Pack Rules

FourIsCompany

When I reach for my dog's mouth, they willingly give me whatever it is. It's not like I'm prying something out of their mouth.

Yes, that's me exactly!

FourIsCompany

Chuffy

I think that in itself says a lot about me and my ideas and what I want from my animals and what I want from my r'ship w/ them.

 

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

I'm trying to be understood.  You might think I am nitpicking by drawing that line and making that distinction, but it's a distinction that's important to me, that's all. 

In our house, "pack rules" that are intended to ensure a happy "pack" (ha!) of humans and dogs living together apply to the humans more than the dogs!  For example, "Rule #4 never forcibly take anything from a dog (having to forcibly take something indicates a lack  of leadershoip on your part)."

Rule #4 never forcibly take anything from a dog (having to forcibly take something indicates a lack  of leadershoip on your part)."

I think this is one of the biggest causes of dog/human misunderstandings. Humans assume the dominant dog (or the dominant human) should be able to "take possession" of anything they want, but dogs don't think this way. Among dogs, ownership trumps dominance. It's incredibly rude for a dog to forcibly take anything from another dog (I'm not talking about noises/postures to intimidate the dog into moving or dropping it, I'm talking forceful taking of it)- and it has nothing to do with rank or leadership. If it's in the omega dog's mouth, or the omega dog is sleeping on it, the omega dog owns it, and the omega dog feels perfectly justified in growling/snarling/biting to keep that rude human from ripping it out of his mouth or dragging him bodily off the couch- and so you get all these really normal, submissive dogs labeled as having "dominance aggression" problems, when in fact it's the people who have the "dominance aggression" problem.

It's really easy to teach dogs to not-resource-guard against humans; it's practically impossible to convince dogs to not-resource-guard against other dogs; what does that tell you about the way dogs view humans vs. dogs? 

I don't get it.  I'm saying it's a bad idea to forcibly take anything off a dog, it won't prove to him that you are in charge and tat it is up to the human to take the lead in earning the dog's trust and motivating him so that he gives items up willingly.  You disagree with that?

mudpuppy

Humans assume the dominant dog (or the dominant human) should be able to "take possession" of anything they want, but dogs don't think this way.

I really don't give a flip if dogs think this way or not. (as if you know how dogs think). Until the dogs start paying the house payment and buying food, this is my house and they will live with MY rules. We have brought dogs into OUR environment, not the other way around. It's our responsibility to set the rules and see that they are followed. And giving up the resources to the queen bee if she desires is one of the rules here. See how that works? Nothing about how the dog thinks. 

mudpuppy

it's practically impossible to convince dogs to not-resource-guard against other dogs; 

Wow... Then I'm REALLY good!  

Until the dogs start paying the house payment and buying food, this is my house and they will live with MY rules. We have brought dogs into OUR environment, not the other way around. It's our responsibility to set the rules and see that they are followed. And giving up the resources to the queen bee if she desires is one of the rules here.

and you are thinking in terms of dominance again- the dogs ultimately have to follow your rules because you are THE BOSS. I think you have been quite lucky in your choice of dogs to date- wait until you acquire a dog who couldn't care less about following your rules just because you are THE BOSS, and well, we'll see. Expecting dogs to follow rules and obey because you are THE BOSS is in most experienced dog-peoples minds a very out-dated concept that doesn't work very well for many dogs. All the breeds labeled as "stubborn", "stupid", "impossible to train", "dominant", "pushy", "soft",etc.

THE BOSS is a limited concept that works some of the time with some dogs. And sorry if you feel I am "attacking" you, but you are one of the more out-spoken people going around claiming these methods are fantastic- it's not personal, it's the methods you think are fantastic, without ever having considered or tried other methods, that I am "attacking".

FourIsCompany

mudpuppy

it's practically impossible to convince dogs to not-resource-guard against other dogs; 

 

Wow... Then I'm REALLY good!  

I agree with you Carla, as I said, I am not having dogs run my house and me being worried the whole time, as you mentioned....we pay the bills, we provide the food, care and everything nice.....I have earned my spot to call the shots....

mudpuppy

THE BOSS is a limited concept that works some of the time with some dogs. And sorry if you feel I am "attacking" you, but you are one of the more out-spoken people going around claiming these methods are fantastic- it's not personal, it's the methods you think are fantastic, without ever having considered or tried other methods, that I am "attacking".

I swear....the way I see it, in Carla's situation .....four dogs, four well behaved dogs/ good working pack.....success....why should she try so called "Other Methods"?

I pay the bills here too, and I make sure everyone is fed and clean and has a comfy bed to sleep in and provide toys and activties for their amusement and development.  So flippin' what?  What's any of THAT supposed to mean to a dog?  (Excpet possibly the food part! )  Let's face it, a lot of teenagers (human, at least presumably) have difficulty in grapsing WHY they should follow arbitrary rules just because they are unfortunate enough to live in their parent's house.  For a dog, I imagine it's even more abstract.

As far as I can see, this is (yet another) thread about leadership.  To me, leadership is not about imposing rules on the dog and seeing that they are followed.  It's about responsibility.  I accept responsibility for my dogs' "failures".  If I need to punish its generally avoidable and if I had done something differently I could have got a rewardable behaviour instead.  That's leadership in a nutshell to me.  Responsibility.  That's why most "rules" are for how *I* behave, not how the dog behaves.

