The language of dominance and submission

A few signals a regular dog owner might send that could indicate a subordinate (submissive) position (or that you are not leadership material) to a dog could be:
 
Weak body posture
Averting your gaze when your dog looks at you
Giving space up to a dog
Allowing the dog to choose where to go on walks
Walking behind the dog in social situations
Constantly glancing at the dog
Speaking in a high-pitched voice
Nervous body language
Approaching the dog first
Giving up the food in your possession
Acting excited
Reacting to what the dog is doing
Following the dog to answer the door
Allowing the dog to choose to obey
Constantly going to the dog for affection
Lack of confident "attitude"
Not acting aware of what's going on
 
These are a few and there are variables in any given situation depending on what's going on.
 
Working dogs who are performing a task, a dog who is directed to move out in front or is given free time during the walk are a few variables.
 
Some dogs are also very easy going and you can get away with a lot more than you can with a dog with a more "naturally dominant" personality.
 
 
 

Allowing the dog to choose to obey

Can you elaborate? My dogs always have a choice and part of my method is to make that as clear as possible.

ORIGINAL: brookcove

Can you elaborate? My dogs always have a choice and part of my method is to make that as clear as possible.

 
So he can choose between sit down on command or not?, he can choose to pee inside your house or not? he can choose to sleep in your bed or not? he can choose between listen to you or not?

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: brookcove

Can you elaborate? My dogs always have a choice and part of my method is to make that as clear as possible.

So he can choose between sit down on command or not?, he can choose to pee inside your house or not? he can choose to sleep in your bed or not? he can choose between listen to you or not?

If you are a skillful trainer, your dogs choose the behavior you had in mind. []  It isn't necessary to force a dog to make right choices.  Just catch him doing something right, and reward it.  Manage his surroundings so he doesn't have many opportunities to do it wrong - set him up for success. []

You know...I am thinking you nailed it.  Right here.

It's just that simple isn't it?

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs



If you are a skillful trainer, your dogs choose the behavior you had in mind. []  It isn't necessary to force a dog to make right choices.  Just catch him doing something right, and reward it.  Manage his surroundings so he doesn't have many opportunities to do it wrong - set him up for success. []

My mentor says, "Make the wrong difficult, and the right easy." and "Give the dog the freedom to be wrong."

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: corvus

No, you've missed my point. WOLVES don't follow shy, fearful or uncertain leaders because such leaders don't exist. They don't exist because all those things come about through a lack of strength. Strength has to be the only thing that matters because it's a true signal of fitness. A weak wolf will not be confident in the alpha position because it knows it's not strong and it's just a matter of time before someone bigger who cares more comes along and kicks them out. I'm not willing to believe wolves can judge leadership skills in their fellow packmates at this time.

Exactly, such leaders dont exist, why should we think then that an owner with those feelings would be consider a leader, strength helps but it does not matter if the pack member is a bear-sized animal, if he is not confident enough then he has high chances not to be the leader, i bet you have seen small dogs being the ones that act more confident and are seen as leaders between a pack including big dogs

I have also seen a wolf hold her position as alpha after losing a leg. Whenever she stood alongside the beta, she kept her legless side away from her, hiding her disability. It wasn't an honest signal, but her desire to hold the position was. Small dogs win when they want it more. That's why I included motivation and strength in being the deciding factors. The top dog in our pack is not the largest, but the pack was formed around him as he was the first and he held his position because it mattered to him more to keep what he had than it did for a new pack member to gain what they never had. It's the law of ownership, ironically. It's a well-known phenomenon in the animal world for weaker individuals to prevail against stronger ones because the motivation is higher in the weaker animal to hold onto what it wants.

Consider this example. A small wild cat holds his territory. He knows where the food and shelter and water are. He knows what the dangers and what the benefits are and where they can be found. His territory overlaps those of several females. He knows who they are and has access to them when they're on heat. This territory is his security and it provides him with everything he needs. Without it, he may well die before he can find another suitable territory. Along comes a bigger cat. The bigger cat doesn't have a territory, but he thinks the smaller cat's territory looks sweet and he decides he wants it. However, he knows nothing about the territory, and soon it becomes apparent that the resident cat will fight to the death to keep his territory. The bigger cat has a choice. If he fights for the territory, he knows he can win, but the smaller resident cat is going to rip him up good before he does. He can risk terrible injury that may lead to his death or make it hard for him to hunt for a territory he will then have to learn about from scratch, or he can move on and find a vacant territory or challenge a smaller and even weaker cat for a territory. He generally does the latter because it's less risky to him.

