Training "dominance" away...

mudpuppy

If you've never really thought about it, think: If you believe that you must become your dog's leader, what exactly do you expect to happen if you fail to achieve that role? 

I can tell you what happened with Rascal when I first got him, before we really developed a "bond" or before he saw me as his "leader" or however you want to phrase it.

He was nervous and fearful, always looking out for things that might "eat" him. He seemed to have the idea that the world was a big, scary place, and he was on his own, so he had to look out. This grew into him being "defensive," in that if he saw something he perceived as a threat (which was most anything) then he just knew this was a life or death situation, so he fought back against the "threat." Humans were scary and not to be trusted.

Now I'm not really on board with this whole "dominance" business necessarily - I'm not a big fan of a lot of CM's methods, for example (though he does have some good ideas!) - but I do think a strong "leadership" is necessary for a dog's mental well-being. (I just don't necessarily agree with a lot of people on how to establish said "leadership.";)

Maybe it's just my dog, who knows. With a lot of patience and positive training, managing his environment very carefully, NILIF like *crazy,* and a ton of practice with obedience commands, Rascal finally started trusting me to take control of things and he very noticeably relaxed and kind of "stepped back." It really felt like "okay, someone needs to take care of this situation, you'll do it? Oh thank goodness!"

For example, Rascal used to bark like crazy - really frenzied, upset barking - every time the doorbell rang or someone walked past the front door. Eventually, without any special training, I could tell him, "Rascal, relax, I got it" and as long as he saw that I was heading towards the door to check it out, he stopped barking. Strangers coming into the house also used to be a source of stress and guarding, so I kept him from interacting with strangers when they very first came in the door, and now as soon as the stranger and I exchange a couple of pleasant words Rascal isn't bothered in the slightest.

Now IMO this all meshes very well with the article in the OP - I didn't "alpha roll" him (whatever that means, lol) or try to subvert him in any overt way. What I did, I think, was "elevate the human" by showing Rascal that not only was I in charge, but also that I could handle the responsibility. That I was kind and consistent and reliable, and that I would not put him in frightening or dangerous situations. That all that was happy and good in his universe came, in one way or another, through me.

I'm curious - mudpuppy, do you advocate NILIF? Isn't that kind of all about "becoming the dog's leader"? If you don't like/use NILIF, what do you prefer instead? 

Cita

but I do think a strong "leadership" is necessary for a dog's mental well-being. (I just don't necessarily agree with a lot of people on how to establish said "leadership.";)

Would you be interested in clarifying this for us (well, me!)? How do you define leadership as a term?

It almost sounds like your definition would be along the lines of simply building trust, and providing safety, security, and routine, and fulfilling the dog's needs as a dog. Would that be (at least partially) correct?

Definitely! Though it does also include a (very mildly enforced) bit of discipline as well. Not as in "bad dog, I'm smacking you" but that there are rules that need to be followed in order for the "good stuff" to appear (like NILIF). To me, "leadership" means that the human is in charge, but also in charge in such a way that the dog wants to be a follower. Otherwise we'd be talking about establishing a "dictatorship" with one's animals and, well, that just doesn't sound nice! Nobody wants a doggy Gitmo...

The more I read the title to this thread, the more something becomes stunningly clear to me, so I'll present it here.

Training Dominance Away.

Such a succinct title. And I think it means a heck of a lot more than even Anne realized (that is, if she agrees *G* She might not). But I think it's very clear, especially in terms of protocols such as NILIF and Work to Earn. Their success is reliant upon teaching the dog that certain actions require certain behaviours to occur. So sitting for a meal. Sitting to go outdoors. Sitting for attention, etc. It's all about the teaching.

The more I observe, the more I study, the more I learn, the more I become convinced that what people refer to "dominance behaviours" (pick your choice - jumping, peeing on things, pulling on leash or simply walking ahead of you.....) are simply learned behaviours, and not much more. Even in "dominance" interactions between dogs, I really think that a lot of what goes on is simply learned behaviour.

