Controlling the resources

The interesting places a dog goes in the companionship of a homeless person are resources, because the person still makes the decision of whether to hang out at the park or go somewhere else. Sleeping on top of some blankets or a sleeping bag is just fine to a dog when they have human companionship and protection. Unless they have health issues, homeless dogs seem quite happy because they are never bored or lonely and get at least some exercise per day. They are also extremely well socialized, generally speaking.

exactly

the bonding (pack structure) is rooted in the dogs psyche. imo, it goes against natural instinct to hop from one pack and go find another (provided the pack has an ample food supply.) to the dog and the homeless person, the homeless person IS the pack leader, in most cases i would believe.... and the sorce of food as well as companionship. it's really a complex question tho.

.:.

ORIGINAL: houndlove

We offer companionship, structure, emotional fulfillment, company. Most (but not all) dog breeds are fairly hardwired to view the security and structure of a group as just as important as food or a comfortable bed.

 
I think thats the point of why the dog is with the owners and see them as leaders, thats the point of why the pack members follow the leader, the members are free to leave anytime the pack but they dont do it because a pack makes them feel that they belong somewhere.
 
The reality is that we are all in the same boat, our dogs are with us, not because we control the resources but because what houndlove said, we offer "companionship, structure, emotional fulfillment", etc. Thats something dogs can not get by themselves
 
Food, warm bed, etc are just extras (thats something that the dog would be able to find by himself if its needed) but the feeling that he belongs somewhere is the real reason of why a dog stays with the owner i think
 

Well, it does depend on the dog how extra those extras are. Marlowe regularily chooses to go somewhere comfortable where the rest of the family is not in order to rest, rather than be uncomfortable but included in the family gathering. Conrad on the other hand would never dream of doing such a thing. He'll cram himself in to the most uncomfortable cubby hole imaginable if it means he gets to stay with us. He has a huge need for the security of a group.

This is why praise or attention works as a motivator for some dogs but not others. Conrad would wrap himself into a pretzel just for a few pets and kind words from us because to him those actions fulfill this intense emotional need he has for reassurance that he's still part of the group. Marlowe could really care less, but if if that's a treat you've got in your hand, or access to a room with a really comfortable chair, or a leash in your hand meaning it's time to go have fun in the rest of the world, he's all ears (no pun intended). That's why coonhounds, as lovable and non-aggressive and friendly as they are, are typically considered "difficult" and "stubborn" dogs. People get all offended that their dog doesn't "love them enough" if the dog behaves more like Marlowe and less like Conrad. It's not about love--dogs don't love the way we do. It's about the individual needs and motivators that each individual dog has, which is why a one-sized-fits-all approach to what motivates dogs to perform for us does not work. What motivates dogs most is what they want most, and not all dogs want your attention or care terribly much about group dynamics, just like not all dogs are really that interested in food.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the more 'primitive' breeds are also typically the more independent and the less socially-oriented breeds. When left to their own devices, some feral or pariah dogs pack up, some do not, but it is not a gaurenteed event. Some form packs temporarily in order to secure food, then break up afterwards. Some form permanent packs. Some never pack at all.

Some form packs temporarily in order to secure food, then break up afterwards. Some form permanent packs. Some never pack at all.

 
That description sounds to me, like the coyote.  They come in all shapes, sizes and temperments-as well as all ranges of social needs.

ORIGINAL: houndlove

It's about the individual needs and motivators that each individual dog has, which is why a one-sized-fits-all approach to what motivates dogs to perform for us does not work. What motivates dogs most is what they want most, and not all dogs want your attention or care terribly much about group dynamics, just like not all dogs are really that interested in food.

I think we all agree on the one-sized-fits-all  does not work, they might still dont want your attention or group dynamics but again is about the feeling of belonging somewhere (your pack), again, food and bed are extras (regardless quality or quantity)

Voila! Domestic, piebald foxes:



Interestingly, I think all companion animals have a bit of that neotonisation. My domestic rabbit is 2 years old, but she still likes playing. My hare stopped playing at about a year old. He'll sometimes play 'prey' with the kittens and lead them on a merry chase around the lounge room, but that's as playful as he gets these days. When he was younger, he used to do spectacular, high speed aerobatics in play, and he'd play with toys as well. Perhaps it comes from the same happy chemicals that make floppy ears and interesting colours and cuddly critters?

