NILIF and pack leadership

Ok Ron, I hear ya but to say that this inherant instinct dosnt pertain to our dogs is reaching a bit far. That would be like denying prey drive and other canine behaviors only becasue the dog didnt grow up in the wild? Dogs are not like humans, they are pack animals who communicate differntly, interpret and recieve information differntly. That is evident in studies that show how well dogs respond to hand signals and body language 100x better then verbal commands

Granted I agree with a lot of people that bad behavios are learned from humans. To a certian extent I believe if you never give your dog reason to be food or toy possessive then it wont coem about BUT I also believe that in some dogs and some breeds like terriers that it is hidden in their genes soemwhere.

actually the whole concept of "pack" is unlikely to even exist. Most modern studies of free-living canine groups have concluded that they seem to consist of a mated pair and their offspring. The offspring generally leave at some point and form a new mated pair. There isn't the concept of "leader", there is mom and dad and a bunch of siblings of various ages.

mudpuppy

Most modern studies of free-living canine groups have concluded that they seem to consist of a mated pair

 

Yes. The "Pack Leaders"

mudpuppy

and their offspring

... the "Pack"

mudpuppy

The offspring generally leave at some point and form a new mated pair.

 

And since this doesn't happen in domestic dog situations, the dogs never become the pack leaders.

mudpuppy

there is mom and dad

 

Yes. The "Pack Leaders"

mudpuppy

and a bunch of siblings of various ages.

 

... the "Pack"

It's just different words people use. Semantics. Parents/Leaders, offspring/pack... It's all good.

So why would my giving a dog a meal in exchange for sitting cause the dog to think I'm his leader

What else is there for him to think. . .he doesn't sit, he doesn't eat. . .he doesn't eat, he cannot survive.

willowchow

So why would my giving a dog a meal in exchange for sitting cause the dog to think I'm his leader

What else is there for him to think. . .he doesn't sit, he doesn't eat. . .he doesn't eat, he cannot survive.

Boom.....perfect post......

AuroraLove

Ok Ron, I hear ya but to say that this inherant instinct dosnt pertain to our dogs is reaching a bit far

Easy there. I wasn't denying some instincts.

Here's a quote from my own post, to which you are replying.

"Which is not to say that a loose or feral dog would not be able to do such things."

Perhaps it would have been better if I had said that the modern domesticated dog doesn't have to do a lot of stuff since we humans provide for them. Many is a time I have mentioned that we sublimate the dog's drive. Instead of having to hunt, which is a large expenditure of energy, to get food, all he has to do is sit and wait. The dog may still have the drive but we can channel it to other things. A few times, I have mentioned that treat training works because dogs guard resources. They do what it takes to get the resources and keep them, even if that thing is giving up something, or sitting.

Or am I suspect because I thought Mudpuppy raised an interesting point? Politics = poo - poo.

 

willowchow

What else is there for him to think. . .he doesn't sit, he doesn't eat. . .he doesn't eat, he cannot survive.

So then its who wins out.  A test of wills.  The winner is the authority.  Sadly, for the human it is easy...do my bidding or there are consequences and that includes tapping into the dog's basic survival instinct, and a threat.  But the dog, who is coping with the anticipation behavior the best the dog can, has to learn to get passed that then if the dog understands what the human wants, comply with that bidding.   Kind of seems unfair to me. 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "if" the dog understands.  The whole idea of NILIF is that you are asking the dog to do something it already knows how to do.  Yes, it would be unfair to expect the dog to give a behavior is didn't know. 

As far as anticipation for my dog, there is almost none.  She puts her butt down and she knows the food will follow--nothing to get all anxious about.  It's not a test of wills, she wants to eat--she's not refusing to do the sit or whatever it is.

What's not fair (IMHO) is a dog who has no idea what is expected of him therefore he is stressed out trying to anticipate the next move.  My dog knows exactly what she needs to do to get the move she wants. 

DPU

So then its who wins out.  A test of wills.  The winner is the authority.

