The Alpha Roll--purpose and effectiveness?

ron2

Why does anyone need to? Why does anyone need to justify using it even if they don't use it themselves?

**content removed, off topic**

lostcoyote

**content removed, previously edited content**

**content removed, off topic**

silverserpher

lostcoyote

**content removed, previously edited content*

**content removed, previously edited content**

 

**content removed, take to PM**

espencer

Well if i was using a clicker to teach my dog how to sit on command and she never learned, what would you accuse me for?

The beauty of operant condition is that it's the way EVERY animal learns. Thus, you know that if it's not working, you're the one that's letting the team down and you have to figure out why it's not working and try to correct yourself. And the worst thing that can happen is that you reinforce the wrong thing. It's pretty unlikely that's going to damage your relationship with your dog or end with you being bitten or your dog getting accidentally hurt. I like methods that don't screw things up much if you make mistakes.

, some people seem to be so sure about what happens, the outcome, etc. and they never even tried it!!, how can i listen the opinion of those people? what do you think is their credibility on this specific subject when they make such assumptions? 

Uh huh, I don't need to take drugs to know they're not for me. I don't have to smoke to find out that it's bad for your health. I don't have to perform an alpha roll to know it's a method I never want to touch on an adult dog. I'd take the route of not provoking an attack every single time. It's not so different from not provoking a flight response in my hare. If I get bitten a couple of times before I learn, than that's the price I pay for deciding to get involved with such a dog. Alpha rolling a "true, red zone dog" if such a creature exists and shouldn't be put out of its misery the poor thing sits about as well with me as pushing over a little kid in the dust. That's not to say it's as bad, just that it doesn't sit well with me at all. It would be unnatural for me. I've never grabbed my hare and restrained him during a flight response (except that time the flight response was triggered by me needing to catch him) and I never will. The one time I had to do it to him it was too hard on both of us. I find easier ways now.

ETA Guys, what is going on?? I haven't seen this level of baiting and hostility since, well, since I came back from my hiatus a few months ago. When did it get so personal and why? It's really difficult to have a decent discussion when every second post is an accusation, snide remark, or criticism. I usually just skip the bitchy posts because they get in the way of the discussion, which is what forums are all about, folks, but it's starting to get REALLY tedious reading the first sentence of post after post and realising it's just a load of childish twaddle with no relevance to the conversation. And look, it's making me all cranky and snarky as well.

Admin speaking..

I am shocked and disappointed that this thread went downhill in such a bickering, baiting, nasty manner in 2 pages, after 20+ pages of productive discussion.  I hope you all got the arguing out of your systems, because it stops now.  

lostcoyote

ron... has your positive training gotten shadow to get through a vet visit in a calm collected fashion yet?

and no, this is not a bait... i just would like to know and i won't bother responding.

if it has, then that's great :)

It has gotten a lot better. We still have to use a muzzle when the vet approaches to do his thing but I have gotten him to walk into the exam room. Before, you would, in fact, have to drag him.  I used to have to drag him into the office, itself, let alone an exam room. We're just not able to vist the vet's office a lot. So, in a few visits of doing nothing but treating for calmness in and around the vet's office and exam room, we have come a long way. He will likely always be a little leary of people he doesn't see everyday, but he can also have memory. I may always need a muzzle for that and I wouldn't be the only one.

And I just had the ironic thought, myself. Since he mostly views the alpha roll was play, why don't I play with him in the vet's office? Well, I'd just as soon play with treats, which seem to be a strong reinforcer.

When I have AR'd before, I was not hesitant. I was following the instructions I could find on some of the first Sibe sites I found. I am still capable and able to use such a move. But, like any move it would have to be effective. And any physical punishment or correction move has a level of risk, depending. The reason I don't use it anymore is because it's not effective as anything other than a physical hold, as far as correcting goes. If it's not a correction then it is, at best, a cue to "chill." In which case, a touch cue might just as well suffice. Or chain that to a hand signal or sound for chill.

All I have to say here is that I judge a method or technique, like the alpha roll, by the results. This may not be comfortable to hear, but I see far too many dogs who are dealt with in "positive methods" who have terrible issues, whether they be aggression, fear, guarding or other problems. For most of the positive proponents here on the board, I either know that your dogs have these issues OR I don't know anything about your dogs at all. That is suspicious to me. I honestly believe that some of these dogs could use a good (properly performed) alpha roll. I honestly think it would help. But only with a change of leadership style. That's very important.

On the other hand, I see the dogs who have had strong leadership by people who have a willingness to treat a dog like a dog (that's a good thing). With rules, boundaries and limitations, exercise, discipline, affection and a calm, assertive leader in the pack and perhaps a "puppy pin" or 2 -- and those dogs are well-behaved in the home, can run off-leash, they're not attacking anyone or growling or guarding and they, by all accounts and reports, are happy, healthy, balanced and well-behaved dogs.