 
 
Thanks for the pic!I do believe a lot of it comes from the chemicals of not fully growing up.Thats why dogs come in soo many different shapes and sizes.anybody get the national geographic channel?There is going to be a special called the science of dogs.It airs august 15 8et/5pt.Another interesting show is called Man among wolves.This scientists raises wolf pups to live in the wild by fully taking on the parent role,even eating out of a carcass[:'(]Sorry this is a bit off topic.

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: houndlove

We offer companionship, structure, emotional fulfillment, company. Most (but not all) dog breeds are fairly hardwired to view the security and structure of a group as just as important as food or a comfortable bed.

I think thats the point of why the dog is with the owners and see them as leaders, thats the point of why the pack members follow the leader, the members are free to leave anytime the pack but they dont do it because a pack makes them feel that they belong somewhere.

The reality is that we are all in the same boat, our dogs are with us, not because we control the resources but because what houndlove said, we offer "companionship, structure, emotional fulfillment", etc. Thats something dogs can not get by themselves

Food, warm bed, etc are just extras (thats something that the dog would be able to find by himself if its needed) but the feeling that he belongs somewhere is the real reason of why a dog stays with the owner i think

Well, that's interesting, because the dog I mentioned earlier was not getting companioship, structure, and emotional fulfillment in any way shape or form from the folks that were feeding her. She went home for dinner and I think she usually slept there, but apart from that, she didn't hang out over there at all. I do think it's slightly complicated, though. In her case, the kids spent a lot of time with her in her early years and she was getting companionship and emotional fulfillment, maybe even structure to some degree. The kids gradually lost interest and then grew up and moved away and she still kept going home for the food and the bed. I wonder if there's a habit aspect in these situations. I also wonder if she would have left her family earlier if someone else started offering her food. In the end, that's what happened, I guess. I think a dog that's used to receiving food from a known source might feel a little afraid of leaving that source until it's definite that it's all dried up. Why would you leave a known source of food and venture into the big wide unknown, even if you were miserable? It really flies in the face of evolutionary theory, and I think dogs have had to care for themselves enough during their coevolution with man to still have that as a strong driving force behind the decisions they make.

Having said that, the neglected dog saw anyone who told her what to do as potential leader material. I think she was emotionally fulfilled as long as there were friendly neighbours around willing to share a walk with her or run her through the few commands and tricks she knew, and she was in seventh heaven when she knew what you were asking her to do and could do it. I've never seen a dog sit with such enthusiasm. I think from seeing how she lived for so many years, I would suggest that a dog can be fulfilled emotionally from a different source to the resource controller and still display the deepest loyalty to the resource controller. Definitely, she left when someone offered her both food and companionship, but until that moment, it was the food that was winning out. Food and a fair whack of habit, perhaps. I think if she'd been a different breed (she was a BC mix), she might have thought of leaving the ready food supply for better companionship.

So in conclusion, I don't think it's a very simple question. I think things like habit and history and breed tendencies come into it. I think that dogs recognise a person that means business and treat them as a leader no matter who supplies the food and walkies and other good things in their life, but that doesn't mean they'll abandon the provider of good things for dogs and go home with the one that sounds like they know what they're doing. I do know one dog who lives next door to such a person. He adores her and is constantly trying to make her happy with him while he makes little effort to get the same regard from his resource controller because she thinks he won't like her if she even sets a rule for him. Again, he would love to live with the one who tells him what to do, but he sleeps and eats at his own home. Again, he's a BC. I think ultimately dogs want the whole package, but they'll settle for just food if that's all that they're getting.

Well, it does depend on the dog how extra those extras are. Marlowe regularily chooses to go somewhere comfortable where the rest of the family is not in order to rest, rather than be uncomfortable but included in the family gathering.

Gaws, that is such a hound thing!!! []  And, a good explanation of the point made about "one size does not fit all".  Pack drive, just like prey drive, is stronger in some breeds, and individuals, than in others. 

I think what I'm trying to say though is that companionship, structure, attention, these ARE resources, just like food, a bed, a door to outside. And depending on the dog, they're going to place different levels of importance on each of these resources.

A resource is simply anything the dog wants. A dog with a very low pack drive is going to view food as a higher resources than family bonding. A dog with a very high pack drive will place being with a group over being fed, having a nice place to sleep or any kind of structure--the dogs who are beaten, shoved outside, starved, yet still come back for more. I assure you, Marlowe would not do that. He would find some way to leave and he would be SO out of there (and we did get him as a stray originally, so perhaps he did). Conrad on the other hand would take any manner of abuse and neglect as long as it meant being part of a group. Conrad can in fact be trained largely with praise and attention as motivators. Marlowe can't. I challenge you to try to train that dog without treats and just with pinches and rolls and shouting. He's not so interested in hanging out with you that he'd stand for that.