To get back to your original question, there's no reason to think a dog would follow someone who was certainly less motivated than they were to hold the alpha position. That's because such a person is no leader. I know you've already said as much, but what I'm trying to emphasise is that extremely submissive traits immediately disqualify an individual from leadership. It is no leadership because there's no direction to follow in the first place. So saying that a dog won't follow someone who is submissive towards them is moot because that person isn't making an attempt to lead in the first place. However, leadership in the dog world is very simple. The alpha gets to do whatever the alpha wants whenever the alpha likes. My feeling is that things like NILIF work because they emphasise to a dog that everything is on human terms, not dog terms, and that tells the dog they're at the bottom of the pack much better than simply controlling the resources does. Control means deciding when to dole out the good stuff, which is more important than the fact that you are the only one that doles out the good stuff. Thus, a person submissive towards dogs can be alpha by deciding when to dole out the good stuff. I think in most cases the dog would never challenge because dogs are not wolves and many don't have a burning desire to be at the top.

You know...I am thinking you nailed it.  Right here.

It's just that simple isn't it?

 
I've had tremondous success with both my dogs using that principle as my guide. Set them up for success and catch them doing something right. The same way I handle a classroom.

As a very novice clicker trainer (with one great Rally O dog and one just-learning dog), here's something else I found--considering leadership and all.
 
The old saying goes like this: If your dog respects you, s/he will move aside and let you walk in the door first. If they don't respect you, then they'll blast ahead of you.
 
In my CM class, we praticed standing big and tall and using our serious voice and lo and behold, my dogs blasted and then got yanked told "NO!" in our firmest voices, and were given another shot (to blow it, of course).
 
I had my just-learning dog for nearly a year when I realized that our bond wasn't very strong. No amount of tall walking, serious voicing, I need you to pay attention worked with that bond, and trust me, I was a good student.
 
So, I decided to click for a few things that energy wouldn't teach him and snap--just like that, this just-learning dog is extremely mindful of me--he waits at doors, he stops running when I tell him to, he comes every time he's called, and now (and you'll love this one, Anne), he's picking up things for me when I ask him to. Yeah, in mere months--I say, "Grab that," and he does.
 
And I set him up to succeed, managed his environment, and then let him choose--click or no click. No sweat off my back. He always worked toward getting a click/making me happy. And now, without treats, he's still doing it all.
 
I think our bond was built on clear communication (the clicker), on patience (no more serious voice, standing tall, I'm in charge and you better know it, stern me) and just like that--he's my best pal.
 
Take it how you want--my Koehler trained Hound couldn't/wouldn't do half of what my just-learning mix does now, and she was a great dog.
 

ORIGINAL: nfowler

As a very novice clicker trainer (with one great Rally O dog and one just-learning dog), here's something else I found--considering leadership and all.

The old saying goes like this: If your dog respects you, s/he will move aside and let you walk in the door first. If they don't respect you, then they'll blast ahead of you.

In my CM class, we praticed standing big and tall and using our serious voice and lo and behold, my dogs blasted and then got yanked told "NO!" in our firmest voices, and were given another shot (to blow it, of course).

I had my just-learning dog for nearly a year when I realized that our bond wasn't very strong. No amount of tall walking, serious voicing, I need you to pay attention worked with that bond, and trust me, I was a good student.

So, I decided to click for a few things that energy wouldn't teach him and snap--just like that, this just-learning dog is extremely mindful of me--he waits at doors, he stops running when I tell him to, he comes every time he's called, and now (and you'll love this one, Anne), he's picking up things for me when I ask him to. Yeah, in mere months--I say, "Grab that," and he does.

And I set him up to succeed, managed his environment, and then let him choose--click or no click. No sweat off my back. He always worked toward getting a click/making me happy. And now, without treats, he's still doing it all.

I think our bond was built on clear communication (the clicker), on patience (no more serious voice, standing tall, I'm in charge and you better know it, stern me) and just like that--he's my best pal.

Take it how you want--my Koehler trained Hound couldn't/wouldn't do half of what my just-learning mix does now, and she was a great dog.

I've read some of your posts about the class you took. It sounds like your instructor was a "Cesar coated Koehler style trainer". I have bumped into a few of these along the way. I have also bumped into a few "Positive Only's" who use his name to bait and switch their clients.

