why leadership has nothing to do with dog training

Keep it on topic and stay off the personal issues

ORIGINAL: Angelique
Problems in understanding this concept arise when humans bypass the appropriate scientific use of these words by equating "dominance" with frustration, anger, and "Kitten With a Whip" imagery.

I agree 100%

"yanking","pushing","bulling","choking", etc are terms used to make corrections look bad, is exaggerating reality to prove a point

I consider leash "pops" to be the equilivent of rapping a child across the knuckles. I am opposed to the practice of stepping on the leash to physically force the dog into a down position. I consider dragging a dog by the leash to be the equilivent of "smacking" them hard.
 
I do not know a single person who gives treats to a dog throughout their entire lives for eliminating in the proper spot. I haven't given a single treat, a word of praise, or a toy to a dog in many years for doing this (although I praised the heck out of a rescue for learning to do it on leash so we could travel). But I most definately rewarded with treats, praise AND play every single time they went outside when they were learning this behavior. In order for us to live comfortably together, their natural instinct needed to be changed. But after the desired behavior has taken a firm hold, no rewards are necessary.
 
Most recently I've been teaching my Golden Retriever/Chow to find my keys. The rewards in this case are very high. She either gets an extra walk or a quick car ride--both of which motivate her far more than any food. At this point it is a completely new skill and she receives high rewards so I don't ask her unless I have the time to deliver those rewards. At some point, I'll probably be able to get by with just a thank you. One of my other dogs will do anything asked for a smidgen of praise, a thrown ball or a not very special treat. He's an exceptionally willing dog. Dog number three is motivated by food.

If leadership and respect have nothing to do with dog training, I'm confused.
 
When I take a dog out pheasant hunting and he chooses to bring me a bird, what is his motivation? I have never asked him to retrieve and I give him no reward for doing it. He brings it to me, I put it in my pack and he resumes hunting. Or how about when I go for a walk and three dogs join me. I did not ask them to come, nor do I reward them for being with me. They choose to do these things.
 
If not leadership and respect, what is it?
 

ORIGINAL: Angelique


That depends on what school of thought you subscribe to. A leader does not simply control resources, but leads and directs the activities of the group as a whole for the survival of all.

Read any research paper by a scientist who studies social animals in the field, and you will learn the correct use of these terms in a scientific context...or watch Meerkat Manor on Animal Planet, and you will hear the same thing.

The "leader" of  a social group of animals is referred to as the "alpha" or "dominant" member of the group. These animals are born to this position because of their naturally inheirited "dominant" traits.

Dominant and submissive behaviors are also a form of communication between social animals within the group. If my behavior is "dominant", I am communicating that "I" am the leader of the group. If "your" behavior is "submissive", you are communicating that you recognise my position as "leader". Simple as that.

Dominance is both a natural born "group/pack/social" position and a form of communication of that position...as is submissive and subordinant behavior.

Problems in understanding this concept arise when humans bypass the appropriate scientific use of these words by equating "dominance" with frustration, anger, and "Kitten With a Whip" imagery.

Steady on. I worked on a cooperative breeding bird species for a while. We called the male that beat up the other male(s) in the group the dominant male. Funnily enough, when it came to making any decisions at all in the group that was not based around where the males were to sing from, the female in the group made it.  Does that make her the  'leader', or is the dominant male the leader?  The dominant male had the right to mate with the female because he'd hammer his subordinate(s) into the ground if they so much as looked at the female when she was fertile. And it wasn't just the subordinates, but every male in the vicinity who would undoubtedly come knocking if his girl was fertile. In this case, his behaviour is called dominant because he controls who mates with his female, but ONLY on his territory. The female usually buggers off at some stage to mate with the sexy male 3 territories over that didn't go brown over the winter. He controls by being aggressive and winning the fights he picks. Dominant behaviour is generally considered as controlling behaviour, and usually within social groups it's aggressive or ritualistically aggressive. The interesting thing is that the female in our cooperative birds usually 'led' the group. She decided where to forage and she built the nest and incubated the eggs, and she dictated when her males should feed the nestlings and when they should leave her to brood them. She also decided who was going to mate with her, despite the dominant behaviour from her dominant male. She did all of this with a minimal amount of aggression, but should a supernumerary female from the winter be on her territory when she feels like breeding, the poor thing is going to be viciously attacked with no warning and driven out.

