# Tab289 Dominance Debunked



## jcojocaru

So I ran into this video which basically says the pack/domination mentality is faulty. I'm guessing most of you know about this guy (Tab289) as he deals and trains his GSD (and does a great job as the videos indicate). 

Everything he said makes a LOT of sense and makes it more clear to me why I'm not doing such a great job at training my dogs. 






What do you guys think?


----------



## Draugr

Haven't watched it yet (low on time, I'll watch it tm morning when I get home from work) - but I've kind of always thought the pack mentality idea was _mostly_ bogus because I really doubt dogs see us the same as another canine pack member. They may (and should) see their owners as "dominant" but the idea that we are alpha in their "doggy pack" is kind of silly, IMHO. Dogs are smart enough to tell that these funny, bizarre, upright, half deaf creatures who can't smell worth a darn are not one of them.


----------



## mycobraracr

I tried lots of different videos at first. His seemed to work the best for me. Then I got a trainer and started schutzhund so it all went out the window


----------



## KZoppa

He is a positive methods trainer as i'm sure you've already guessed. His videos are recommended often as how to videos for training something because he gives clear signals and explains how to achieve the goals for the training well.


----------



## Ucdcrush

I don't buy the fact that dominant dogs do not exist (unless he insists on his out-of-context definition of dominance), or that wolf:dog is the same as monkey:human. Humans are so much more advanced than monkeys, that the comparison doesn't make any sense. I do not think dogs are as different from wolves as we are from monkeys, not even close.

And when he describes learning theory, he says to reward good behaviors and remove the reward for bad behaviors. Huh? What happened to corrections? He seemed to skip over it completely. If he wants to convert people, he should explain why he left corrections out, since corrections are used effectively by dogs/wolves, and have been used by people with success for generations.

Predictably, he got into Cesar bashing mode during the video. Yet I have seen no video of his where he is working with any troubled dogs at all. He teaches tricks and regular obedience. I am not saying positive-only methods can't work (eventually) with an aggressive dog, but it's very easy to support completely banning corrections if you don't ever take on problem/aggressive dog cases.

Lastly, I can't stand seeing his grill all close up to the camera like that. How annoying.


----------



## msvette2u

Using positive training doesn't include corrections, that's why.
Contrary to some prevailing beliefs, you don't have to correct a dog to teach it 
It is much _much_ easier to teach a dog what to do (using rewards) than what not to do (using corrections).

Imagine this scenario. 
You see your dog potty on the rug. You run over, screaming, and rub it's nose in it's doo. Then maybe crate it, maybe put it outside (not going outside with it). 
What have you taught the puppy at that point?

The other scenario - you are proactive. You take the puppy out every 45min. - 1hr. You crate it while it's not being supervised. You reward the puppy outside every time it goes potty outside.
What have you taught the puppy at this point?


----------



## ponyfarm

You can train without corrections. The killer whale trainers do it all the time. How do you think they would "correct" a whale?


----------



## crackem

ponyfarm said:


> You can train without corrections. The killer whale trainers do it all the time. How do you think they would "correct" a whale?


I really hate these reasons. They sound cute and like they make oh so much sense, but do you really want to know why it's so easy to train whales without a correction?

Because they can pick up their pail of fish and walk away. The whale has no other options. Talk about "learned" helplessness. The whale simply can't do another ****ing thing in the world, but sit in a tank and starve. So it makes it pretty **** easy to train a whale. I think that is a pretty severe correction if I do say so myself. But of course most ignore that part of it so they can fit into their neat little paradigm, that or they just parrot what they hear and never even think about what they're saying.

sure you can train without corrections, more power to you. But considering dogs learn from 4 quadrants, not one or two, i'm trying to find the best ways to use them all. makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Ucdcrush

I guess this is becoming another positive only vs corrections debate.



> It is much _much_ easier to teach a dog what to do (using rewards) than what not to do (using corrections).