 

Actually, it's kind of like that. I wouldn't use those phrases, but when it comes down to it, we have an arrangement that says "If you want something, you're going to have to do what I say." And I would submit that we ALL have these arrangements with our dogs. They also have arrangements with us! If I want my dog to trust me, I HAVE to treat him a certain way. If I want him to be well-mannered, I must give him good reason to be.

But I have opposable thumbs and control the resources. AND I have brought the dog into my environment, not vice versa. All these things and more (like the fact that I make the rules about our existence in the house - the dogs don't tell me where to pee) make me the "leader".

If I want my dog to trust me, I HAVE to treat him a certain way. If I want him to be well-mannered, I must give him good reason to be.

Excellent point about the trust.

 

FourIsCompany

If I want my dog to trust me, I HAVE to treat him a certain way. If I want him to be well-mannered, I must give him good reason to be.

Excellent point and that is why in my earlier post I stated that NILIF works by introducing stress to get the desired behavior.  In working with a scared and timid dog, I am keenly aware how much trust I have built and exactly how I did it.  As the dog gets more confident and more comfortable, certain behaviors needs to be addressed and it is a careful balance of how much trust I have to GIVE up in order to will the dog to learn.  It is this stress in NILIF, that others seem to deny its existence, that takes away the trust.

I really don't understand what stress your talking about.  Physically pushing a dog around and manhandling it is how you are going to loose trust.  NILIF works so well because it doesn't do that at all.  The dog already knows the command or commands.  It learns that it will get what it wants if it does that command.  This way of thinking I just don't get, then does this mean that you don't teach the dogs anything at all because  you don't want to stress them out?  It's stressful for them to not know what is expected of them. 

Willow was stressed and anxious when she came here because she didn't know the routine, didn't know what we wanted her to do or if she needed to do anything.  If she acts this way  now, I tell her what to do.  And, it alleviates her stress because she now knows that she did what I asked, that was the RIGHT thing for her to do and she's then OK. 

Yep, DPU, this is exactly what it's like with my hare. Only the hare is unlikely to learn some things a dog can learn no matter how you teach it. What I've learnt from the hare is that once you reach a critical amount of trust, it becomes much easier to deal with inevitable loss in trust that results from the necessity to do things to the hare that the hare doesn't like. What I've also learnt with the hare is to constantly be aware of his comfort level. There are some things he will never be comfortable with, and some things I might be able to bring him around to if I felt like putting him through a long period of discomfort. Generally I'm not prepared to put him through a program of desensitising unless it's something he is going to experience pretty much every day. He's a wild animal and his kind stays alive by being wary and always ready to bolt. I think it's kinder to him to work below the threshold that makes him move away from me, and better for maintaining our level of trust, which I don't take for granted with him.

The thing is, you can make mistakes and it's not the end of the world. I've made countless mistakes with Kit. Learning to be constantly aware of his comfort level and actually being constantly aware of his comfort level are two different things, and despite best intentions, I've often frightened the hell out of him by accident. He got over it. There have been times he's been particularly jumpy and I've startled him every time I got up to do something. He got over it. There have been times I've chased him down, caught him, stuffed him in a cage, driven him 5 hours, and deposited him in a strange and scary place. He got over it. It took him 48 hours, but he did stop moving away from me every time I put my hand out to him and came over for a pat. If a wild hare can get over it, a timid dog can. But what it comes down to is you in your unique situation judging what effect an action will have on a dog's trust in you and whether you have enough trust in the piggy bank with that dog for the relationship to recover to its current point afterwards. And that's why I put in a lot of work when I first get an animal into just building and building the trust. I try to avoid doing anything the animal won't like much in that period if I can help it.