So, my point is, dominance and leadership are different. Somone who is dominant towards others may not be the leader. The leader usually behaves dominantly at one point or another, but frequently just does what they like and everyone else follows because they're relieved someone is making decisions. A lot of dominant behaviour is noisy bluster because someone is trying to tell you they're of higher status than they really are. A dominant animal often defends their social position with extreme aggression. In many cases, dominant behaviour IS aggressive behaviour. The dominant male in a polygamous mating system controls his access to the females with extreme aggression towards other males. He'll kill them in some cases. Or they'll kill him. Forgive us all if we think of dominant behaviour as aggressive or angry behaviour. Often it is. Animals have submissive gestures and dominant posturing to avoid the dangerous aggression of sorting out who's dominant. It's behaviour to show size, stength and commitment so the animals can each decide if they think it's worth fighting, not to signal who was born the more dominant one. It's a little more complicated than that and a whole lot more selfish than ensuring the survival of every individual in the group.

Lastly, I know that no bird is a born leader. They get there with experience or through possessing a territory. When it comes to securing a territory, it's mostly a matter of who gets there first to defend it. No bird is inherently dominant. They wouldn't dare behave dominantly unless they had possession of a territory. If they have a territory, they control resources. Thus, dominance can come as a direct result of controlling resources.

Not to say all animals are the same, but it sounds to me like we're not the only ones that struggle with the use of the word 'dominance'.

It's good that you said not all animals are the same.  We are talking about dogs, whose natural pack structure, had they not gone through thousands of years of both natural and unnatural selection, might have resembled the wolves more closely.  In some ways, it still does, but in others, they are removed from that "aboriginal" heritage.  I like to think of it in the same way that natives of this continent are.  In years gone by, they wore clothing fashioned from the animals they hunted, they had their aboriginal language, they had spiritual and religious ceremony.  Now, hundreds of years after European contact, many of the nations have lost their language, or are struggling to retain it.  They wear buckskin at powwows, in honor and remembrance of the ancestors, but not always in a historically accurate form.  They smudge and they pray to the four directions in a respectful way, but they may not even know the intricate prayers or ceremonies that their ancestors engaged in.  So, they are essentially aboriginal people, with some of their original habits removed.  Just as the dog is a wolf with the kill instinct removed, or is a wolf without the wolf's body shape or coloring.    Dogs that exhibit true leadership often share their toys willingly (after all, they can have them back any time they want), or they simply glance at another dog (who averts their eyes in submission), but the leader is not as likely to engage in obnoxious behavior as is the subordinate "wannabe" type dog.   Leaders are often the quietest dog in the room.  They often have the highest tail carriage (at the base of the tail) when being greeted by others.  Don't believe me?  Watch what your own dog does when he greets you.  Even if the tail is wagging, unless he is a breed that is predisposed to carry the tail over the back, the base of the tail should lower at the moment he engages with you in greeting behavior.  The leader dog might be the first to answer the doorbell to investigate the intruder.  But he will not be the one mounting and clasping the other dogs in the pack - that's for wannabe's.  Personally, I don't think leadership is relevant unless by that terminology we mean that the human intends to be the following: benevolent, clear, trustworthy, consistent, calm, communicative.  I just know what seems to work for the hundreds of dogs I see each week.  Even deaf dogs, stubborn dogs, and high strung dogs (once you get them out of the high stress situation and begin to work to desensitize them).  I have not seen happy dogs come from homes that are confrontational, violent, or even authoritarian (note the difference between that and authoritative).