So one person calls one dog dominant because it is the most laid back, calm, and least pushy of the bunch. When in reality the other dogs have simply learned that they can't p*ss off that guy, so they don't bother trying. I look at Gaci's resource guarding of the bed (when it was an issue, and soooo many people consider a dog that guards to be a dog that is "dominant" over you) against other dogs was totally learned. She wanted the bed to herself. She learned that by aggressing towards other dogs, she could drive them away from it. So a resource guarder was born. When she learned that she didn't need to control the bed, that it was okay for other dogs to be on the bed, and that guarding the bed resulted in her losing the bed (which actually was simply taught by using the "off" cue), she quickly gave up guarding the bed. Problem was solved. And I doubt that she really had any differing opinion towards her "status" or the "status" of the other dogs. She simply repeated what she had learned to work.

It's very possible that if the first time she had acted this way the other dog returned attitude towards her (she's usually a bluffer *G*), the problem never would have occurred in the first place. But she likely started with a dog that was an inherent peace-maker, who listened to Gaci's dismay and gave up the bed, which allowed Gaci to make the association between her behaviour and keeping dogs off the bed.That's just one example, of course, but it becomes more and more clear to me that almost everything (or everything) related to "dominance" seems to come down to what a dog has learned. What works and what doesn't. Which is why most "dominance" paradigms usually simply involve teaching the dog that there are consequences to behaviours, and that getting access to other things is contingent upon doing certain behaviours. I don't think the dog has any idea that they are being "demoted", or that the human is being "promoted" in a hierarchy. I think the dogs just learn that certain behaviours pay off, certain other behaviours don't pay off, and yet other behaviours pay off more than others.  And the real reason it makes life easier on dogs (something like NILIF, that is) is because it makes for clear communication between dog and human, it opens up an understanding that wasn't present before, it builds a mutual relationship. Not because the dog suddenly realizes somebody has "taken charge" of a situation.

You can take CM (since his name was brought up) as an example. His entire speech relies on talking about submission, dominance, and leadership. It's all about being the leader. I think everyone can agree on that. However his actions, what he does, simply comes down to punishments and reinforcements for particular behaviours. He "enforces" leadership by teaching dogs where to walk. Simply a learned behaviour. And one could argue that rather than seeing CM as a benevolent leader, they simply learn that pulling ahead doesn't pay off because it results in a punishment if they pull. Whereas walking beside or behind him does keeps the collar pops away.

You can take this, and read it, or ignore it, like it, or think I've lost it. Doesn't matter, it's okay either way with me. Just sharing some of my musings and thoughts as I myself grow with my dogs.

I'm curious - mudpuppy, do you advocate NILIF? Isn't that kind of all about "becoming the dog's leader"? If you don't like/use NILIF, what do you prefer instead? 

I love NILIF. It's my favorite. But it has nothing to do with leadership- it's all about consistency and building communication. Dogs do get nervous and upset and anxious living in our world- they don't speak english. Humans act in unpredictable, scary ways. Dogs have needs that have to be met, and they can't meet those needs without dealing with scary, unpredictable people. So enter NILIF: it's not scary. It's very clear and consistent. And the dog always has a choice, which is empowering to dogs and helps them mentally relax. Oh says the dog, light dawning; if I want this, all I have to do is THIS!  wow!  These humans aren't scary, they are very predictable. We can communicate. The dog relaxes. The human is happy. The dog relaxes even more.

NILIF's major benefit is that it teaches the dog that if he wants stuff, he has to get it from you, and he learns how to get it from you in ways you both find acceptable. This automatically reduces or even removes any conflicts between your needs and your dogs needs. Much of doggy mis-behavior is due to miscommunication between species, and you've removed that.

Simply a learned behaviour. And one could argue that rather than seeing CM as a benevolent leader, they simply learn that pulling ahead doesn't pay off because it results in a punishment if they pull. Whereas walking beside or behind him does keeps the collar pops away.

You can take this, and read it, or ignore it, like it, or think I've lost it. Doesn't matter, it's okay either way with me. Just sharing some of my musings and thoughts as I myself grow with my dogs.

mudpuppy

I love NILIF. It's my favorite. But it has nothing to do with leadership- it's all about consistency and building communication.

See, to me, this is "being a leader." To me, "leading" is being in charge of the dog's learned behaviors - we encourage the learned behaviors we want and discourage or make impossible the learned behaviors we don't want. Doesn't it work the same way with human leadership? Human leaders (let's say, my boss) aren't magical or super special in any way, we just choose to follow them because they have their stuff together and we find it beneficial to do so. The "being a leader" is working to ensure that "following" (read: doing what you want) continues to be the most beneficial thing to do.