I know I have had my dogs since they were puppies, and many people want to tell me that I'm just lucky and attribute my success to the fact that I raised them from puppies. But I have raised them in the above manner and they are wonderful, issue-free dogs. If I were doing something wrong, I would think it would show. I can remove a bone from my GSD's mouth without "tricking" him into thinking that I have something better for him or negotiating a deal with him. I can get my dog to drop a live baby animal by giving a verbal command from across a field. My dogs are as happy and good-natured as anyone could want their dogs to be. And if any of my dogs ever showed some of the signs I've read about, if my dog growled at me, I'm pretty sure I'd find a way to alpha roll him or her. I just don't have to worry about that because it's not going to happen.

These are the results I look at. After reading here on this board about all the issues that some dogs have, whose owners are SO against an alpha roll or strong leadership, I'm sorry, but I'm going to listen to the people who have success with their dogs, not the ones whose dogs are growling and aggressing at people or other dogs.

lostcoyote

that is because he asserts the correct kind of energy - calm leadership.

It could be. Or, it could be because a total stranger came into the home, and did something totally different than other people did. Not better, but different. Novelty is something that dogs recognize immediately. It could be because the person terrified the dog, or intimidated the dog, so it changed its behaviour around that person because "hey, that person does scary things, let's not tick 'em off, no matter how we're feeling!". They may be sensing energy, but there's no evidence to presume it's at all a "good energy".

I hate to make this a "CM" thread, as if we want to be honest about thread popularity, I think he takes the cake, but has anyone ever watched the show on mute? So that you are totally unaffected by the verbal things CM tells you? I've HAD people do this, and I haven't seen one person watch it yet (this ranges between uninformed dog lovers, dog trainers, and dog enthusiasts that are informed but not trainers, in various ranges of teaching styles and those with no teaching style at all) that enjoyed it. There was a consensus in all of them, and to prevent arguing I'll simply say it wasn't good. If you simply read the dog's body languge in reaction to CM, and the stimulus that once caused problems, it will tell you all you need to know, aside from having to absorb the verbal things he is telling you. I've come to the conclusion that what CM does best is motivational speaking. I think, because of his personality, he could convince you if you let him, that dogs descended from lions and that the answer to all human relationship problems was having a calm, assertive energy. He is a great motivational speaker, I'll give him that, and that is where I think the issues arise, because people are very much drawn away from the situation itself and the dog, and towards what he is talking about, and one often cannot FULLY focus on the dog, and on what he is saying, at the same time.

lostcoyote

if the dog owners do not follow through with strong leadership, the results WILL fail because the dog(s) will take over the leadership role.

So perhaps this is why so many dogs fail under Cesar's advice? Because it's the owners fault? Or could it be, possibly, because the methods used on the dogs are only temporary? Or that, in trying to do exactly as Cesar did the humans got bitten? Or is it possible that if these people went to somebody who explained to them in clear terms WHAT they need to do, rather than "strong leadership stopping problems", they might not have recurring issues? What if it problem has absolutely nothign to do with leadership? But wait, Cesar thinks that everything has to do with leadership, so I guess that can't even be argued as there will never be room for discussion.

lostcoyote

maybe that's why so many people don't have a clue. the answer lies right in front of their eyes but they just can't see it cuz they simply don't understand that dogs do not operate and communicate like humans do.

Or perhaps it is because people don't understand that humans don't operate and communicate like dogs do, and that humans will never be ABLE to, no matter what leadership, alpha, top dog terms they come up with, or what dog-punishment styles, such as alpha rolls, that fail miserably when attempted by a species other than a dog.

FourIsCompany

All I have to say here is that I judge a method or technique, like the alpha roll, by the results.

It's unfortunate that you usually only see the "results" of the dogs that aren't permanently harmed by this, and that you don't hear about the dogs that have been euth'd due to becoming aggressive by such protocols, or rehomed, of that have lost trust in their people. And of course, one could argue that there are plenty of side effects that I might notice that you might not, because we are looking at totally different ends of the behaviour spectrum. I don't want my dogs to look at me like their leader, and I don't want them to think I'm bigger than them. I want mutual respect and trust, in a willing partnership, so I would likely see things as side effects that you would not, or read them much differently.

FourIsCompany

This may not be comfortable to hear, but I see far too many dogs who are dealt with in "positive methods" who have terrible issues, whether they be aggression, fear, guarding or other problems. For most of the positive proponents here on the board, I either know that your dogs have these issues OR I don't know anything about your dogs at all.

