another nail in the "alpha dog dominant pack leader" coffin

Angelique

Nope. Not another nail. Just another biased exercise taken to the extreme which simply shows some folks don't know the difference between violence and leadership.

 Agreed

"elicited an aggressive response from at least 25 percent of the dogs"

Not even their own study numbers help them to make a point

dyan

The ONLY time he will leave it is when you have a treat...and that is sometimes.  Even outside playing with a ball, only way I could get him to drop it is with treats. What the heck.....I'm standing out there with a pocket full of treats and talking him into dropping it, so I can play with him!  

And that's not so bad. Keep doing it until it becomes a habit for him to drop it. I think some dogs learn some things quicker than others. Conversely, they take mor time on some concepts than others. At least right now, he is at times, seeing the value of what you have as equal and sometimes greater than what he has. As you replied to me in another message, there are times when you might try and put your hands on him and he thinks it's a rough game. Therefore, hands off would be better, so that he can see it as work, rather than play. Dogs like having jobs to do. It challenges them.

 The reason dogs get "food dependent" is that they have consistently been shown food before the behavior.  When we train with food, we stop showing it to the dog within the first 6-7 repetitions of the exercise.  And, part of his reluctance to give up an object is that you have been grabbing at him, so stop.  In the general scheme of things, I'd rather have a food dependent dog that at least relinquishes items without aggression, so, as Ron says, this isn't so awful.  You can also use a clicker to "capture" the moment when he drops an item on his own (so you aren't having to either grab at him or show him any food), then toss him a treat AFTER he gets his click.  Do it a few times, then attach a cue after you C/T, such as "Spit".  Eventually, he will learn that "Spit" means drop the object.

dyan

but its true that some of these dogs are going to eat the object while you are trying to sweet talk him into giving it to you.  

They are MORE likely to swallow the stolen item if you chase or grab at them.  How many dogs do you know that don't know where the food comes from at their house?  I RUN AWAY and go to the fridge, the cookie jar, the plastic baggie in the cupboard - wherever I know that the dog will associate my noise with FOOD FOR DOG.  If they have a harmful thing, I might even resort to tossing kibbles all over the floor, or even roast beef, but my main focus is to save the dog from being harmed at that point - time for training later when the crisis is over and you have the harmful object back.

"Leave it" is a preventive command, to be used BEFORE the dog touches an object.  "Give" or "trade" is taught to get the dog to relinquish the object he already has.  And, this training is not a one or two exercise situation and the dog "gets" it, it's a progression that needs to happen so that the dog is absolutely convinced that, no matter what he has, the human always has something better.  I so wish you were up here so I could help you with this - hard to make it clear by keyboard sometimes.

dyan

he has tried to protect a rawhide... here or there and I give him bones all the time and I can see him get a little tense when he thinks I am going to take it...but I alway give him something in it place also.  He is funny...he gets a fresh bone in the bathroom in the morning when I work......and lays and chews it the whole time until I am ready to go. Meanwhile I am having coffee and yogurt.    When I am ready to go to work, he drops the bone to lick out the yogurt container. 

I would not give him bones by leaving them on the floor for him.  I would have one end of the bone in my hand, and he gets to chew the other end.  When I want it back, I shove some beef on his nose and he gets to "trade".  That way, he learns that the bones belong to me, not him, and I am just sharing.  Leaders share, wannabes grab or retreat when the possessor growls.  If he's that fond of yogurt, you can use it as one of your "trade" items.

I got nothin' to say this because I'm afraid it doesn't make any point to me. Yeah, I don't think many people these days argue that if you act violently towards a dog you are setting yourself up for being bitten. All the alpha dog dominant pack leader types I know wholeheartedly think that hitting a dog or shouting at a dog is not on. Why, you correct them. With a correction tool, usually. Tackle that idea if you want to tackle traditional training.

Why, you correct them. With a correction tool, usually. Tackle that idea if you want to tackle traditional training.

Sorry, but I'd rather prevent poor behavior in the first place, or train an alternative to the unwanted behavior.  Behavior you don't like really will go away if you never reinforce it.  The problem with most owners, and some trainers, is that old habits die hard, and some don't realize exactly what IS reinforcing the dog for the unwanted behavior.  The thing we all need to remember is that it's all just behavior, and not "right" or "wrong".  And, as behavior, it can be modified.  The trick is how you do that.  For me, I lure, shape, capture, extinguish, etc.  But, I don't frighten or hurt.  That's my criteria, and others may feel differently, but it has worked for my dogs, and my clients' dogs for quite a while now.

 Well SD, what you have said IS tackling the correction idea. You've stated you'd rather do things without it and brought up various methods to do that, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

spiritdogs

Sorry, but I'd rather prevent poor behavior in the first place, or train an alternative to the unwanted behavior.  Behavior you don't like really will go away if you never reinforce it.  The problem with most owners, and some trainers, is that old habits die hard, and some don't realize exactly what IS reinforcing the dog for the unwanted behavior. 

Amen to that. That's exactly what I ran into trying to correct Shadow, only to have it be a reinforcement. Which echos the notion that dogs learn by reinforcement, whether it's negative or positive. With positive, I know what it is I am reinforcing and with a precision marker, Shadow knows what is desired, too.

Others' mileage may vary.

corvus

I got nothin' to say this because I'm afraid it doesn't make any point to me. Yeah, I don't think many people these days argue that if you act violently towards a dog you are setting yourself up for being bitten. All the alpha dog dominant pack leader types I know wholeheartedly think that hitting a dog or shouting at a dog is not on. Why, you correct them. With a correction tool, usually. Tackle that idea if you want to tackle traditional training.