It seems like at least 50% of the arguing on this board is over semantics, which boggles my mind somewhat.  

Cita

It seems like at least 50% of the arguing on this board is over semantics, which boggles my mind somewhat.  

It's really not, though, which is why I was trying to get at what you meant by leadership. It's actually quite a philosophical difference.

Leadership denotes that the dogs "know" you are in charge, and that they should be a "follower". Being a leader somehow denotes a ranking system of some type. I'm arguing that yes, while we physiologically control the resources in a dog's life, as a matter of requirement in living with animals (any animal), since they can't walk themselves and can't feed themselves (actually, some can, if left to their own devices) you can have the same time of relationship with animals, and ensure their needs are met, without any thought or difference in rank. The idea of a leader is that "the dog should always follow". And that's certainly not my philosophy, and my dogs dont' always follow. My dogs always have choices, and sometimes I follow their lead as well. And within a group of dogs, different dogs lead for different activities - one may be the leader in a walk, another may be the one who always intitiates play, another one may be the peacemaker, another one may be the lesson-teacher for youngsters. Which is why I liken it more to a mutual relationship than a hierarchical one. I don't see any clear linear relationship involved, such that one is a leader and all others are followers.

My dogs do as I ask because I have built trust. But more than that, it's because there is clear communication. It's the same way that I will do as they will ask and heed their requests, whenever they ask. Sometimes I say "No, not now", and sometimes they say "No, not now". My dogs tell me what they do and don't like, just as much as we tell them what we like and don't like. And they reinforce and punish our behaviour as much as we reinforce and punish theirs, to be honest. With a clear communication, we can better understand each other's needs and desires, and rather than it being a "do as you ask because you're not the leader", it's "do as you ask because there's something in it that will benefit oneself". I really do think that dogs, and most humans underneath, are quite selfish animals. I think a lot of theories of altruism are not inherently accurate. And the reason our dogs do as we ask is not because NILIF somehow gave them a rank, or gave us a rank, but because it makes communication clear, and when communication is clear, you can live in peace with one another. But making communication clear doesn't make us "higher", it's actually teaching ourselves how to speak to our dogs who are speaking to us in the best way they know how. To be honest I think that rather than elevating us, it actually puts us onto level ground with our canine counterparts, as once we can open that line of communication, dogs are happy to try to do what it takes to get what they want (selfish!) by doing what we want, and they are happy to be able to communicate back with us in a way that everyone understands.

Cita

Human leaders (let's say, my boss) aren't magical or super special in any way, we just choose to follow them because they have their stuff together and we find it beneficial to do so

I don't see it that way. Of all the bosses I've ever had, I might have called one of them a "leader" by those terms. And I didn't follow them because I inherently found them to be good leaders and desired to follow them, rather it was because if I didn't follow them I wouldn't have a job. No job, no money. No money, not much of anything to provide yourself or your dogs *G*. I actually worked under a "boss" who I very much disagreed with on just about everything....lol. Our opinions always clashed on what things were supposed to be like. But I stayed on. I just shut my mouth and did the work that needed to be done, to make some money and gain some experience. 99% of bosses are artificial positions that people are forced to follow, because of background driving forces (need for experience, need for money, need for fitting in, etc). Heck, I would wager that 99% of all leadership "roles" in human society are artificial positions. Even within families, you can see this happening ("You do this because I'm the parent and I say so"......).

People who have people who inherently wish to follow, of their own accord, in the footsteps of a leader are few and far between, and are gems to behold. And even then you can argue its' because only of a combination of personality, and how that person teaches others (by example, and through kindness and compassion). And to keep in mind that there will always be somebody for whom that person is not considered a "leader" but a "boss", as it's very subjective.

NILIF is not leadership or communication. It is control. Simple, direct, control. Power based, and coercive. I use it, happily and without guilt. But I can't pretend it isn't highly coercive. If a dog wants food, for example - well life depends on food. No food = death. If you wouldn't feed me unless I did what you wanted, you can be sure I'd do what you want.  Not because I thought you were swell.

Why do dogs do as we ask? Because there is something in it for them. Why do people follow "leaders" at all? Because there is something in it for them. The word leader doesn't exactly fit how I see myself in relation to my animals, but it isn't entirely off either. There is an unequal distribution of power in this house. I have more of it. I think it is so clear to me because I'm not power hungry, and there is a large part of me that thinks like Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?" LOL. I try not to abuse my power. I try and remember that responsibility is the other side of the power coin. But at the end of the day, Sasha has never gotten to decide that my husband and I sleep on the floor while she takes the bed.

