current foster falls into this group. She is very pushy about whatever she wants. Clearly, it worked for her in the past, and she's adjusted nicely to having all the rules changed on her. She's very willing to do whatever is asked of her, and offers good bahaviors to get things, but if she is given an inch she'll take a mile. So it just means NILF all the time. She'll need a home that knows how to prevent her from getting away with any bad behavior. That doesn't mean they need to be dominant, or rough, just that she's a naughty Aussie and should be treated accordingly. She's also an A+ snuggler, great fetch buddy, and all around good kid.

Hahaha, Aspen realllllly falls into the category of "NILIF was invented for me". He's been a handful, although a great, learning handful. But he's soooo busy and keeps me so busy. He's had some moments where I wanted to just grab him and be like "Why don't you get it?!?!?!?!?!?!" but patience is a virtue when it comes to him!!!

Liesje

corvus

 But my point is, what's the difference in how you treat a dog prone to dominance and a dog not prone to it?

 

More control and diligence, NILIF 100%, different corrections....but I'm thinking of handler-aggressive Schutzhund or police dogs.  There are some "man eaters", very dominant.  The owners of these dogs basically accept that they will probably get bit.

In my opinion, dominance and aggression are two very different things.  There are dogs that exhibit dominance in one aspect or another, but are never aggressive.  Conversely, there are some very aggressive dogs that are not dominant.  And, now I am getting in to language I don't care to use, because IMO the term "dominance" is used very inaccurately by most people.  It is a relative term, and because a dog is dominant, or more powerful, than another in one circumstance, doesn't mean the same dog would give a rat's butt about being powerful in another context.

Just an aside...no unstable or "man eater" dog belongs in either the Schutzhund ring or a police department.  The very notion of an unstable or aggressive dog that makes its own decisions being in a working situation should give the public apoplexy, and rightly so.  It is the *most* stable dogs that should receive that kind of training.  An unstable dog is a loose cannon.   Of course, I wish I had a nickel for every human who thinks that aggression equates with dominance.

I think you misunderstood.  Some of the most dominant dogs are not the ones that are the most overtly aggressive.  For example, Nikon turns on a very high level of aggression when doing civil work but in many areas he is not as confident as the other dogs and of all the dogs in our club, he is probably the most handler sensitive.  He's not a dominant dog, but he will bite and bite for real.  The dominant dogs will push the envelop in every aspect, every phase.  Tracking, obedience...doesn't matter.  Give them an inch and they take a mile.  Typically a dog that is handler aggressive is so because he has been mis-handled, not because he is unstable.  For example, I'm sure you may have seen even pet dogs that have been nagged and overly corrected so often that they get to a point and literally snap.  In SchH, this combination with a dog that is already dominant and probably has some sharpness to him as well can lead to handler-aggression incidents.  Dominant dogs will not stand for handler mistakes.  I know for a fact that there are street dogs (working police dog) with long histories of great work in their departments that have drawn blood from their handlers.  It takes a certain dog to put their lives on the line to protect us and have a successful record of street bites.  Sometimes mistakes are made in handling, or the dog simply redirects.  It's not that these dogs are more aggressive or quicker to bite, but they are unforgiving of mis-handling or inappropriate corrections.  A dog not as dominant might sulk, shut down, recover, or just not notice.  The dominant dog knows when the handler or helper is out of line and will let you know.  The term "handler-aggressive" is not used to label an unsound, nervy dog that snaps on his handler, but a civil dog that understands his work enough to make it clear when the humans are not doing it right.

Of my three dogs, Kenya is ironically the most dominant.  The boys rarely challenge her, and she will correct them when they are out of line, not abiding by the rules (if her interpretation of the rules fits with my rules, then I don't step in).  However she is not aggressive, passed the CGC, TT, and multiple therapy dog evaluations, no bite history and won't tug with me over raw meat let alone do formal bitework. 

She is also a good example that dominance is relative.  When it comes to dog-human interaction she's somewhat neurotic.  With other dogs she is the leader of the pack, and she doesn't have to push anyone around to keep that status.  It's like they just *know*.  She only interacts with dogs on her own terms and is usually content to stay off to the side chewing a bone.  But if she does want to play, the other dogs let her take the lead and take her corrections when things are on the verge of escalating.

Liesje

corvus

 But my point is, what's the difference in how you treat a dog prone to dominance and a dog not prone to it?

 

More control and diligence, NILIF 100%, different corrections....but I'm thinking of handler-aggressive Schutzhund or police dogs.  There are some "man eaters", very dominant.  The owners of these dogs basically accept that they will probably get bit.

I suppose, too, it depends on one's definition of dominance and the realization that it is contextual. Such as, one dog always gets the "choicest" sleeping spot unless he or she relinquishes it with the understanding that it could be reclaimed later. And vice versa with a favorite chew toy or bone.  I'm not saying that all dogs are dominant but they do what we want because it is rewarding to them. If they don't it is because whatever else they are doing is more rewarding to them. You have to compete with their environment.

 I have never met one of these "man eaters". I believe folks here if you say they exist, but I wonder what relevance they have to average pet owners, who are not going to be able to handle dogs like that no matter what anyway. Outliers don't make a very good basis for any argument.

corvus

 I have never met one of these "man eaters". I believe folks here if you say they exist, but I wonder what relevance they have to average pet owners, who are not going to be able to handle dogs like that no matter what anyway. Outliers don't make a very good basis for any argument.

For me, it helps define the spectrum of what is "dominance".  To me a dominant dog is one that pushes the handler, and that push is not always (and most often not) bad.  For me it's relevant because it puts the concept of "dominance" into perspective.  I've met few "pet" dogs that have even come close, as far as also being sound (met plenty of "pet" dogs who supposedly displayed "dominant" behaviors that were really reactions stemming from fear and insecurity).

Liesje

corvus

 But my point is, what's the difference in how you treat a dog prone to dominance and a dog not prone to it?

 

More control and diligence, NILIF 100%, different corrections....but I'm thinking of handler-aggressive Schutzhund or police dogs.  There are some "man eaters", very dominant.  The owners of these dogs basically accept that they will probably get bit.

  I am not sure that handler aggression is really due to "dominance",so much as the dog being overly reactive and prone to redirected aggression. I have seen dogs who were rather fearful display handler aggression when corrections are used in certain ways/at certain times.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a very civil dog with a less-than-highly-experienced handler.  Not a reactive dog, but a dog that will not sit back and take improper corrections, constant nagging, half-arsed handling, etc.  Not too common but they are out there.

AgileGSD

I am not sure that handler aggression is really due to "dominance",so much as the dog being overly reactive and prone to redirected aggression. I have seen dogs who were rather fearful display handler aggression when corrections are used in certain ways/at certain times.

Excellent point.

Liesje

corvus

 I have never met one of these "man eaters". I believe folks here if you say they exist, but I wonder what relevance they have to average pet owners, who are not going to be able to handle dogs like that no matter what anyway. Outliers don't make a very good basis for any argument.

 

For me, it helps define the spectrum of what is "dominance".  To me a dominant dog is one that pushes the handler, and that push is not always (and most often not) bad.  For me it's relevant because it puts the concept of "dominance" into perspective.  I've met few "pet" dogs that have even come close, as far as also being sound (met plenty of "pet" dogs who supposedly displayed "dominant" behaviors that were really reactions stemming from fear and insecurity).

You probably just haven't met enough pet dogs that call for behavior consultations lol.  But, you are spot on when you say that fearful and insecure dogs are often accused of exhibiting dominant behavior, when nothing is farther from the truth.