Training "dominance" away...

Dog_ma

Its sort of like hitting yourself on the head with a rolled up newspaper when the dog potties inside. Dog displaying dominance? Buck up and be a better owner. That involves effort, training, and consistency, as well as proper exercise and mental stimulation.

Bravo!  That's it EXACTLY!  The pup isn't being "dominant" BUT at the same time, it's up to YOU, the human, to (pardon) "take charge" of the situation and make sure the dog is in the right place when he needs to go.  I say to DH: "YOU are the adult, YOU are the so-called intelligent species -so YOU have to do the leg work".

A bit like at work (again).  The office junior isn't expected to make complex and far reaching company decisions.  And if they were, and made a total mess of it, it wouldn't be that they had a, I don't know, faulty personality or were trying to take over the company or something.  They were just allowed, or expected, to do something beyond their capabilites.

That's what I hate about the "dominance" thing.  It tends to suggest there's something "wrong" with the dog, not something  "wrong" with the human who is being inconsistent and failing to communicate with the dog or motivate them effectively.  To put it another way - they are being a "rubbish leader".

The problem I have with the concept of "dominance" is so often it seems like dog owners are blaming behaviors on "dominance" and then trying to "fix" or "correct" the dog when if they would just train and reinforce what they want in the first place, most of those so-called "dominant" behaviors would be extinct or never start to happen.  That's why I said I was somewhere in the middle of needing to lead by example and not buying any of it.  Yes, my reactions do affect my dogs, but at the same time I can't just be a calm, consistent, confident person and expect that to all rub off on the dogs.  I need to do that and active train the dogs what I want, maybe more so for developing a form of communication with the dog in general than setting black and white rules.

yes, this is my big peeve with the whole leadership/dominance thing. It gets in the way of figuring out why the dog is "misbehaving" and figuring out an effective plan to deal with it.

People have varying ideas and opinions about what the whole leadership/dominance thing means. Some people believe that if a dog owner says they are the "leader", they have some kind of emotional and egotistical investment in being somewhat of a dictator or power-hungry tyrant over a group of captive animals. In other words, some people get the picture of a "leader" as being a real jerk to their dogs.

Additionally, when a dog owner claims their dog is being "dominant", some people believe that they think their dog is trying to take over the household with every move they make and that it's important to physically over-power their dogs (with pain and unpleasantness) to make them obey and fall in line. 

Some people have strong and extremely negative associations to the words "leadership" and "dominance", such that when a dog owner mentions them, feelings of disgust and revulsion rise.

And, yes, mudpuppy, from what I have gleaned from your posts, by "some people" I do mean you, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not the only one who apparently feels this way and I just wanted to make a general point.  

But for some of us, the words carry no such negativity, because they don't mean AT ALL what they mean to "some people".   Being a leader not only doesn't get in the way, it is a tremendous aid in discerning what is going on with the dog when he's presenting unwanted behaviors (misbehaving) and working out an effective plan to deal with it. That, to some of us, is the epitome of being a good leader.

So, while I understand why some have negative associations to the words, I would remind them that not everyone sees these words through the same poop-colored glasses.

I have no particular feelings of "disgust or revulsion" at the words "dominance" or "leadership".  However, I find that many people have little idea what leadership truly means as it applies to dogs, nor do they recognize dominant or submissive behavior in dogs as being as fluid as it is.   I'm sure there are some people who do appear to be repulsed by the use of this terminology.  I just think it is less because of the terminology than the way it is so often misused and misunderstood, or used to justify inappropriate training methodologies.  The more productive discussion is really best directed away from personalities and toward better understanding of dogs.  The real key to good relations between us and the dogs we live with is "clear communication", the nuances of which dogs understand very well among themselves.  Thus, the clearer we can be in our own communication with them, the better chance they have of adjusting their behavior to live in a human-dominated social group. 