But to answer msvette2u. The way you worded your question/statement, and the way positive-only trainers tend to word the question, suggests that people who use a correction in training are ONLY using corrections to train the dog. As if a training session consists of only waiting for the dog to do the wrong things, so the trainer can punish the dog. Please.

That is obviously wrong, and that sort of distorted language confuses the real issue and IMO decreases the credibility of those who continually regurgitate that kind of argument. Most people use corrections as a PART of training.

To say that "it can be done" purely positive is not an argument for why corrections should be completely banned.

Go ahead and address the fact that dogs efficiently/effectively correct each other all the time.


----------



## msvette2u

> As if a training session consists of only waiting for the dog to do the wrong things, so the trainer can punish the dog. Please.


Yes I have heard this sentiment voiced. 
Yes my example is one extreme but I've seen it being done so I will talk about it.
For example, the person came on and thought they had to wait until the puppy had an accident inside, so they could correct it. I've seen that mentality over and over, so yes, it's a valid concern.



> Go ahead and address the fact that dogs efficiently/effectively correct each other all the time.


Really?? We are not dogs. We should not try to mimic them.
We are dog's leaders and that's the best way to behave with them, as their leader, not their pack-mate.


*I am curious why the venom? Why such animosity towards positive-only training??*


----------



## Ucdcrush

I am not saying we are dogs and should mimic them. I am saying punishment/correction is used by dogs on dogs VERY SUCCESSFULLY, meaning the dog receiving the correction learns very quickly what to do (e.g., give me space) and what not to do (e.g., jump up on me). So obviously "punishment" is a method by which the dog can learn very quickly, and this has probably been around for ions. Now we are supposed to ignore this?

The "venom" comes from positive only trainers who conveniently skip over/ignore the proper use of corrections in dog training, and they refer to anything other than positive-only training as old, stupid technique that clearly doesn't work and is clearly inferior to new "scientifically proven" methods. Blah blah.

I don't care if people choose to use positive methods only, in fact I have taken both my dogs to positive-only group classes over the years and we have had a great time. I have great respect for the leader of those classes. Anyone who helps dogs is OK by me.

But when people start skewing language and ignoring facts and evidence (the greatest evidence IMO is supplied by Cesar Milan who uses corrections when needed-- he is hardly "correction based" or brutal as he is often falsely depicted by certain trainers), that's where I feel the need to say something. Like ask for facts, evidence, explanations and so forth.


----------



## BlackthornGSD

Dominance as a training theory and method is faulty, at the least. But dominance is not a myth... David Mech who has been cited as a source saying that dominance does not exist says that he's been greatly misconstruedt....

_Dr. Bekoff apparently sent a copy of my post to Dr. Mech, who responded with the following: "A quick scan of the Kelley article reveals much misinformation attributed to me. This misinterpretation and total misinformation like Kelley's has plagued me for years now. I do not in any way reject the notion of dominance."

_A Mea Culpa to Mech, an Apology to Bekoff | Psychology Today

Social Dominance Is Not a Myth: Wolves, Dogs, and Other Animals | Psychology Today

_My first mistake was referring to the concept of dominance as a myth. That's a charged word, one that carries with it the implication that scientists who have dedicated their lives to understanding __animal behavior__ are all operating under some kind of mass delusion. I deeply regret making that insinuation, however unintentionally. In recent years, it's become fairly common in the dog training world for some of us to talk about "the myth of dominance" in a somewhat cavalier way. What's generally meant by this is that *the idea of dominating a dog, as the basis for a training system*, isn't based on real science and* can be harmful to the human-canine bond*. _[emphasis mine]

You can download one of David Mech's more recent articles here: Prolonged Intensive Dominance Behavior Between Gray Wolves, <em>Canis lupus</em> | Mech | The Canadian Field-Naturalist


----------



## PaddyD

Ucdcrush said:


> I am not saying we are dogs and should mimic them. I am saying punishment/correction is used by dogs on dogs VERY SUCCESSFULLY, meaning the dog receiving the correction learns very quickly what to do (e.g., give me space) and what not to do (e.g., jump up on me). So obviously "punishment" is a method by which the dog can learn very quickly, and *this has probably been around for ions*. Now we are supposed to ignore this?
> 
> The "venom" comes from positive only trainers who conveniently skip over/ignore the proper use of corrections in dog training, and they refer to anything other than positive-only training as old, stupid technique that clearly doesn't work and is clearly inferior to new "scientifically proven" methods. Blah blah.
> 
> I don't care if people choose to use positive methods only, in fact I have taken both my dogs to positive-only group classes over the years and we have had a great time. I have great respect for the leader of those classes. Anyone who helps dogs is OK by me.
> 
> But when people start skewing language and ignoring facts and evidence (the greatest evidence IMO is supplied by Cesar Milan who uses corrections when needed-- he is hardly "correction based" or brutal as he is often falsely depicted by certain trainers), that's where I feel the need to say something. Like ask for facts, evidence, explanations and so forth.


ions?
IONS?
*IONS?!*


----------



## doggiedad

i have a well trained dog. a raised voice was my main correction.
my serious correction was hold him by some neck fur and raise
my voice. sometimes i would lift his head so he would look at me
and raise my voice. when i was training him to do something there
wasn't any correction unless you count doing something again
as a correction. as his training progressed a raised voice became 
less and less. if he did something wrong speaking in a normal
tone saying "no", "no don't do that", hey what are you doing"
or sometimes saying his name was all that was needed. when training
him to heel i never popped the leash. i would stop if he was out
of position, say "heel" and place him in position and continue. my dogs 
corrections were doing something repeatedly. i think if they're taught
with a gentle correction they accept that as a correction meaning
a correction doesn't have to be harsh.


----------



## KZoppa

Ideally every trainer would be balanced but it doesnt work that way. There are some who believe in compulsion only training and there are other who believe in positive only training. sad but true. There are times where positive training can work "magic" but then something doesnt click correctly and the dog needs a correction. Thats where a balanced trainer is awesome. 

and yes, there are some dominant dogs. Not many but they are out there. We all know aggressive dogs are out there. 

I agree..... i dont think he needs to be THAT close to the camera at all.


----------



## jcojocaru

Lol with the camera closeup I agree as well, it's so very annoying. Were it of the GSD, since the GSD is the reason of his videos and not him, I definitely wouldn't mind staring into that face lol. 

As for dominance, I agree... It really is no myth nor "debunked." i'm still not entirely sure on what side to choose, but "balanced" does make the most sense... Everyone, whether it be a dog or person, needs correction. Corrections may be hard to accept as it can easily be felt as hate/judgment/whatever, but is also a GREAT way to learn if you're willing to learn, change, admit error, etc. Being rewarded for being good definitely does make you want to continue doing good. when I do a great job at something for example, and am rewarded or complimented, it makes me feel great, as well as more confident. 

I guess when balanced out, it works out much better and lessons learned far more efficiently.

Great input by everyone so far.


----------



## jcojocaru

msvette2u said:


> Using positive training doesn't include corrections, that's why.
> Contrary to some prevailing beliefs, you don't have to correct a dog to teach it
> It is much _much_ easier to teach a dog what to do (using rewards) than what not to do (using corrections).
> 
> Imagine this scenario.
> You see your dog potty on the rug. You run over, screaming, and rub it's nose in it's doo. Then maybe crate it, maybe put it outside (not going outside with it).
> What have you taught the puppy at that point?
> 
> The other scenario - you are proactive. You take the puppy out every 45min. - 1hr. You crate it while it's not being supervised. You reward the puppy outside every time it goes potty outside.
> What have you taught the puppy at this point?


The potty example is great. I wouldn't scream or punish a dog for pooping like a dog. If it poops inside, it's clearly my fault for not having taught it to do so outside. for not opening the door and taking them out for a few minutes of my life. 