HI

One of the main regrets of my dog life was listening and acting on the advice of one of those intolerable dominance bores for several years.You know the ones,"if you don't do this your dog will take over the household". everything becomes dominance, it is such a poor life for dogs and humans.It involved silly slly ideas like dropping my dog in puddles, expecting snap responses all day every day. Problem is they still exist in their various guises and do sell a good story. It is just a story though. it is akin to saying that the moon is made fo cheese because it looks like it with out any other evidence.

Obviously I learnt better. I know in  general that dogs do prefer leadership. Leadership that shows when you show them what you want with reinforcement, and  R+ is a dam fine tool.  Leadership that gives clear decisive guidelines and takes the stress out ot many day to day situations.It is a tiny part of the overall picture and when I hear about it too often I become concerned about how dog and human are getting along.

I guess that my very high drive Lab did calm down .. in a couple of years.He was so flat and lifelless :)

A couple of weeks ago I helped some people learn to work their dog from similar lines in three very shory sessions.   The dog was happy , they were happy. I used "tools" from the R+ tool kit. I got them to Quiten their commands. I got them ot reward like hell. I got them to do things to reduce thier anxiety and the dog's anxiety. This thought is not at all new, but for many Gun dogs like this, much more progress is made if the underlying causes of the behaviour are seen as high levels of anxiety and treated accordingly. The question do need to be answered for the dog like "what do I di when I see an other dog?"

How do I walk on the lead? What do I do when i am unsire ?  All easy stuff. The answer never lies in correcting them out of these behaviours  with what ever nasty tool is in vogue at the moment.

 I notice that your dogs have obedience titles, and that makes me even more glad that you have opted out of the dominance myth.  The day that I saw a man screaming at the top of his lungs at his UDX dog for making an error was the day I left the obedience club and never went back.  Sioux got her fill of liver during that episode, thus all she thought was, "Oh great, screaming human equals good stuff for me."  But, at first, the look of fear in her sweet therapy dog eyes is one that I never hope to see again in six lifetimes.  Keep spreading the word;-)

spiritdogs

 I notice that your dogs have obedience titles, and that makes me even more glad that you have opted out of the dominance myth.  The day that I saw a man screaming at the top of his lungs at his UDX dog for making an error was the day I left the obedience club and never went back.  Sioux got her fill of liver during that episode, thus all she thought was, "Oh great, screaming human equals good stuff for me."  But, at first, the look of fear in her sweet therapy dog eyes is one that I never hope to see again in six lifetimes.  Keep spreading the word;-)

Yes I do. My mini poodle Luci Nascere Bella Nera is a wonderful little dog and is ready for UD. I train her at her pace which is quite quick. I have had a lot of struggles living in the Obedience world.As I am in OZ, the Tch stands for Tracking Champion.

At first I would trial my older dog (the Lab in the photo) and run. I couldn't stand the atmosphere at all. The sheer brutality of it was pretty hard. I was lucky my older dog was very consistent. It was full on dominant dog, the conversations were dominant dog, any failure was seen as the dog getting uppity. I used to want the dogs to stick it to some of the harder handlers.

Now,it is pretty much completely different. In a very small time , may be a couple of years the use of positives has become the majority way of training at the highest levels.

I still have my struggles. One day I saw two handlers who I had a good deal of  respect for lay into their dogs, and I just couldn't trial that day, I was so saddened. But in general it is a lot nicer to be around.

poodleOwned

I used to want the dogs to stick it to some of the harder handlers.

Some of them finally do, but IME those are the dogs you never see again...

Hmmm. Can't say seeing a dog bite people is someting I would enjoy.

Painting all trainers who use a social (dominant/subordinant) philosophy with the same brush as all being brutes is rather extreme.

*sigh* Misinformation and putting an emotional spin on the topic isn't productive, or new.

I don't recall anyone saying they wanted a dog to bite someone.  The way I took "stick it to" was that the dog would refuse to perform or do something to make the handler look bad.  I don't know what was really meant, but to be honest, in either case, those are the dogs that seem to find their way "gone", because to certain types of people a non-performer that refuses to aggrandize the handler is about as useful as a dog that bites them...

A "social philosophy" is not the same as a dominance philosophy, unless of course you use the phrase as a euphemism.  I have no problem with utilizing strategies that take social hierarchy in to account.  I think when we speak about "dominance theory" in the context of this thread, perhaps we are actually discussing those who use that philosophy to explain every single interaction that they have with dogs.  It's not that simplistic a relationship IMO.

spiritdogs

I don't recall anyone saying they wanted a dog to bite someone.  The way I took "stick it to" was that the dog would refuse to perform or do something to make the handler look bad.  I don't know what was really meant, but to be honest, in either case, those are the dogs that seem to find their way "gone", because to certain types of people a non-performer that refuses to aggrandize the handler is about as useful as a dog that bites them...

Uh-huh...sure, right. That may be your perspective. But then why personally add the comment that the dog would never be heard from again?

spiritdogs

A "social philosophy" is not the same as a dominance philosophy, unless of course you use the phrase as a euphemism.  I have no problem with utilizing strategies that take social hierarchy in to account.  I think when we speak about "dominance theory" in the context of this thread, perhaps we are actually discussing those who use that philosophy to explain every single interaction that they have with dogs.  It's not that simplistic a relationship IMO.

"Social Philosophies" include both a social (hierarchical) dynamic and Social Learning.

But I do agree that every paw up is no more "dominance" in every interaction than every lick of the lips is a "calming signal". It's all about the individual context of the "conversation" between dog and owner.

I just think certain folks spend far too much time painting general and extreme emotional tapestries with regard to anyone who is not part of their belief system in order to sell that belief system.

 Get real and get honest. We aren't selling cars here.