  Being a leader not only doesn't get in the way, it is a tremendous aid in discerning what is going on with the dog when he's presenting unwanted behaviors (misbehaving) and working out an effective plan to deal with it. That, to some of us, is the epitome of being a good leader.

it's completely irrelevant in figuring out what is going on and figuring out how to fix it. Let's say my dog is pulling on the leash or not coming when called or jumping up on people or pottying in the house or eating the walls. There are simple, straightforward training steps that will fix these problems. How does "leadership" come into it?  And yet you get trainers/owners who, if you present your doggy problem, tell you that first you need to become a stronger leader. Of course they usually provide no advice about how to go about doing this, or how it will fix the problem; sometimes they suggest engaging in  "Voodoo dominance rituals" like never letting the dog go out in front of you, or never letting the dog go out the door before you go out, or not feeding the dog until after you eat. How on earth is this advice going to help the poor owner whose dog is eating the walls or jumping on people?  just skip to the REAL advice. Thinking about leadership is counter-productive.

mudpuppy

It gets in the way of figuring out why the dog is "misbehaving" and figuring out an effective plan to deal with it.

mudpuppy

it's completely irrelevant in figuring out what is going on and figuring out how to fix it.

Does it get in the way or is it completely irrelevant? Have you made up your mind on this matter?

I can understand and accept how leadership might not be applicable to you and your situation, and I really don't care whether you think of yourself as a leader or not. But it is an important part of the way I (and many people) raise dogs. Accept it or not. Agree with it or not. That's the way it is. It's not right or wrong, it just is.

mudpuppy

Thinking about leadership is counter-productive.

Not in my world. Thinking about and practicing leadership is essential in raising dogs in the healthy, balanced environment that I want to have. I am not invested in your agreement on the subject.

ok, provide a practical example of how leadership helped you teach your dogs to not pull on the leash. Or pick any behavior if you didn't use leadership to teach this skill, or haven't managed to teach this skill yet.

mudpuppy

ok, provide a practical example

For what purpose?  

Well if you don't want to answer a perfectly reasonable question, I don't mind taking this one.

I don't think a dog ever walks nicely on lead, or sits, or goes to the toilet outside simply BECAUSE "you're the boss".  But I do believe that assuming good leader qualities is conducive to a better relationship with the dog and this has a positive knock-on effect in training them.   

Oh, and its easy to see how something could be "irrelevant" and yet still "get in the way".

Example:

mp says that being a leader is irrelevant to having a well behaved dog.  Yet people can be so busy focusing on whether or not they are the leader
 that it "gets in the way" because they are more concerned with THAT than with things that ARE relevant like, what does my dog like?  what is the best way to motivate him?

Now, for myself, I think that if you don;t know what your dog likes and if you don't give serious thought to how best to motivate him, then you are being a rubbish "leader".  So, for ME, thinking about leadership doesn't get in the way, because for ME, leadership is all about skills and qualities needed in order to communicate well with (and therefore train) a dog.  I think I do see where mp is coming from, I just don't wholly agree with it.

But I do believe that assuming good leader qualities is conducive to a better relationship with the dog and this has a positive knock-on effect in training them.

I used to think your relationship with the dog was highly important. Then I watched a clicker-training seminar. The dog was experienced with the clicker, but had never met the trainer before. They had no relationship. The trainer taught that dog a series of incredibly complicated behaviors really quickly. Then they brought out another dog, again no relationship with the trainer, and repeat. Then they brought out a puppy, limited experience with clicker, no relationship with trainer, and the trainer quickly taught the pup to heel off-leash.  So it's not important to have a relationship with the dog in order to effectively train the dog.

I've been in classes where if a dog acted distracted the intructor would place the blame on a flaw in the relationship between the dog and the handler. And while this seemed logical, upon repeated observations and thinking and talking to people I don't think it's all that relevant. The real problem is the dog is under-trained, not that the owner isn't an effective leader or there is something wrong with the relationship.

Chuffy

Oh, and its easy to see how something could be "irrelevant" and yet still "get in the way".

Example:

mp says that being a leader is irrelevant to having a well behaved dog.  Yet people can be so busy focusing on whether or not they are the leader
 that it "gets in the way" because they are more concerned with THAT than with things that ARE relevant like, what does my dog like?  what is the best way to motivate him?