Afterall... How did we learn to use a toilet? It's not like our parents kept us in disposers diapers to this day LOL. Who punishes their baby for letting it go in its diaper  it was the consistency of the parents having put the child on a mini potty that taught people the correct place to go. I often feel training a dog is similar to training a person lol.


----------



## OriginalWacky

jcojocaru said:


> I often feel training a dog is similar to training a person lol.


I've compared teaching kids and dogs a lot of times, although I have found that kids don't much care for bits of kibble as a reward.


----------



## BlackJack

msvette2u said:


> Yes I have heard this sentiment voiced.
> 
> *I am curious why the venom? Why such animosity towards positive-only training??*


Because your limiting your training tools... I would put the same amount of animosity towards pure compulsion training also. Same reason I also have William Kohler and Susan Garretts books, because I want to be a good do trainer and refuse to blind myself to only one technique. So I will try to learn everything I can so I can add those tools to my to my dog training tool box. 

Even in my inexperience as a trainer, I have found my two German Shepherds have learned what they know differently, what worked well Molly hasn't really worked well with Immo so I had to change my approach. 

Two nights ago I introduced Immo to some leash pressure training and the back command for our foundation of focus healing. I used excape avoidance training method for the leash pressure and teach back command. It took less than a fingers worth of pressure with a 24inch leash and prong collar. With in 4 reps of the command he was already starting to learn the back command. With only 10-12 reps he was 50% reliable on the back command, I have never seen Immo learn something so fast.


----------



## msvette2u

I am not limiting anything. A dog's potential blossoms when using positive training methods. 

This is the same argument that led the baby-experts to come up with a complete ban on spanking.
Because I agree spanking a child properly will not harm it's body or psyche. 
But who is to say what is proper? 

When speaking with our adopters, we stress they must find positive training methods and/or a trainer who teaches it.

You really cannot go wrong using it, and it's safe for the dog, much safer than the wrong disciplines in the wrong hands.


----------



## Cschmidt88

msvette2u said:


> I am not limiting anything. A dog's potential blossoms when using positive training methods.
> 
> This is the same argument that led the baby-experts to come up with a complete ban on spanking.
> Because I agree spanking a child properly will not harm it's body or psyche.
> But who is to say what is proper?
> 
> When speaking with our adopters, we stress they must find positive training methods and/or a trainer who teaches it.
> 
> You really cannot go wrong using it, and it's safe for the dog, much safer than the wrong disciplines in the wrong hands.


I agree, I work with shelter dogs and I'm not allowed (nor would I want to) use physical corrections on a dog. I've never had to. I've had dogs that were very rude (well just strong willed and confident), and didn't really care about my presence. I was a annoying human at the end of the leash. 

So, I made the dog work for everything, had to sit at doors, sit to get out of the kennel, sit to go in the yard, pretty soon the dog was paying attention to me and offering sits at all doors and when I asked for his attention.

With my own boy, he's not sensitive to verbal corrections or physical (I used to be a avid prong collar user.), I started making him work for everything but I also taught him a correction word (or no reward marker) and once he understood what I meant when I said it he improved greatly. When we first started working on heeling it was like a game of hot and cold. "You're warm, warm, warm, warm, COLD!, warm, warm, boiling hot!" 
But with markers. 

And you can punish a behavior without saying anything or doing anything, just cutting off access to something. Think of a mouthy puppy loosing you as a play mate when it bites.


----------



## ayoitzrimz

ponyfarm said:


> You can train without corrections. The killer whale trainers do it all the time. How do you think they would "correct" a whale?


That idea is something positive trainers go back to all the time. I'm all for positive training, but personally I use corrections as well as necessary.

Just remember one thing: compulsion based training includes negative reinforcement - the action of the dog causes something bad to go away. There are 4 operant conditioners (?) and this is one that is considered negative. It could mean (in the old school methods) that the dog's ear is being pinched until he grabs the item, so he learned that grabbing the item makes the pain go away - that sounds pretty awful no?

