The finer points of restraint (pinning etc)

 I must say that I have seen dogs pin one another, but usually it's an obnoxious, socially inappropriate bully doing it during play that turns into something a bit more obsessive.  Sometimes, I think that the problem with the concept of whether a dog is being pinned, or rolling itself, is that the whole thing is lightning fast.  I have seen Sequoyah nail an inappropriate pup with such speed that you wouldn't get the eh-eh out of your mouth fast enough if you were a double talker, but on reflection realized that she didn't exactly nail the pup, it went belly up a millisecond before, and was  not actually physically put into the position.  Also, it is usually the "victim" that remains in position until the demeanor of the dog doing the correction changes.  I know a few of you will want to dissect this post into having it seem as though I am contradicting myself.  I'm not.  I think that dogs do occasionally correct one another - that doesn't mean that I think we should be very quick to try to replicate what they are doing.  It's patently obvious to me that there is as much argument about what we are actually seeing, which may have more to do with the speed at which it happens than anything else.  That is enough reason for me not to try to act like a dog in ways where doing so would be so grossly inept.  Therefor, to adopt mudpuppy's premise that my dogs should not fear my touch, and in fact should learn that it is pleasurable, or leads to pleasurable things for the most part (things like nail clipping aside), seems rather prudent.

Gina, I'm so glad you mentioned the stacking.  As you know, I like to have my students who will show learn how to free stack using clicker training.  It has worked exceptionally well, but that does not mean that a dog should not be handled extensively as a young one in preparation for the handling that will inevitable occur from groomers, vets, and judges.  To that end, I do put puppies through lots of "pass the pup" and other routine handling in class.  It might be why so many of the area vets are making referrals:-)) 

Kim_MacMillan

Interestingly, he has a whole section on his hatred for the Alpha/dominance stuff on his site, it's worth a read for sure:

http://www.leecharleskelley.com/#tip (scroll down a bit until you see the title "Myth of Alpha";)

 

Thanks for posting that link.  I've only skim read through it and while I can't say I agree with all of it, some parts of it are certainly making me think!  and this part especially had me nodding my head vigorously!

Besides it's just silly to train dogs by imitating all their behaviors, no matter what some of the training books say. It may be normal and natural when a littermate or a pup's mother initiates "corrections", but it's not at all natural for a human being to do it.

Chuffy

It may be normal and natural when a littermate or a pup's mother initiates "corrections", but it's not at all natural for a human being to do it.

Why not? It feels pretty darn normal and natural to me. Who can really say what is normal and natural for me - besides me?  

spiritdogs

As you know, I like to have my students who will show learn how to free stack using clicker training.  It has worked exceptionally well, but that does not mean that a dog should not be handled extensively as a young one in preparation for the handling that will inevitable occur from groomers, vets, and judges.

Absolutely. Some judges are extremely hands on and the pup has to learn that's okay. Lots of trust involved between dog and handler...and humans in general since a show dog might be handed off to a handler they've never met, just that day. The behavior has to stick even when the teacher isn't present...best if it just gets to be a routine expected thing when a certain lead or implement (table) is brought out.

I hold feet and "flick" nails from very early puppy hood as well...the flick simulates a nail trim.

Well firstly, because a dog correcting another dog like a dog can be said to be natural because he is a dog.  By that token, a human correcting a dog like a dog is unnatural because the human is not a dog.  That seems self evident to me.

As spiritdogs mentioned, in some areas we humans are just inept.  We are the wrong shape to start with.  Warnings and corrections that the dogs can give one another and read easily can be very easily bungled by a two legged, furless creature with almost immobile ears, no tail, no muzzle, the wrong kind of vocal equipment and opposable thumbs.  That too is self evident to me. 

FourIsCompany

Why not? It feels pretty darn normal and natural to me. Who can really say what is normal and natural for me - besides me?  

It's not a question of how natural it feels for the human, but rather how natural or normal it feels to the dog. It might change behaviour, but if it did, that doesn't mean whatsoever that the message you think you are sending, is indeed the one you are sending. That's where the difference lies. I don't care whether it feels natural or normal to me, it's what is best for the dog that I try to achieve.

rwbeagles

Absolutely. Some judges are extremely hands on and the pup has to learn that's okay. Lots of trust involved between dog and handler...and humans in general since a show dog might be handed off to a handler they've never met, just that day. The behavior has to stick even when the teacher isn't present...best if it just gets to be a routine expected thing when a certain lead or implement (table) is brought out.

I hold feet and "flick" nails from very early puppy hood as well...the flick simulates a nail trim.

 

In terms of show dogs, I can relate heavily to this. I've shown dogs that are a table breed as well, and there's a lot that goes into making a show dog a good show dog. ;-) I too taught both free stacking and hands-on stacking, so the dog was very used to being touched all over. I've seen too many dogs that shy away or tense up, or move out of range of the judge, that it would be very important for me for a dog to do both things well.

I think these are assumptions.

Who is to say that I am inept in my corrections? If it works, what's inept about it? I'm actually quite good at it. Just because a human isn't a dog doesn't mean that they are a bumbling fool or incompetent. My dogs clearly understand and learn from my corrections.

It's not normal and natural for a dog to live in a house but they do it and they do it just fine. It's not normal and natural for a skunk to nurse from a cat, but it happens and it works. It's not normal and natural for a dog to bring a Kleenex when it's owner sneezes (sorry Kate ). But is there something "wrong" or "bad" about it? No.

Calling something "unnatural" is, in my opinion, just a way to voice disapproval. And that's ok. But I'm not going to buy that because someone thinks something is unnatural, that I shouldn't be doing it.