I agree that dogs do what works for them.  They can cheerily comply because they know they will be rewarded, or they can be like Kim working for a boss simply because they know they won't get anything unless they do.  A lot has to do with the human's attitude.  As for me, the one statement you just made really rings true..."I try not to abuse my power."  Unfortunately, many people do abuse their power over dogs, even though they do it benignly - simply not realizing that there are ways to ask dogs to do as we want without being as coercive as we used to think was necessary.

mudpuppy

If you've never really thought about it, think: If you believe that you must become your dog's leader, what exactly do you expect to happen if you fail to achieve that role? 

I think I would end up with a very confused dog, possibly a scared or neurotic dog. 

This isn't a world geared for dogs.  Its created by humans, for humans, and can be a scary/threatening/confusing/exciting/overwhelming place for a dog.  You need to "take charge", because frankly, the dog needs someone to guide him and keep him safe. 

Dear doG, what do you train your dogs for?  When you motivate them to behave in a way that is socially acceptable and ensures their safety and full enjoyment of all that can be offered, you are taking charge, because you are not just haphazardly allowing them to develop any old habits.  You are being pro-active and ensuring their success, safety, health, well being and social enrichment.  Like a parent perhaps?  A guide?  A (dare we say it) leader?  If you are teaching your dogs acceptable behaviour, then you are "taking charge", you might not want to see it that way, but that is what is happening.

mudpuppy

I disagree with the fundamental principle of that article- that dogs care whether someone is in charge of the universe or not.

I think being in charge of the universe is probably a poor choice of words.  I think the dog likes to know that someone is going to put his dinner bowl down at 6pm.  I think he likes to know that when another dog comes charging at him rudely when he is restrained by a lead someone will step forward and deal with it and he doesn't have to.   That kind of thing.

 *applause!*

Bravo!  Best post on the subject yet, IMO  

corgipower

When we do sport training, I see it as more of a dance partnership, with me leading.

Depends on the sport though. There's nothing like doing tracking or S&R work to learn what it means to have a dog leading the human, and still having a strong, great relationship. In things like that all control is given to the dog, and the human is literally the "follower".

I didn't say "leading" doesn't happen, in fact it does, but I think that dogs lead humans in many ways too, just as we lead them at times. The same way that dogs can lead one another, but they share leadership roles in various tasks. I remember one time when we did a puppy walk. I had Shimmer, her brother, and we were with a young Papillon and three 9 week old Border Collie littermates. We were walking down town, having a blast, and came to a place where the pups got nervous of. They didn't want to walk, regardless of the person coaxing them. So I took Shimmer, took up the lead, and she led them past the scary place, when they saw her do it they did it too, and they then were great (keep in mind, this was the dog with dog-issues......). That was a case giving control to the dog, having the dog take the lead, and having a great result. But she wasn't the "leader of the seven dogs", she just had a life experience that the pups didn't yet have, as she was older.

At least I know many parts of my life where I give control over to the dog for some things. And it is that mutual understanding, of working with each other's strengths and weaknesses, that result in the strong bond that we are all so familiar with (or hopefully are familiar with!). Giving the dog control over some things can really be a boost in the relationship, IMO, rather than controlling everything in the dog's life. We already control so much, dogs know that, and there are some dogs I feel that live too controlled of a life. Giving them some control back can be invorgorating. I don't deny that there are parts of life where we "lead", no doubt about it - simply being the human gives us some of that "power", if you will - but my argument was that it doesn't make me (and I don't want it to) "The Leader" (capitals emphasized).

Again, I know my way of thinking is not well-known, so I'm not expecting everyone to jump and agree....lol! Just sharing a different philosophy on a different perspective.

a "leader" is someone who motivates a group of individuals to work towards a common goal.  I think my relationship with my dogs is more along the lines of "close friends" or "family members", not boss-employee, leader-soldier. Leaders are willing to sacrifice the well-being of followers in order for the group to reach its goal; the group is more important than the individual to the leader. It may sound like a semantic issue, but I don't think it is. If you think about yourself as your dog's leader, or as your dog's alpha dog, it does affect how you behave.