A resource is simply anything the dog wants.

 
Exactly. That's why I maintain that if I provided no resources for the dogs, they'd eventually head out in search of someone that would provide resources.

OK, everyone who thinks Stacita is wrong - stop giving your dogs anything and see how long they stay.  []
As for me, I'm going to continue to be in charge of tug toys, lunch, and potty walks.

That's why I maintain that if I provided no resources for the dogs, they'd eventually head out in search of someone that would provide resources.

got a link of any reasearch done on this?
[8D]ducking[8D]

OK, everyone who thinks Stacita is wrong - stop giving your dogs anything and see how long they stay.

hmmm, usually the one who makes the initial claim is the one who needs to prove the claim - of course, that would be animal negect/abuse


[8D]ducking again[8D]

A dog with a very low pack drive is going to view food as a higher resources than family bonding. A dog with a very high pack drive will place being with a group over being fed, having a nice place to sleep or any kind of structure--the dogs who are beaten, shoved outside, starved, yet still come back for more. I assure you, Marlowe would not do that. He would find some way to leave and he would be SO out of there (and we did get him as a stray originally, so perhaps he did). Conrad on the other hand would take any manner of abuse and neglect as long as it meant being part of a group. Conrad can in fact be trained largely with praise and attention as motivators. Marlowe can't.

good post. i often wonder about our 2 rescue dogs - saler was really abused. curuios if he stuck around and they jusrt dumped him or if he bolted. mandi was 65 pounds when we rescued her - all ribs and backbone. she's now 90 and not fat. wonder what her story weas as well - not abused - but came to us like a wild horse.

I challenge you to try to train that dog without treats and just with pinches and rolls and shouting.

who's shouting?
that be eXcItEmEnT
ExCiTeMeNt only dogs unwanted energy.
that no good.

ORIGINAL: houndlove

A resource is simply anything the dog wants. A dog with a very low pack drive is going to view food as a higher resources than family bonding. A dog with a very high pack drive will place being with a group over being fed, having a nice place to sleep or any kind of structure--the dogs who are beaten, shoved outside, starved, yet still come back for more.

Agreed, but I still think food is at the top of a dog's list. As evidenced by the dog I knew that I keep going on about. She was mostly BC and very pack driven, with a sweet, submissive nature and a desperate desire for human leadership and companionship. Yet, she still kept going home for food even when family bonding didn't exist anymore. Perhaps she didn't consider herself still a part of that family and simply went there because she knew that was where the food was. I'm disinclined to think that she was getting family bonding of any sort at her home because as soon as another reliable food source appeared, coupled with the companionship she craved, she suddenly became a very firm homebody and cut all ties with her old family. So I think food was the only thing that kept her going back until that point.

Does anyone understand this reasoning? Dogs need food and companionship to be happy. Dogs generally like guaranteed food more than they like anything else in the world, because without food they'll die. They'll still live if they don't have companionship. If there's food, but no companionship, they'll go looking elsewhere for companionship, but come on home for the food. They are totally capable of fulfilling their own needs from more than one source. Similarly, perhaps a homeless person doesn't offer them food, but does supply guaranteed companionship, so they'll hang around for that and go off to find their own food if they must. But I think if that food comes from someone rather than somewhere, they're much more likely to hang around the person guaranteeing them food than the person guaranteeing them companionship, regardless of how pack driven they are. Sure, lots of things are a resource dogs want, but food and water have to be at the top of the list of priorities, just as they are for any animal, including humans.

stop giving your dogs anything and see how long they stay.

 
My opinion is that no one can train a dog by corrections alone. There needs to be some reward. And dogs may view different resources with different importance at different times. And companionship is a resource, too.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

stop giving your dogs anything and see how long they stay.  []

No brainer there, the survival need is bigger than feeling to belong somewhere

ORIGINAL: ron2

My opinion is that no one can train a dog by corrections alone. There needs to be some reward. And dogs may view different resources with different importance at different times. And companionship is a resource, too.

There is rewards indeed, affection at the right moment can be a reward (it does not have to be food), play time could be a reward, a good walk can be a reward, etc