The bottom line is, any trainer or "behavior expert" still brings who they are to the table. I have met a number of people like myself who "see" what he is really trying to teach owners with troubled dogs, and are grateful for the work he is doing. But, it is still a "buyer beware" industry, unfortunately.

But here's my point, Angelique. You wrote a lovely list of the Must-Do and Must-Be good dog owner/trainer. And you've talked endlessly about being dominant, haivng dominant energy, etc. And lots of people can read these posts, so I feel safe in pointing out a huge complication here between theorists and actual owners. 

If I did Koehler training with my Hound, and then some blend between Koehler and CM with both my current dogs, and then switched over to clicker training and found HUGE rewards, how will I, the average newbie with dogs, ever be convinced, again, to try anything else?

One method paid off. My instructor is great--she was a previous Koehler trainer and owner who'd won lots of awards at various shows, and here she was, standing next to me class after class (answering emails), showing me how to get results.

And I don't have a goofy dog who just knows how to do things but doesn't understand he's submissive and I am not. I have a dog whose whole attitude has changed about me and about him because of my clicker class.

There's no going back after such a resounding response from him (and me, too). Staring him straight in the eyes didn't do it. (We did that, too, in our class.) Building trust through patience, through no-contact training interactions, and through communication (with a clicker) did it.

Everything's changing because of my clicker class. Everything.

ORIGINAL: nfowler

But here's my point, Angelique. You wrote a lovely list of the Must-Do and Must-Be good dog owner/trainer. And you've talked endlessly about being dominant, haivng dominant energy, etc. And lots of people can read these posts, so I feel safe in pointing out a huge complication here between theorists and actual owners. 

If I did Koehler training with my Hound, and then some blend between Koehler and CM with both my current dogs, and then switched over to clicker training and found HUGE rewards, how will I, the average newbie with dogs, ever be convinced, again, to try anything else?

One method paid off. My instructor is great--she was a previous Koehler trainer and owner who'd won lots of awards at various shows, and here she was, standing next to me class after class (answering emails), showing me how to get results.

And I don't have a goofy dog who just knows how to do things but doesn't understand he's submissive and I am not. I have a dog whose whole attitude has changed about me and about him because of my clicker class.

There's no going back after such a resounding response from him (and me, too). Staring him straight in the eyes didn't do it. (We did that, too, in our class.) Building trust through patience, through no-contact training interactions, and through communication (with a clicker) did it.

Everything's changing because of my clicker class. Everything.

 
As a former student of Koehler myself, what else can I say? Do what works best for you and your dog.
 
If you have a stable, happy dog with no social or behavioral problems, who is a safe member of society and welcomed anywhere...you go girl!

I'm just confused reading all this.  I understand clicker training is a very nice positive way to teach commands and good behavior.  But, it's not exactly what I would consider the method for teaching leadership or whatever you want to call it.  I used NILIF for that.   It just seems like some people don't separate teaching commands and teaching leadership.  Does that make sense?

ORIGINAL: willowchow

I'm just confused reading all this.  I understand clicker training is a very nice positive way to teach commands and good behavior.  But, it's not exactly what I would consider the method for teaching leadership or whatever you want to call it.  I used NILIF for that.   It just seems like some people don't separate teaching commands and teaching leadership.  Does that make sense?

Perfect sense.

Training, social communication, and behavioral studies are three different areas which work best when combined. It's the knowing when, where, how, and why - we are muddling through. I think we are just scratching the surface here. But, it's a good start, IMO.

All we can do is discuss and share what we know with each other. 

Quick response before bed--what's the difference before offering a behavior before getting a reward (treat, hug, pet, etc) and offering a behavior before getting a reward? That's all I do with my clicker.
 
The clicker isn't only about tricks--it's about habits, about working together, about trust, consistency, etc. Again--they get nada if they do nada behavior.
 
I feel like I have more control over my dog than I ever have before.
 
My only point is that people are going to do whatever works for them, theory or no theory. It seems to me that leadership is more about theory than actions and so if the average reader can't *see* any benefit to to staring at a dog or standing up tall when giving a command to the dog, then they're not going to be figuring out if he/she is a good leader. That's the last thing they'll be thinking. Most likely, they're thinking, "Oh, I hate it when blasts through me out the door," not, "I hope he recognizes my dominance here."
 
C'mon--we're talking about people like me here.