Okay. Leadership and dominance are two different things. Courtesy Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: dom·i·nance
Pronunciation: 'dä-m&-n&n(t)s, 'däm-n&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : the fact or state of being dominant : as a : dominant position especially in a social hierarchy

Main Entry: lead·er·ship
Pronunciation: 'lE-d&r-"ship
Function: noun
1 : the office or position of a leader
2 : capacity to lead
3 : the act or an instance of leading

Dominance is a social fact, and is therefore rigid. It depends on a preexisting hierarchy. Leadership is a set of actions and capacities, and depends on people (animals, whatever) making the choice to follow you.

Perhaps it would be a great thing if one could establish, once and for all, that they are Dominant over their dog in a way that is a fact. But in reality, social hierarchies are quite fluid (both in dogs and in people), and so a Leader's skills and capacities are always being challenged and a good leader works to minimize conflict.

My dog makes many choices to follow me and not his own agenda every single day. Thinking about my relationship with him in terms of dominance, which is a fact and does not address these choices my dog is making, simply misses a lot of what is actually happening.

This argument is getting to be basically a rehash of Free Will v. Determinism from Philosophy 101 class. I vote free will.

Love it, fisher, and I agree 100%.  You have given a great explanation.

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: glenmar

And still no explanation why my crew follow me as their leader when I am treatless.........could it perhaps BE that I have in fact established myself as their leader, regardless of treats??????  Hmmmmmmmm.

Anne, just move over and make room for me in that treat dispensing roommate, butler corner please.

Well i wanted you to realize yourself but maybe you dont want to, if they follow you when you dont have treats is because they are hoping sooner or later you will take out one for them like saying "there is the treat dispenser, lets follow him to see if perhaps we did something "right" so he give us another one" just like when you ask yourself if the girls like Donald Trump because his money or because what he really is inside, could be still having beautiful wifes if he was poor? could you still be a leader if you were not using treats from now on?

My BF's poor, and I'm beautiful.  [sm=rotfl.gif]

So, tell me, would you go to work every day for a year, and not be following your boss around looking for the money he owes you for the good job you've done???  Even volunteers like the occasional "thank you".  If you are a boss who never pays your employees, you are a slavemaster, not a leader. 

Well i wanted you to realize yourself but maybe you dont want to, if they follow you when you dont have treats is because they are hoping sooner or later you will take out one for them like saying "there is the treat dispenser, lets follow him to see if perhaps we did something "right" so he give us another one" just like when you ask yourself if the girls like Donald Trump because his money or because what he really is inside, could be still having beautiful wifes if he was poor? could you still be a leader if you were not using treats from now on?

This is all about you, the human, focusing on how you are being perceived. Who cares? I want my dog to be good and to be happy, and I want to achieve this goodness in a way that is fun and makes everybody happy. I do not need my dog to be intrinsically motivated by some deep inner loyalty or fidelity to me. I just want him to fit in and do what I want him to do--my ego does not need to know that the only reason he obeys me is ME.

Loosening the grip of your ego could be really good. For instance, I give my dog a small treat after he poops and pees about 35-40% of the time. You may gasp and recoil and call me a Treat Dispenser, but you know, the very minute we get outside he poops and pees. And this comes in quite handy when I am running late.

Since this keeps moving from dogs to people, I'll share the story of my success as a tutor when I went back to college.
 
The state in which I lived at the time was pretty backwoods and education wasn't highly valued.....while that had improved, a lot of the students we got were displaced workers who either the State or WC were retraining.  Many of these folks were 40+ and had gone directly from high school, which they may or may not have finished, to the mines, factories or the military.
 
Now, I had grown up in a whole different situtation where education WAS valued, and I'd been trying to get back to school for years.  I WANTED to be in college and wanted to earn my degree and a B was simply not acceptable to me.  I liked my 4.0 GPA and worked hard to keep it there.  I'm not a genius, but I am determined and have enough faith in myself to MAKE it happen.
 