So how does that relate to the dolphin trainers and such who supposedly use positive only training? People forget that those dolphins were made to be pretty hungry before training, so they quickly learned that their actions make hunger (a bad thing) go away (negative reinforcement). 

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is there is no 100% black and white positive and negative only training. Its more important that the training is balanced and there's trust and plenty of rewards/praise to help get the dog through a correction. 

just IMO, but I'm also aware this isn't the topic of the thread so sorry about hijacking for a post


----------



## NancyJ

jcojocaru said:


> The potty example is great. I wouldn't scream or punish a dog for pooping like a dog. If it poops inside, it's clearly my fault for not having taught it to do so outside. for not opening the door and taking them out for a few minutes of my life.
> 
> Afterall... How did we learn to use a toilet? It's not like our parents kept us in disposers diapers to this day LOL. Who punishes their baby for letting it go in its diaper  it was the consistency of the parents having put the child on a mini potty that taught people the correct place to go. I often feel training a dog is similar to training a person lol.


Years ago I worked in a bicycle shop and actually saw a 10 year old kid threaten to wet his pants in a store to get his mother to buy him a skateboard. She said he would actually do it and bought it for him. He clearly knew how to and had control of his bladder. We all thought she should let him do it (and we even told her that it would not hurt the floors), then hand him a bucket, make him clean up the mess and not let him back in the car but make him walk home. 

I do believe in correction WHEN and only WHEN the dog knows what is expected is clear and makes a choice to do something else. There may be no way that you can offer a reward as exciting as chasing the squirrel but the dog does need to know that this is not an option. And you can believe if the dog sees the squirrel and makes the right choice, he will be rewarded. 

Obviously the way to do it is expose the dog to wildlife and other animals as a puppy and MAKE them not so interesting compared to you before they grow up and get other ideas. But sometimes....some dogs.......


----------



## Chance&Reno

I have been training for 18 years. I teach group classes, in-home sessions, behavior modification, Agility, Treibball, and much more. 

I am classified as a "positive reinforcement" trainer. That doesn't mean I stick to just treats. I use different methods as a trainer because it's about the individual dog and handler/owner. It's not purely about jamming treats down a dog's throat to get them to comply. Some dogs aren't food motivated, and some dogs don't care for affection or play as a reward. The key to a good trainer is to be able to bend and mold to the individual need and produce the same results with each method.
I do a LOT of fostering. My problem with Cesar Milan? People are clueless and they OVER DO his methods and create aggression and fear because of it. I take these dogs into my house and work them through their issues, re-home them or keep them for myself. Just because it's on television, doesn't make it gospel. 

My current foster is a Daschund/Dandie Dinmont Terrier Mix. He is fear aggressive towards people. If he doesn't bite you, he will deficate on himself because he is so fearful. How did he get that fearful? He showed his teeth when a person tried to force him to sit, physcially. His previous owner "alpha rolled" him, pinned him to the ground and started screaming in his face for growling. Over time, his problems intensified and he would dart out from under the furniture and bite people who walked in the room. He would bark at people and lunge at them if they made eye contact. He was taken to a Tuft's Veterinarian Behaviorist. The Behaviorist told his owner to put a Gentle Leader on the dog, if the dog barked at a human, LIFT his entire body off the ground with the leash and shake him. I am not fabricating this as I have the paperwork that say this! Does anyone know how this was supposed to help this dog? Even from a behavioral aspect, this was a complete failure, but it also created a back problem for this dog. So even the so-called professionals don't have any idea what they are doing and they spent thousands on schooling to end up useless. Did I mention that that my foster's previous owner was also a Priest? Ugh...
During our intial consultation, he kept saying "Well Cesar says..." and "Cesar does.."

Yes, I use a clicker. Yes, I use treats. Yes, I use corrections. Yes, I cater my training style to the needs of my students/clients. People who claim to be "strictly positive reinforcement" are just as bad as those who believe solely on correction training.