NILIF does introduce stress, I believe, but I also believe it rarely introduces a level of stress the dog can't deal with and won't forget the second it has what it wants. Stress that is immediately forgotten is still there, but I don't believe it has a very large capacity to damage the trust a dog has in you, if at all. My hare forgets the stress that made him get up and move the instant he is back in his comfort zone. If he didn't, hares would die of immune failure or something at a very young age. There are exceptions to that, but they're not really relevant to this discussion. 

willowchow

The dog already knows the command or commands.  It learns that it will get what it wants if it does that command.  This way of thinking I just don't get, then does this mean that you don't teach the dogs anything at all because  you don't want to stress them out?  It's stressful for them to not know what is expected of them. 

If the dog already knows the command and responds to it then NILIF is not necessary.  If you have to resort to NILIF then that means your formal training method, whatever it is-reward/corrections-reward/withholding, is incomplete.  You have not fully proofed your training and you are attempting to take the fast track of using stress and t'h'reats to get the dog to comply.  And as you can attest to, NILIF works but at the costs of the dog being introduced to stress, the dog having to work through the stress on its own, while the human just stands there lording over. 

I am not saying this is a bad training tool and I just want other to be aware of all the components, the way I see it work.  I almost see no difference between NILIF and clicker trainer or for that matter, reward/corrections.  Its easy for humans to see only the positive because when the dog complies and gets the reward, the human sees a happy dog.  But, there is a dark that others seem to deny.  With Pollyanna, the scared timid dog, she can not handle NILIF or clicker training or reward/corrections.  She has not learned how to process the stress of not getting her WANT or reward or treat. 

FourIsCompany

If I want my dog to trust me, I HAVE to treat him a certain way. If I want him to be well-mannered, I must give him good reason to be.

I would word this differently (for various reasons, one of them being what DPU says below). You see, I don't think trust is the issue, exactly. From the dog's perspective he wants to feel safe and to be able to express his aggressive/predatory energy in ways that feel satisfying and don't cause "waves" in the social dynamic. If that's your definition of trust, then fine. But I don't think dogs trust us 100% of the time. (And they probably shouldn't!)

As for giving the dog a "reason" to be well-mannered, dogs don't do things for reasons; they do things because of the feelings that arise in connection with their behaviors.

DPU

Excellent point and that is why in my earlier post I stated that NILIF works by introducing stress to get the desired behavior.  In working with a scared and timid dog, I am keenly aware how much trust I have built and exactly how I did it.  As the dog gets more confident and more comfortable, certain behaviors needs to be addressed and it is a careful balance of how much trust I have to GIVE up in order to will the dog to learn.  It is this stress in NILIF, that others seem to deny its existence, that takes away the trust.

I don't think NILIF is the right course of action for timid dogs at all. As I stated before: tough love is only for tough cases. In other words fear shows itself in two basic forms, fight or flight (there's also "freeze" but that's another matter). It's only with dogs who express their fear through constant overt aggression where NILIF is warranted. I don't see any beneficial application of NILIF for timid or panicky dogs. And the basic principle in cases where NILIF actually is warranted is that the animal is using aggression to reduce his internal tension and stress, and you're giving him another option: that he can reduce his tension (get what he wants) more satisfactorily (at least ultimately) by aligning his needs with the needs of the group as a whole instead. This takes us back to the prey drive, and the true origin of the pack instinct. Dogs are group predators at heart. And when you're hunting as part of a group your individual needs have to take a backseat to the needs of the group as a whole. That's what makes dogs the amazing and miraculously loving creatures they are.

And I don't see NILIF or our role in their lives as being about "leadership" or "exerting your authority" over the dog, though I can certainly understand the human need to see it that way. For behavioral problems, I see our role as being more like a therapist (esp. a play therapist). For obedience I see our role as being similar to that of a football coach or a private music teacher. But ultimately I think we are caretakers of our dogs more than we are their mythological pack leaders. We know now that in the wild there is no pack leader, just pack parents. But dogs don't see us as their parents. It would be very strange indeed if they did. I think they see us as problematic in some ways, but overall they see us as a way to satisfy their need to belong to a stable yet fluidly-dynamic group, and their overarching need to have someone to love.

LCK