Now, for myself, I think that if you don;t know what your dog likes and if you don't give serious thought to how best to motivate him, then you are being a rubbish "leader".  So, for ME, thinking about leadership doesn't get in the way, because for ME, leadership is all about skills and qualities needed in order to communicate well with (and therefore train) a dog.  I think I do see where mp is coming from, I just don't wholly agree with it.

No one can be a leader (of either people or dogs) without a relationship based on mutual respect and trust.  If it's one-sided, you are just a boss, dictator, bully or tyrant, not a leader.  So, if you want to be a leader, whether or not it's relevant to anything else, that is the way to get there.  So, Chuffy's point about knowing your dog's preferences, and training your dog using motivation that works for the dog, may be quite a bit more important than focusing on "who's boss".

Chuffy

I don't think a dog ever walks nicely on lead, or sits, or goes to the toilet outside simply BECAUSE "you're the boss".  But I do believe that assuming good leader qualities is conducive to a better relationship with the dog and this has a positive knock-on effect in training them.   

I agree.

mudpuppy

I used to think your relationship with the dog was highly important. Then I watched a clicker-training seminar.

If all I wanted from my dog were behaviors, I'm sure clicker-training is all I would need. But I want more from my dog than to get it to do things. I believe a combination of leadership (relationship) AND knowing dogs is the best way to deal with them. Clickers aren't necessary for that.

mudpuppy

But I do believe that assuming good leader qualities is conducive to a better relationship with the dog and this has a positive knock-on effect in training them.

I used to think your relationship with the dog was highly important. Then I watched a clicker-training seminar. The dog was experienced with the clicker, but had never met the trainer before. They had no relationship. The trainer taught that dog a series of incredibly complicated behaviors really quickly. Then they brought out another dog, again no relationship with the trainer, and repeat. Then they brought out a puppy, limited experience with clicker, no relationship with trainer, and the trainer quickly taught the pup to heel off-leash.  So it's not important to have a relationship with the dog in order to effectively train the dog.

I've been in classes where if a dog acted distracted the intructor would place the blame on a flaw in the relationship between the dog and the handler. And while this seemed logical, upon repeated observations and thinking and talking to people I don't think it's all that relevant. The real problem is the dog is under-trained, not that the owner isn't an effective leader or there is something wrong with the relationship.

Please go back and highlight where in my post I said it was NECESSARY in order to train the dog.

Just to make my stance clearer - leadership is not NECESSARY to teach a dog squat.  But it's HELPFUL (IMO).

Besides which, don't we ALL want a good relationship with our dogs?  The fact that you can still teach the dog (with or without a clicker actually) if you have no relationship with him (or a bad one) is a moot point isn't it?  None of us here are planning on having a non-relationship with our dogs, I hope. 

If all I wanted from my dog were behaviors, I'm sure clicker-training is all I would need. But I want more from my dog than to get it to do things. I believe a combination of leadership (relationship) AND knowing dogs is the best way to deal with them. Clickers aren't necessary for that.

Would you please tell me anything your dogs do that is NOT considered a behavior (except being in a coma)?  If you don't know that all action is behavior, and you don't know that all mammals learn via operant conditioning, then how can you say you "know dogs"?  I don't get it.  One thing you said is correct that you don't need the "dreaded clicker" (ewww scary)  for learning to take place, but it makes it a whole lot easier, not to mention more fun for the dog to have a really accurate translation tool.  From what I understand, you tried the clicker and then gave up because your dogs were offering you behaviors - a clicker trainer's dream, but it scared you.  Why?  (Maybe because you were not in complete control yet?)  Jeez, at least if you gave it as much of a try as Ron did, perhaps you would be happier to learn that your dogs were not aberrant, nor were they out of control, they were just happy learners!  Of course, then, you might have to smear the egg off your face and admit to being wrong... which I suspect is virtually impossible for you to do.  Oh well, down the primrose path we go...