----------



## msvette2u

Cschmidt88 said:


> I agree, I work with shelter dogs and I'm not allowed (nor would I want to) use physical corrections on a dog. I've never had to. I've had dogs that were very rude (well just strong willed and confident), and didn't really care about my presence. I was a annoying human at the end of the leash.
> 
> So, I made the dog work for everything, had to sit at doors, sit to get out of the kennel, sit to go in the yard, pretty soon the dog was paying attention to me and offering sits at all doors and when I asked for his attention.
> 
> With my own boy, he's not sensitive to verbal corrections or physical (I used to be a avid prong collar user.), I started making him work for everything but I also taught him a correction word (or no reward marker) and once he understood what I meant when I said it he improved greatly. When we first started working on heeling it was like a game of hot and cold. "You're warm, warm, warm, warm, COLD!, warm, warm, boiling hot!"
> But with markers.
> 
> And you can punish a behavior without saying anything or doing anything, just cutting off access to something. Think of a mouthy puppy loosing you as a play mate when it bites.


Agreed - and furthermore, a dog that's been beaten and kicked isn't going to care about someone giving him/her a leash pop, they've seen it all already. 
You begin teaching them you're not here to hurt them, and their fears start to melt away and you have something to work with. 
You can't get there by giving them corrections, either. It's just going to wind up badly.


----------



## Cschmidt88

msvette2u said:


> Agreed - and furthermore, a dog that's been beaten and kicked isn't going to care about someone giving him/her a leash pop, they've seen it all already.
> You begin teaching them you're not here to hurt them, and their fears start to melt away and you have something to work with.
> You can't get there by giving them corrections, either. It's just going to wind up badly.


Steve White talks about something similar. He talks about using a lower than needed intensity for a correction and the dog building what he calls a "punishment callus".
Long video, 2:18 he talks about it.


----------



## Cschmidt88

And if others are more interested in the ideal of not focusing on dominance in training and behavior.
Pack Leader or Predator? | Psychology Today
----
De-Bunking the "Alpha Dog" Theory - Whole Dog Journal Article


----------



## gsdraven

KZoppa said:


> and yes, there are some dominant dogs. Not many but they are out there. We all know aggressive dogs are out there.


Not all aggressive dogs are dominant. Some of the scariest aggression comes from fear and dogs that are not, in fact, "dominant".


----------



## msvette2u

I have personally found some of the very most aggressive/reactive dogs to be quite submissive - but also abused. When their submissive behavior failed to elicit less abuse, they became aggressive. These dogs would not hesitate to bite. 
Once you gain their trust you start seeing the "real" dog. And it's the one that's the most submissive of them all. 

This is why it irks me to see internet diagnoses of "dominance" or even owners labeling dogs dominant, because often the dog is quite misunderstood and it's going to take a lot more than alpha-rolling or the like to reach that dog.
Another scenario is an uncertain/insecure dog that has been given way more freedom than it could handle and it became a resource guarder as a result. And people fail to realize they have created this problem dog.


----------



## crackem

Cschmidt88 said:


> And if others are more interested in the ideal of not focusing on dominance in training and behavior.
> Pack Leader or Predator? | Psychology Today
> ----
> De-Bunking the "Alpha Dog" Theory - Whole Dog Journal Article


apparently somebody didn't read the links provided earlier.


----------



## Cschmidt88

crackem said:


> apparently somebody didn't read the links provided earlier.


I did indeed miss them, a polite redirection to them would've been appreciated.

My intent with the links, maybe I need to reread them it's been awhile, is that we shouldn't be focused on labeling things as dominance issues and such.

A link going more into depth about what dominance is from a scientific stand point.
The Dominance Controversy | Philosophy | Dr. Sophia Yin, DVM, MS


----------



## Lakl

I just skimmed the Pack Leader or Predator link, and I'm sorry, but I have to shout HOGWASH!! I've never spent time around wolves, and don't know squat about them. I've spent time with dogs, though, LOTS of dogs, and I've seen the pack mentality first hand.