So here I am, supposed to tutor a bunch of students who really didn't want to be in college, who really didn't WANT to take the one particular course that was the most hated and yet required for graduation.  The dreaded course was payroll accounting and the dreaded project was the payroll project, a 13 week, last quarter, detailed payroll for a small company, complete with payroll taxes, the employers contributions to FICA and health insurance, bonus's,sales taxes paid to the state, the whole nine yards.  And it was done, not on computer, but ON PAPER.  It wasn't a difficult project, but it was tedious, time consuming and required extreme attention to detail.  And, I ended up doing that same payroll project about 5 times myself, because each new class had a few minor changes that would throw off the entire thing. Most of these students came into my "class" willing to just pass the course.  That quickly changed.
 
I LED these students.  I didn't dominate.  I led by my example, I worked WITH them, but I made clear from the get go that no one in my group was going to "settle" for a passing grade on a project that made up ONE THIRD of the course grade.  I led by setting clear and consistent guidelines, with clear expectations and by golly when I assigned work to be done at home, I didn't get the phoney excuses that a lot of the profs did. I led by letting them all know that I believed that they COULD do it and made it clear that I expected them to believe in themselves as well.  One quarter, I had a payroll accounting group, three business math students and two English students....this was all at the same time, in the same small classroom and I kept every one of those students on task for the entire hour that we met every day.  And NO ONE skipped my "class".  Each and every student was there every single day.
 
There was no compulsion to be there, no marks against anyone for not showing up....I was after all, just a tutor.  But not one of my payroll accounting students got less than an A on the project, not one of my students earned less than a B in the courses I tutored.  I didn't GIVE them the answers (I didn't HAVE the answers) but I worked with them to FIND the answers.
 
I often found the payroll accounting prof lurking outside the door of the classroom, trying to figure out "how I did it" with these groups of students that SHE didn't think were going to get through the course.  SHE had the ultimate power and could have a student dropped from the curiculum or from the school.....I had only the ability to lead.  And, by the way, the only treats dispenced in MY classes, were the little things that my students brought to ME by way of thanks.  I helped them to believe in themselves, and I offered praise when it was earned, but that was it.
 
Now, I personally adored that particular prof.....but SHE dominated her classes, and it was mostly her students that I got.  Yet she was a tenured professor and I a mere volunteer.  But I got better results than she did.  And there is MY ego coming through!
 
But, take these same leadership guidelines and apply them to dogs and you'll get the same results.....a well trained, happy and loyal dog who will follow you anywhere, who will look to you for protection, because you are the ultimate "alpha" or whatever word you want to use.
 
Your theory that they "follow me anywhere" because they suspect that someday I'll start pulling threats out of my ear just doesn't track.  Because they will NOT follow me when told (IE: out on the deck when I say not this time) they will not get on the bed until they are invited........yep, all of this because they suspect that sooner or later I'm gonna pull out the treats.  They have no respect for me.  I'm just the treat dispensing, butler/roommate.
 
sigh......

ORIGINAL: corvus
Dominant behaviour is generally considered as controlling behaviour

 
I see how you are using the word to describe a "dominant" male bird who is controlling the breeding rights, he is not acting in a leadership position, but simply dominating other males in order to breed.
 
The term "dominant" is also used to describe the males in many species who have attained breeding rights either through "dominant" displays or aggression.

ORIGINAL: corvus
Animals have submissive gestures and dominant posturing to avoid the dangerous aggression of sorting out who's dominant. 

 
Yes, (breeding birds aside), this is used by higher social mammals as a form of communication to find out who is who, where do "I" fit in, and who is the leader (decision maker) to avoid confusion and/or physical conflict, so they may work together.
 
I can see why people get confused by the word "dominance". As it can be used several different ways.
 
I generally use it to describe a form of communication of status within a social group. I also use it to describe a dog's natural born status. Some dogs are simply more dominant by nature, as are some humans. I guess you could also say some dogs and people are simply born leaders by nature, while others are born followers.
 
A leader does not behave in a submissive or subordinant manner. Nor do they display unstable levels of aggression in the form of anger or frustration. Their behavior is that of a dominant, confident animal, with nothing to prove.
 

