jenns
Ok, so I'm trying to understand NILIF and why we do it and why is supposedly works to keep your dog under control. So the idea is to show the dog that we control the resources. Is that to show the dog that we are the pack leader? I'm reading a lot of posts that are stating that dogs don't have pack leaders and even if they do, we as humans certainly are not the pack leader, or alpha, and that we are not supposed to be dominant over our dogs. So what exaclty am I teaching my dog by making him sit before I feed him if I'm not teaching him that I am the pack leader? Isn't it the pack leader who controls resources? Like who eats what and when and who sleeps where? What am I trying to teach my dog by not letting him sleep in my bed if it's not that I'm alpha? So we are not supposed to use the word "dominant" to describe us as relative to our dogs but wouldn't we define dominance as the one who has control of others and makes the others yield to us?
Some points to consider that might be helpful in understanding this:
NILIF originated with William Campbell in his book Behavior Problems in Dogs. The main thesis of that book was that dominance is not necessary in dog training, in fact Campbell says it's detrimental. So in my view anyone who says that NILIF is about dominance and being the pack leader needs to go back to the source.
In wild wolf packs (where the idea of "being the pack leader" and "showing dominance over dogs" comes from) no one wolf controls all the resources for the group. There is no pack leader doling out food, telling everyone where to sleep, or anything remotely close to what we've been mistakenly taught is natural in dogs. David Mech, the world's leading expert on wild wolves, says that it's better to think of the pack as a family unit,
with the children following their parents' initiative. He also says
dominance displays are rare and only take place between the mama and
papa wolf over how to disburse food to the young. The female generally
wins these conflicts by acting in a non-threatening ("submissive";)
manner. If she wins by being submissive, that means the male loses by
acting dominant. Right? So what does that say about dominance in general? In my article, "Is Your Dog Dominant, or Just Feeling Anxious?" I go into more detail about this. But the thesis of that article is that whenever we see what we've been taught are dominant behaviors in dogs, what we're really looking at is an anxious and stressed animal. (For example, the pharmological "cure" for "dominance" aggression is some form of anti-anxietal.)
Looking at pack formation from the dog's genetic background, they're predators at heart. This is clearly visible in their behavior. Even though they get their food in a bowl, most dogs exhibit predatory motor patterns: they'll kill a toy, they'll chase a squirrel, they'll stalk the cat, etc. Predators have a lot of built-in aggression. You can't succeed in nature as a predator if you're not ready to kill something before you eat it, in fact with large prey animals it would be dangerous to try. And group predators are rare in nature. Most familes kick the young'uns out of 'the nest' when they reach adolescence. There are exceptions, the primary one being wolves and other members of the canine family. (Lions form groups as well, but while they hunt large prey, a single lion could kill most of the animals this feline species preys on by acting alone.) And while it's true that most canines are capable of surviving, if necessary, on plant matter, small prey animals, insects, and by scavenging, those are secondary choices. Big game animals with lots of meat on their bones are the most attractive form of prey for wolves and other canines. So they form packs to hunt big game.
Meanwhile, being a predator at heart means you've got a lot of aggression. And when you have a group of predators, living together, that aggression has to be sublimated in some way. For many years it was thought that wolves sublimated their tension through hierarchical behaviors. But the wolves being studied were captive wolves, culled from various sources, most of whom didn't know one another, and didn't have any familial bonds. On top of that, none of the captive wolves that gave us this hiearchical view of canine society were able to use their predatory energy as nature intended: to hunt and kill large prey animals. So while in a sense the wolves being studied actually were sublimating some of their predatory energy into hierarchical behaviors, ie, intra-pack aggression (all hierarchical behaviors are aggressive in some way), this is not natural. In fact for wolves the most natural way for them to reduce their internal tension is to hunt large prey together.
In her paper, "The Social Organization of the Domesticated Dog," Alexandra Semyonova makes a very important distinction about how aggression is defined in dog society: using an uninhibited bite on another animal or human (unless it's part of a hunting activity). Semyonova also makes the point that in dog society when a dog breaks the non-aggression rule, he's ostracized from the group. Everyone keeps their distance, no one will play with him, etc.
This brings us back to what I think is the purpose of NILIF: teaching a dog that he's broken this non-aggression rule. This means that NILIF should only be reserved for dogs whose social instincts have gone way out of whack, so to speak. This is the canine equivalent to the kind of "tough love" used on aggressive, drug-addicted teenagers, and shouldn't be administered for minor infractions. Tough love is only for tough cases.
Why does NILIF work? The operant conditioning explanation put forth by some here is probably the closest to the truth. However, I think that while oc (and behaviorism in general) satisfactorily explains a lot about learning and training, etc., it falls short when it comes to solving severe behavioral problems. That's partly because I see all behavior as the result of a dog trying to reduce some internal emotional or nervous tension. What are "resources" but things that a dog wants, or in severe cases, "thinks" he needs? If you have a want or a need, you'll experience some form of inner tension and stress until that want or need is satisfied, correct? If a dog learns he can succeed in getting his needs met by acting aggressively, he's not going to stop acting that way unless and until someone bigger and stronger and a lot more aggressive than he is comes along and really kicks his ass (which will have numerous negative behavioral repercussions later on), or until he's put in a position so that he can't get ANYTHING he needs or wants, EVER, UNDER ANY CONDITIONS, unless he acts calm first (meaning he's not acting on his internal tension and stress).
So looked at in that light, NILIF works via a conditioning process to teach a dog that acting calm, not acting on his stress and tension, is what gets him what he wants: He can't come out of his crate unless he acts calm. He can't eat unless he acts calm. He can't go outside unless he acts calm. He can't have a bone unless he acts calm. All these rules that Campbell invented have the effect, not of showing the dog that you're the "pack leader" or that you "control the resources," but, on the simplest level, that calm behavior produces satisfaction. So while operant conditioning doesn't quite get at the heart of why NILIF works, it provides us with a better explanation than dominance.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
LCK