Why must a being be a certain shape and have the features of a dog to provide a correction to a dog? Living with dogs as I do, it's the most normal and natural thing to me. It would be unnatural for me NOT to.

Dog_ma

I'm not sure we need a new thread, by what the hay.

So far, we have established that not everyone uses the word "alpha roll" to mean the same thing. I'm curious about what people think about various kinds of restraint. Disagreement is expected - but let's be adult about it.

Feel free to add techniques I haven't thought of.

1. Alpha rolling as mudpuppy described - including body slamming and harshness. 

2. Dunbar's gentling - restraining a puppy (or dog), held against your back, and massaging the pup when he stops struggling.

3. Holding a dog on its side for a medical procedure

4. Holding a dog on its side for behavioral reasons.  

Questions to consider:

does the age of the dog matter?

should the technique be used as preventative/standrad move, or done only on problem dog?

does position matter? side vs. held up, or in any other position?

how does a dog distinguish between a medical and non-medical pin? Is a pin less upsetting to a dog because its for his or her own good?

5. Bonus question! Do you believe dogs ever forcibly pin other dogs, and if so in what circumstances.

Party on. BYOB.
 

Thought I'd repost the topic, so it wouldn't get lost in a discussion about training techniques, and what x does as opposed to y and why w is actually better than either...the topic was I thought quite interesting.

FourIsCompany

I think these are assumptions.

Who is to say that I am inept in my corrections? If it works, what's inept about it? I'm actually quite good at it. Just because a human isn't a dog doesn't mean that they are a bumbling fool or incompetent. My dogs clearly understand and learn from my corrections.

It's not normal and natural for a dog to live in a house but they do it and they do it just fine. It's not normal and natural for a skunk to nurse from a cat, but it happens and it works. It's not normal and natural for a dog to bring a Kleenex when it's owner sneezes (sorry Kate ). But is there something "wrong" or "bad" about it? No.

Calling something "unnatural" is, in my opinion, just a way to voice disapproval. And that's ok. But I'm not going to buy that because someone thinks something is unnatural, that I shouldn't be doing it.

Why must a being be a certain shape and have the features of a dog to provide a correction to a dog? Living with dogs as I do, it's the most normal and natural thing to me. It would be unnatural for me NOT to.

Nobody said YOU were inept, incompetent or a bumbling fool.  Please do not take it personally.  As humans, we are just a wildly different shape from dogs.  If you want to feel offended by that, then I suppose there's not a lot I can do about it.  If the assumption that you, like me, are not dog shaped, is an incorrect one then I apologise, not least because it must make typing very difficult for you.

What you quoted I actually took from the site posted, so they are not my words.  Had they BEEN my words, I probably wouldn't have used the term "unnatural" because I am actually in favour of many things that are "unnatural" for dogs!  In fact, the MORE unnatural the better in a lot of cases.  But I do get the gist of what the man was driving at and agree with it.  I think you get the gist of what he was driving at too, and picking it apart with semantics and focusing on just one word is, I think, YOUR way of expressing your disapproval! 

I guess we'll not be permitted to finish this discussion here, although I was fully enjoying it. I really love my talks with you. I didn't take anything personally, though. I was just exploring thoughts and got off topic. I'd love to discuss this further, but it won't be in this thread. Later.

FourIsCompany

I guess we'll not be permitted to finish this discussion here, although I was fully enjoying it. I really love my talks with you. I didn't take anything personally, though. I was just exploring thoughts and got off topic. I'd love to discuss this further, but it won't be in this thread. Later.

I actually liked mine and Mudpuppy's post and was hoping for further discussions.  Oh well, maybe for Christmas we'll get a NDR day in the Behavior Section.  We've all been good.

Thanks for posting that link, Kim. I actually understood what he was saying and I could get the gist of his application of emergence theory. It's not so much a hierarchy of one canid over another as it is each one has special talents that complement each other in the hunt. For example, the fastest canid might lead the charge and the slowest is behind, making sure that the target does not back-track, etc. "Middle rank", as it might erroneously appear middle, is actually flanking to contain the path of the target. The emergent part is where the actions of each dog, no matter how ingrained or lacking in direct conscious purpose, combine together to create an "intelligent" response, i.e., the successful hunt.

In which case, the only "alpha" status in the group is in regard to the breeding pair. As L. David Mech found out in watching wolves in their own environment, most packs are actually families. An "omega" may never once challenge the alpha and go off and find a mate and be "alpha" of it's own family.

Someone else has stated that it was not natural for dogs to live in the house. I beg to differ. Until the 20th century, for over 1,000 years the chukchi dog (later known as the Siberian Husky) slept with the children of the family, keeping them warm and protected. So, the breed trait is to be familiar with humans it knows and to ward off other nefarious creatures which is why Huskies don't make good guard dogs.

I think the only time a dog fears being pinned as a measure to stop a behavior is if it's life is in danger. Otherwise, it is a social event. But dogs do not have the abstract thought of humans. So, per the article, a dog being pinned does not see it as dominant behavior simply because of the position, generally. Unless that dog saw it as a punishment. And that pin does not preclude further instances of the behavior but it might make that dog stay away from the other dog if it didn't like being pinned at that time. Taking that perspective into account, what choices does a dog have if pinned by a human? Either it is a social event or it is something to avoid, especially by running away from the human. IMO.

Chuffy

a human correcting a dog like a dog is unnatural

Oh well i have never seen a tree that gives out clickers either, did you?  talking about unnatural, so as you can see "unnatural" does not mean bad because if it does then lets put everything on a balance and see which one is more "unnatural"

ron2

As L. David Mech found out in watching wolves in their own environment, most packs are actually families. An "omega" may never once challenge the alpha and go off and find a mate and be "alpha" of it's own family.