ORIGINAL: corvus
Not to say all animals are the same, but it sounds to me like we're not the only ones that struggle with the use of the word 'dominance'.

 
No they're not. But, sometimes you can draw certain parallels. Horses are not dogs, but there are things I've learned while working with horses, that I also use when working with dogs.
 
Good points and food for thought.

Dogs that exhibit true leadership often share their toys willingly (after all, they can have them back any time they want

 
And will take them back, when they want, whether the other dog agrees, or not.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

So, tell me, would you go to work every day for a year, and not be following your boss around looking for the money he owes you for the good job you've done???  Even volunteers like the occasional "thank you".  If you are a boss who never pays your employees, you are a slavemaster, not a leader. 

 
That would be a working agreement between you and your boss, can your dog choose between you and someone else? was your dog visiting several owners to see which one was the best for him? Your dogs are "stuck" with you to say it in some way, is not that they can leave you since you are their only food provider, so your example does not apply to this situation, a better example would be, does your manager gives you 5 dollars extra if you answered the phone once? does your manager give you 10 dollars extra because you finished your report? does your manager give your 5 dollars because you have your desk clean?
 
You pay your dogs with their regular lunch time,  you also say "thanks" when you praise them, thats their pay, excersice, discipline and affection, in that order, they dont need treats, with extra walks they are happy, with extra play time they are happy, when i show my affection they are happy, thays their "paycheck", a leader that know they can trust
 

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

This is all about you, the human, focusing on how you are being perceived. Who cares? I want my dog to be good and to be happy, and I want to achieve this goodness in a way that is fun and makes everybody happy. I do not need my dog to be intrinsically motivated by some deep inner loyalty or fidelity to me. I just want him to fit in and do what I want him to do--my ego does not need to know that the only reason he obeys me is ME.

Loosening the grip of your ego could be really good. For instance, I give my dog a small treat after he poops and pees about 35-40% of the time. You may gasp and recoil and call me a Treat Dispenser, but you know, the very minute we get outside he poops and pees. And this comes in quite handy when I am running late.

 
Thanks for proving my point [] you are just focused on what YOU need, you think that if YOU are happy then THEY are happy and thats not the reality, what about THEIR needs?, they need a leader, somebody who guides, not only somebody that handles treats, my dog poops and pees too and she does not get anything and she does it everytime i take her out i dont think she is like "hey why do i get for pooping?" because i would be like "you get that your stomach is not killing you for not doing it", do you get something everytime you go to the bathroom? do you see "alpha" dogs giving food to followers because they pooped?
 
Being "alpha", leader or whatever you wanna call it does NOT mean to be rude to the dogs but is not also to be giving rewards for every single thing they did right, by praising them they have more than enough because that shows them they are a well balanced memeber of the pack thats how they want to "fit in"
 
We as humans think, "wow i would love that if every time i go to the bathroom i get money for it, or every time i sit down if somebody tells me, or if my wife pays me $5 every time she asks me to bring her a glass of water, so that means with the dogs will be the same" and no, is not, if it was that way then you will be doing small stuff for your wife waiting to get paid for it and maybe not because you really want to please her; i am not saying you dont love your wife or girlfriend or whatever but you understand the point

No one is saying that dogs receive treats "for every single thing they did right".  Again, you show you are ignorant of the training process using reward-based training.  Treats, as any other rewards, are used primarily during the *learning* process, then are faded out - they are then given on occasion, to provide an intermittent schedule of reinforcement - that keeps behavior happening.

I daresay that if my dogs experienced your training regimen, they would certainly not feel "stuck" with me. 
I don't know how to say it more plainly - I train with food, or toys.  My dogs do as I ask.  My dogs are NOT food dependent.  My dogs do not avoid offering behavior because they are afraid they'll be wrong.
Apparently, you think only non-food based training has any legitimacy.  So, tell me - if you do use a clicker, what the heck does that sound predict to your dog???  Click = pat on the head?   Do you reward your dogs, and, if so, with what?