why leadership has nothing to do with dog training

This little article speaks volumes about WHY leadership IS important in training and in our everyday relationshipwith our dogs.
 
[linkhttp://www.flyingdogpress.com/candy.html]http://www.flyingdogpress.com/candy.html[/link]
 

When his handler did try (belatedly and ineffectively) to set boundaries, Buffy blew her off with complete disregard. His handler, in failing to provide clear leadership, had also managed to systematically undermine Buffy's respect for her. No one accepts boundaries set by someone they don't respect.

It is in so many little ways that we teach our dogs that we are not worthy of respect. When we indulgently allow them to act in inappropriate ways - even small ones - we often forget that we are simply providing our dogs with the proof that we are not good leaders. That is how they perceive our lenience, inconsistency and indulgence. 

 
Here another whole list of [linkhttp://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/lib-prob.htm#dom]articles[/link] written by many  qualified people

Good article, and I agree.  But, I think some people have the wrong idea when they assume that if you train positively, or use food as a reward, that you are lenient.  There are force trainers who make the same mistakes of inconsistency and indulgence as positive trainers are often accused of.  In fact, neither training method is lenient if applied properly.  I just prefer to use the least confrontational method that I can to train my dogs.  

Yeah, I don't get the treat=leniency thing. Why does reward equal indulgence?

Honestly, I think this whole argument is about a total misunderstanding of what positive reinforcement is and what its tools are, and I am done parrying all this sillybusiness. Espencer: please take some time to investigate what positive reinforcement is. I have a feeling you actually use it all the time and are just getting all riled up and frankly kind of emotional about a non-issue.

Case in point: that is a great article. Susanne Clothier is a great trainer... a positive reinforcement icon, if you will. Kennelkeeper, she probably has a lot of advice for you about doing work with your dog at a distance without a shock collar. You should read her book.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

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?

 

When i say "for every single thing they did right" actually i am talkin to fisher6000, i am talking about his specific situation since he gives treats even because the dog went to the bathroom,  like we said in my town "if the jacket fits you then put it on"

Now in YOUR case, if you want to show a dog how to sit on command and bring something i agree treats could help but besides that you dont need them to have a well behaved dog, if the person is like me that is not really interested that the dog knows how to "give the paw" but just be well beheaved then that person does not need treats at all, my dog is well behaved, no issues and i have never give her a treat because she did something good

A "pat" on the head is good, but saying it like that it sounds like "yeah right, there you go, my hand in your head once and thats your reward, take it or leave it", no, of course your praise them and give them some love for it, dogs feel things human cant, the dog can feel you are happy with his behavior, with dogs you dont need to talk, humans think that is almost impossible to comunicate without words and since dogs dont understand english then humans think they have to show they are happy with the dog behavior; humans can project if they are happy or upset with the behavior and the dog will know, of course there is no way you can project the command "sit" but like i say, if you want a well beheaved dog you dont need to show your dog how to sit, the dog can stay still in one place without sitting and he wont move from there if you dont want to, he does not need to have the butt touching the floor to avoid doing that

I reward dogs with love at the right moment, i reward dogs with a nice dinner after a full exercise day, i reward dogs with extra play time because the beheaved well, i reward them with a leader they know will have the pack well balanced without fights and fair with every member of it

Kennelkeeper, she probably has a lot of advice for you about doing work with your dog at a distance without a shock collar. You should read her book.

 
Thanks for the advise, but like I said previously, my current pack of dogs no longer need the e-collar. I would however, use them again if needed.
FWIW, I read ALOT and do alot of research on many aspects of animal care, as is required for my degree. I'm always interested in new material []

fisher6000 wrote:
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.
 
 
This can be achieved without treats also. I can tell my dogs: "Go See", and they dart out the doggie door out onto the deck and finally the lot, then the bigger lots because they are going to go see what is there. I started by saying it and then went ahead of them, now they do it on their own. (Just in case you are wondering why I make them do that, well, I live out in the sticks and I am here alone at night sometimes). Now, when I tell them "Potty" They dart out and run to the gate, waiting for me to let them run in the yard to do their business, keeps the lots clean. I give them praise , and they are happy. Remember when I said I work them, I have noticed they are so willing to check the premises, I think they might just enjoy that silly little job.

Instead of editing my previous post, I have chosen to just make a new post.
 
The post with the article by Suzanne Clothier was my febile attempt to bring this thread back on topic. I figured by using an author that was adored and respected in the +R "world" stating that "leadership" was important in training, that maybe we could meet back in the middle of this subject. I guess I was wrong because it just went right back to conflcit. Oh well....
 
I very much enjoy reading the opinions of others and learning new things on this forum, but there are some that only want to create negativity and friction among the other members. I have the utmost respect for many of the posters here and while I may not totally agree with them all the time, does not make me a bad person or a troublemaker. My disagreement with others is not a direct attack and I would hope that most are mature enough to see that.
What is bothering me most is the "quick-tongue" (or should I say fingers) of a few, that makes it unpleasent and non-conducive to learning and expanding ones views. I have been around long enough to know that there is going to be someone that will say, "well, if you don't like what's being said, you don't have to read them" and while this is true, why should I have to *not read a thread* because of the immaturity of some of the posters who only want to cause "friction".
 
Fisher, your comments about me and how I train MY dogs was unnecessary. I have ample experience training my hunting dogs and that is not what this thread is about anyway. Your underlying *tone* was *heard* through the written word and understood as sarcastic because you disagree with my method of training my dogs.
 
 

ORIGINAL: Angelique

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.

This was the point I was trying to make. Dominance and leadership do not necessarily go hand in hand. In many wild animals, dominant members of the group maintain their position through aggression. However, some dominant members do indeed maintain their position through sheer confidence alone. From my understanding of wild canids, this is how canine leaders maintain their position in the social hierarchy. I do feel it's important to stress that young animals are usually not in a leadership or dominant position. They might have some inborn traits that drive them to constantly move themselves up the social ladder, but they won't be accepted as a leader until they are both strong and experienced.

I just don't really like blanket statements about dominance and leadership. As I've pointed out, it's just not the same in every system. Some animals hold a dominant position purely through resource control and for others, confidence and experience is more important.

I'm glad that you've clarified how you use the word dominance. I use the word to describe the individual that is most often there in the thick of things trying to impose his will on others and usually succeeding. [] Different uses, but they're both technically correct. I hesitate to use it at all with dogs because I consider dominant behaviour and leadership to be different kettles of fish. As you say, dominance displays are rarely needed from a leader.

To bring it back on topic. I acknowledge the part leadership plays in training, but still think that in most cases just the simple act of taking your dog through obedience training is enough to show them who the leader is. Whatever method you use, you're working with your dog and influencing their behaviour through rewards or corrections.

espencer, please, 'behaved' is spelt without an 'ea'. Watch those fingers. []

corvus, please, here in the US we spell behavior without "u", watch those fingers.......[]

We have members from all over the world.  Some spell differently than we do here in the US and it certainly is not our place to criticize how THEY spell...after all, they aren't fussing at US for our funny spelling.

Jeez, this was in response to the attack on espencer.....................
 
espencer, please, 'behaved' is spelt without an 'ea'. Watch those fingers. []
 
 
 

While I didn't see that comment, I don't believe that two wrongs not making a right has changed in the last 10 minutes........

You are right, I also don't think a person should be attacked based on a typo.

I went back and read and didn't SEE that as an attack....certainly not with the wink emoticon, but I suppose that could be open to interpretation.  I just happen to know Corvus well enough to know that she typically isn't snotty.

Pointing out a typo is not the friendliest way to go, but round and round we go.....you win.........[]