I live with two dogs with these issues, yep. And it is BECAUSE I live with dogs with fear issues that this becomes so important. My dogs and I have complete trust in each other, and there are no issues between me and my dogs. They do not guard anything from me. I could perform any operation needed on them medically, with no need of a muzzle. I can do their toenails with no problems. I can manipulate them with no problems. There is absolutely no aggression towards me. I would wager that my relationship with my dogs is impeccable (I wouldn't say perfect, as there's no such thing as perfection!). And my dogs have come YEARS from where they started. Shimmer has competed in public obedience trials, been in many teaching classes (including one with a VERY dog-aggressive Pitmix), and has done puppy walks in groups of dogs and people. That is the outcome of our work. Success. You see a dog with problems, and ignore the progress that has been made! I work with these dogs because of their issues, they don't have issues because they are worked with. I have worked with dozens and dozens of dogs that have had no behaviour issues whatsoever. I believe anybody could possibly equate teaching styles with dog behaviours, considering how false that assumption is on all fronts, no matter what teaching style you believe in.

FourIsCompany

On the other hand, I see the dogs who have had strong leadership by people who have a willingness to treat a dog like a dog (that's a good thing).

And there are many dogs like this that are euthanized every day, that have aggression issues, fear issues, separation anxiety, who dig in the garden, and who run away when let offleash. I find it truly interesting how you are deciding to group people. It really reveals a lot about thinking processes.

FourIsCompany

These are the results I look at. After reading here on this board about all the issues that some dogs have, whose owners are SO against an alpha roll or strong leadership, I'm sorry, but I'm going to listen to the people who have success with their dogs, not the ones whose dogs are growling and aggressing at people or other dogs.

This also reveals a heck of alot about thinking processes. I'm glad I got the chance to read this, because I understand a lot more about a lot of things now. Not only with what is written, but what things are NOT written (such as the fact that genetics plays a HUGE role in the success of any dog, and all the "leadership blabber" in the world will not change a genetically fearful dog to be non-fearful). Thanks for sharing this, I now understand some things in an entirely different light.

Just for the record, my dog with issues had those issues long before I began positive training. He had those issues when I used Monks of New Skete style training. He has issues. They are improving, but he has had them since day one in our house almost 6 years ago. I've owned three dogs and Conrad is the only one who has ever had a behavior problem. Since we adopted him at 18+ months old, my suspicion is that he was extremely undersocialized as a puppy, and it's really hard to undo that damage after the fact, no matter what method you're using. He's a good dog, he tries very hard, he's a delight to be around, but the world outside of his comfort zone just scares the bejeezus out of him.

Some dogs just have issues and unless you are a professional trainer or are working very closely with one, there's going to be some hard going in dealing with them.  It's hard. Some people get lucky and never have a dog with a serious problem, and for sure it can be mitigated by getting your dogs as puppies (which I never have), but I try to not judge people by whether or not their dog is currently perfect because there are a lot of mitigating factors there. If you would have asked me about Conrad's issues a couple years ago I would have given you a different picture of them because we lived in a rural area where he was never walked on leash and very rarely saw anyone who was not one of our couple neighbors. We now live in a city and he is walked twice a day on leash and encounters dozens of different people and dogs every day. It's pretty easy to have a leash-reactive dog if you live somewhere where you never have to use a leash. It's easy to have a guardy dog when you live way out in the middle of nowhere and anyone who is trespassing probably deserves to have the crap scared out of them by your dog.

But as far as I'm aware, Anne's dogs don't have problems, Mudpuppy's dogs don't have problems, Glenda's dogs don't have problems, I could go on. And heck, one of my dogs is absolutely rock-solid bomb-proof, and he was positive trained from day one in my house.

Kim_MacMillan

It's unfortunate that you usually only see the "results" of the dogs that aren't permanently harmed by this

Why is that? Why is it that I only see good results from a properly-executed alpha roll by a good strong leader? Why is it that I cannot find people on the Internet complaining with real-life stories about how they tried it and it harmed the dog or caused further aggression?

Kim_MacMillan

I find it truly interesting how you are deciding to group people.

I grouped DOGS, by results. And since the dogs cannot speak to me, I listen to what their people say about them.

Kim_MacMillan

all the "leadership blabber" in the world will not change a genetically fearful dog to be non-fearful)

Well, I agree. Talking about leadership or "leadership blabber" will change nothing. But true leadership most certainly can and does change a fearful dog.

houndlove

I try to not judge people by whether or not their dog is currently perfect

I don't judge the people, either. I said I judged the method or technique by the results.

We have HAD issues, houndlove, such as Sheba's fearfulness and reactivity.  But we have worked through them using positive methods and now she is bombproof.  Same with Tyler who came back from his "forever" home after two months with so many issues that he wasn't the same pup.

I don't claim to have raised perfect dogs, but regardless of any issues that have come up, I've dealt with them without using physical force.  But, five CGC's and a therapy dog ain't too shabby.