Chuffy

I pay the bills here too, and I make sure everyone is fed and clean and has a comfy bed to sleep in and provide toys and activties for their amusement and development.  So flippin' what?  What's any of THAT supposed to mean to a dog? 

Ok, then....since you wanna play that way.....

A nice, peaceful and save environment where the rules are clear, several dogs get along great, means a lot to my dogs......you know how I can tell? I watch them everyday....they are happy......like right now.....they all had a good run, play time and are now ready for their meals.....they are all resting till the meal is ready.....what does this have to do with leadership? Everything......

Chuffy

Let's face it, a lot of teenagers (human, at least presumably) have difficulty in grapsing WHY they should follow arbitrary rules just because they are unfortunate enough to live in their parent's house.

But do you change the rules because of that? Are they any less reinforced? If they don't understand, does anything change? My dogs are 100% fine with the rules here. They're not bucking the rules or trying to run away. I have rules to follow, too. Most definitely! I have huge responsibilities and I take them very seriously.

mudpuppy

and you are thinking in terms of dominance again

You have about as much insight to how I think as you do about how dogs think. Sorry. You have no clue about me. If you don't like my methods, don't use them. But I'm not going to shut up about it because you don't want other people to hear what I'm saying and how successful I am.  

mudpuppy

without ever having considered or tried other methods

How many times do I have to say that I've tried other methods - before you hear me? This is so confusing to me. Do you not retain what you read? Because I've written it several times.  

And isn't talking specifically about MY methods more for the Chatter Thread than the Pack Rules thread?  

I have rules too.  I just don't assume following rules means they accept me as boss or that imposing myself as boss automatically means rules will be followed.  The more I think about it, the more "leadership" seems divorced from the idea of *MY RULES* at all.  Peeing outside doesn't mean they see me as leader.  Imposing myself as leader does not mean they will pee outside.  I'm obviously too thick for this thread as I am not seeing the connection. 

Chuffy

Peeing outside doesn't mean they see me as leader.  Imposing myself as leader does not mean they will pee outside.

You are correct......but, how things are run and how four large dogs live in harmony is my job and my responsibility.......I call it leadership, you call it something different.....why pick it apart anymore?

so let's say my attitude is "My house, you follow my rules cause I'm the boss". Your 11 month old dog, always well-behaved up until now, growls at you as you approach while she chews her bone. Well, clearly she's challenging your authority! your only choice under the "I'm the boss" rule is to fight her on the spot- mentally intimidate if possible, physically attack if not; you can't back down or she will "disrespect" you. So now you're faced with somehow fighting a full-of-herself 90 pound powerful animal equipped with sharp teeth. And don't say "oh that has never happened", the truth is "it hasn't happened YET" because you've been lucky enough to get compliant, relaxed, eager to comply dogs. I used to think that way until I got the demon-dog from the shelter. Many dogs don't think "I'm the boss" is sufficient motivation to ensure their compliance with rules.

If instead you're attitude has always been 'if you do what I want you can have what you want", you feel perfectly fine backing away to safety, and doing something safe to manage the situation- pretend the backyard is full of crippled squirrels, and go haring out screaming happily, sneak back in and confiscate the bone while the dog runs around looking for the squirrels, and vow to resume some pro-active anti-resource guarding training. Cause you know it's not about disrespect, it's about lack of motivation and under-training.

mudpuppy

so let's say my attitude is "My house, you follow my rules cause I'm the boss". Your 11 month old dog, always well-behaved up until now, growls at you as you approach while she chews her bone. Well, clearly she's challenging your authority! your only choice under the "I'm the boss" rule is to fight her on the spot- mentally intimidate if possible, physically attack if not; you can't back down or she will "disrespect" you. So now you're faced with somehow fighting a full-of-herself 90 pound powerful animal equipped with sharp teeth. And don't say "oh that has never happened", the truth is "it hasn't happened YET" because you've been lucky enough to get compliant, relaxed, eager to comply dogs. I used to think that way until I got the demon-dog from the shelter. Many dogs don't think "I'm the boss" is sufficient motivation to ensure their compliance with rules.

Then, I must have been super lucky, too....in all my years of bringing up pups( not older rescues), I have never been growled at by any of my dogs. I don't act like a raging maniac enforcing rules, but the dogs know I mean business....they way I feel, if an 11 month old pup all of a sudden turns on the owner, something went wrong a long time ago.....just my humble opinion, though...

snownose

they way I feel, if an 11 month old pup all of a sudden turns on the owner, something went wrong a long time ago.....

I think MP was saying that, too, but in a different way. That is, resource guarding should have been dealt with way before the dog was big enough to mean business and back it up. And I'm inclined to use MP's method. Change their track to something else that motivates them, confiscate the guarded item, then work on that guarding some more. Which would require using a reward that is as high value as that bone. So that the dog never thinks you are going to take it away. That is, if they don't fear losing the bone, they don't mind giving it up because they will get it right back or something even better. Resource guarding is a natural instinct that leads to survival in the wild.

So, the idea is to change the dog's response to your presence or request for the bone. Of course, I hedge a little bit on that whole thing. If I couldn't get a dog to quit guarding a bone regardless of what I did, I might just quit giving bones. That would fall under management. And before someone can tell me that it is failure of any one system or another, there are a few people here who have had to manage quite extensively and it's just a fact of their life.