When I was in high school, we lived in an apartment complex that did not allow pets. We had a couple strays in the neighborhood, that over time, grew to about 5 or 6 in the pack. My mother, who worked in a dining facility, would bring home scraps every day for them. All except the alpha female were wild and had had very little human contact. They lived in a wooded area behind the complex. My mother would leave the food out, and we would watch them. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, the old female lab would eat first. The others would sit back and wait for her to finish. The cur male was the alpha male, and when she was done, then he would eat. He could have easily taken her down, as he was much younger and stronger, but NEVER overstepped his bounds. When he was done, then the others would come in for the scraps. It was always done this way, and my mother and I would watch all this from the window.

She led the pack everywhere, and they followed her lead religiously. If her direction came too close in contact with humans, they would hang back at a safe distance, but were never too far away. 

I am the pack leader in my home. The dogs listen to me and watch for my commands, approval or disapproval. It is not the same with the DH, and they will often do things with him, that they wouldn't attempt with me. I don't believe that there is a singular method for training all dogs, but I do believe that there has to be a delivery of interpretation that is clear to the dog and doesn't involve personal emotions or frustrations. Positive based training is a great method and something I use on a daily basis, but I have also used corrections and they are not always a negative thing when they are being applied in a way that benefits the dog and creates an understanding of what is being taught.


----------



## gsdraven

There's a big difference between feral or wild dogs and domestic pets.

I am not part of the pack in my house (I am not a dog) but I am most definitely the one in charge and it isn't by using muscle.


----------



## Lakl

gsdraven said:


> There's a big difference between feral or wild dogs and domestic pets.
> 
> I am not part of the pack in my house (I am not a dog) but I am most definitely the one in charge and it isn't by using muscle.


These were domestic animals, though, and if raised in a home, like any normal dog, would have displayed the same type behavior. What they displayed was their NATURAL DOG behavior and the communication and understanding between them was clear. The other dogs were not praised because they DIDN'T approach her food while she was eating. If they approached, she would've growled and snapped at them. They understood that. 

And I don't understand why displaying dominance is so often perceived as "muscle". I use a firm voice to display dominance and my dogs understand it. I used every possible positive training method I could find with my female to deal with her dog reactive behavior. The only thing that EVER worked was a correction. It took a correction to snap her out of the erratic, irrational behavior that she displayed whenever she came within 100 yards of a strange dog. After the correction, I could then re-direct her with positive reinforcement. Now, the only correction I need is a firm tone when I see that she is about to react. But prior to this, not even a fat, juicy steak could redirect her from going nuts in the presence of another dog.


----------



## chelle

Um. Well I'm soaking this all in, interesting conversation. I have a new dog in my house who has never had any training and I honestly don't know which avenue to pursue. Purely positive is not seeming to work. He does seem to need a combination. He's a very nice, human-friendly dog, but he is wild. I suppose, from my current vantage point, that I believe a combination of methods can be effective. I don't want to close my mind to any particular method/s.


----------



## Lakl

chelle said:


> Um. Well I'm soaking this all in, interesting conversation. I have a new dog in my house who has never had any training and I honestly don't know which avenue to pursue. Purely positive is not seeming to work. He does seem to need a combination. He's a very nice, human-friendly dog, but he is wild. I suppose, from my current vantage point, that I believe a combination of methods can be effective. I don't want to close my mind to any particular method/s.


I personally think you have to use what works for you and the dog. I worked with several different trainers when my girl was a pup, including a behaviorist. One was a dominant type trainer and one was pure positive. Neither methods worked for her in their entirety. The complete dominance caused her to shut down. The pure positive was not enough to redirect her negative behavior. I used the methods from each trainer to put together a routine of training that worked for HER. She has come a really long way and I've learned a lot in the process.