FourIsCompany

This may not be comfortable to hear, but I see far too many dogs who are dealt with in "positive methods" who have terrible issues, whether they be aggression, fear, guarding or other problems.

That is really unfair. Correlation does not equal causation. I use positive methods with Cherokee BECAUSE she's aggressive, she's not aggressive because I use positive training. Traditional training made her MORE aggressive. Maybe that means I was doing it wrong, but if "doing it wrong" makes her more aggressive, I don't want to touch those methods with a 10 foot pole. Positive training doesn't make her more aggressive. Giving her clicks and treats around other dogs doesn't teach her to be more aggressive towards those dogs, but yanking on her neck or other forceful methods SURE do. Maybe if I read more about traditional training, or found a decent trainer, I'd have better luck with those methods. Then again, maybe they'd still make her more aggressive. Why take the risk when positive training can work WITHOUT that risk?

FourIsCompany

Why is that? Why is it that I only see good results from a properly-executed alpha roll by a good strong leader? Why is it that I cannot find people on the Internet complaining with real-life stories about how they tried it and it harmed the dog or caused further aggression?

But how do you know even those that appear to show "results" are properly-executed? That's the point, you have no idea! I bet you lots of those alpha rolls that were done were also done wrongly, as per what an alpha roll is supposed to be (a true alpha roll, I actually don't consider some of what you have done to be alpha rolls at all, to be honest....they are restraint, but restraint and alpha roll are not synonomous), and they just happened not to have any long-lasting effects? You cannot find people on the internet complaining, because those people who HAVE complained are tired of being told they did it wrong, or that they weren't good leaders or any other such stuff. That's why. I can tell you a HUGE list of Yahoo Groups you can join to ask people all about their experiences in alpha rolling if you wish to find a good database of people who have tried it and it didn't work. If you'd like that list feel free to ask and I'll give you some resources, I would be happy to direct you to places where people do it. I can see fully why people (come on, I see lots of people on this very site that have already said that they have seen effects! Why are their stories somehow not valid?) do not wish to post about their stories here, because they are told that it was "their" fault that it caused certain effects, rather than the fact that they violently (yes, it is a form of violence, sorry....that is, for a TRUE alpha roll) force their dog into a submissive position and hold it there till the dog stops struggling was what caused the problems.

FourIsCompany

I grouped DOGS, by results. And since the dogs cannot speak to me, I listen to what their people say about them.

Fair enough, which is why I also judge what responses are likely to happen in dogs subjected to certain things, based upon my experiences of those things, and what I have seen over 15 years, rather than what their owners claim is happening. Because sometimes, owners are blind to a lot of things their dogs are saying.

FourIsCompany

Well, I agree. Talking about leadership or "leadership blabber" will change nothing. But true leadership most certainly can and does change a fearful dog.

You know exactly what I meant when I said that. True leadership, whatever that is supposed to mean to a human/dog relationship (I think it means a lot less to the dog than to the human), will change nothing with a dog that is genetically programmed to be fearful. Or it will change little. You cannot change what genetics makes you. You can alter behaviour within the scope of genetics, but you cannot change what just isn't there to be changed. There is a difference between learned fears and genetic fearfulness, a huge difference. One is more conducive to change than another. You can do things to lessen the fear to an extent that is very dog-specific, such as classical conditioning and desensitization, and be a "leader" all you like, the fact is that dog is always going to be fearful. I don't have to defend this, there has been so much research done on genetic fear, from the fox studies, to the nervous pointer studies, to the beagle studies. It has been documented in all forms of literature, scientific and non-scientific, so it doesn't matter to  how much leadership talk is discussed to know what is and isn't possible within the realm of genetics. That's the same thing as saying that being a "good" parent can change an autistic child to be more normal, or that being a good "leader" to a dog can cure OCD. They are genetically-affected behaviours (although OCD IS environmentally-based too, so perhaps that's a bad example).

FourIsCompany

I don't judge the people, either. I said I judged the method or technique by the results.

If that is actually the case, why are you not judging it on the totality of results? Like Shimmer, who I've spoken about before, or Gaci for that matter. Or Glenda's dogs, or Houndlove's dogs. Or Anne's dogs who don't have problems at all. Or the rest of the dogs that I've worked with that have no problems at all. Why does it feel like you are picking and choosing your results? This is not baiting, but rather a genuine question to determine how you are coming to the conclusions that you seem to be coming to? Because for the life of me I see nothing accurate in it.

chelsea_b

Maybe if I read more about traditional training, or found a decent trainer, I'd have better luck with those methods. Then again, maybe they'd still make her more aggressive. Why take the risk when positive training can work WITHOUT that risk?

I can really relate to this. Very, very well put.