----------



## selzer

Corrections work. Compulsion works. Purely positive training works. Balanced training, treats and praise and some correction/redirection also works. Some methods take longer than others. I think what is the most important is to match the method to the trainer. If the trainer is well-matched to the training method, and believes in the method, he will have success regardless of the dog. 

I hear people saying all the time, "that wouldn't work with a ----- dog," or "I would like to see you do that with my dog." I think a confident, competent trainer can get results with ANY dog. 

Just because something has been used since the beginning of time with results does not mean it is the only way or the best way. Choke chains are effective. You can teach a dog to heel with a choke chain. The dog might have to heal but that is beside the point. They have been used since forever, but most serious trainers shun them nowadays because they see them as less effective as other tools and more dangerous to the dog. 

I see nothing wrong with limiting your tool box. If you do not want head collars, choke chains, or harnesses in your tool box, there is nothing wrong with that. I don't have prong collars, head collars, or shock collars in mine. That is my choice. I choose not to use those to train dogs. That does not make me purely positive. I don't have clickers in my tool box either. I have enough to do with my hands, I don't like the idea of wasting most of one hand with a clicker. 

I think dogs do get a punishment callus. If you raise your dog shouting at it to get it to do something, it may not respond to a simple command given in a normal voice. 

I do believe that some dogs have more drive, and some dogs are more sensitive, and some dogs have a natural tendency toward dominance or submissiveness/leaders or followers. I don't agree with how people use this to explain their dog's behavior to humans. I am not a member of the pack either. My dogs are smart, they know I am not a dog. Managing them is easy. I do not need to yell at them, correct them physically, I can just change the tone of my voice and that is sufficient. I do not have to have pockets full of tidbits either. But certainly, some of my bitches are more dominant than others, some are more submissive. Being aware of these dynamics helps me to avoid issues between dogs that might be likely to fight.


----------



## Cschmidt88

^Lovely post  Might sound odd, but I like your mindset in this post.


----------



## Lakl

Saying I am the "pack leader" does not mean I am referring to myself as a DOG. I don't understand why people always go back to that either. It simply means that I take a leadership role with my dogs, and they look to me as the leader. I am the same way with my family and my work, I assume a leadership role. Plain and simple. The DH has not established himself with the dogs in this manner, so he often has trouble in getting them to comply with his direction.


----------



## sheep

This is just another personal opinion of an average dog owner and lover, but sometimes, all the "positive vs negative" debate about training dogs is kinda annoying.

I often see two sides criticizing each other with the silliest accusations (positive is only about bribing, negative is just plain abuse and those who uses it enjoys it, and so on), while rarely there are people who can actually be neutral and objective when analyzing what is or isn't effective. This is actually kinda sad, since everyone actually has something in common, which is their love for dogs, and while people gets too heated up with their personal feelings and pride, no one is really helping to create a better world for dogs at all.

Personally, I use positive for teaching what I want my dog to do, and I praise and treat whenever he behaves well. But I do use corrections too, when I don't know a positive way to change a particular unwanted behavior and/or if I feel that it's necessary. A correction's effectiveness depends on how it's implemented, as well as a dog's temperament, but honestly I believe that if it's well implemented, it's not going to damage a dog physically/mentally. Animals, whether humans or dogs or something else, do get corrected by life/nature often, that is just a natural part of life and we are biologically prepared to learn from such.
But well, I also believe that while corrections doesn't necessarily cause damage, it's important to understand that our relationships with our dogs do need balance, so that we can only build a positive bond when the relationship is more positive than negative.

About dominance, I confess that since I began joining online forums about dog training, I'm confused about its definition. But personally, I do believe that it's a valid theory and not a myth. While a dog jumping on us is just excitement and lack of manners, dogs do have some sort of ranks between them, and if it's not subtly/passively defined (one dog being more submissive and allows the other dog have most of the resources first), it might lead to more aggressive displays 'till it's defined (for example, if we have two dogs that are very confident and want the same resource).
But saying so doesn't mean we need to use physical force or intimidation necessarily. Dominance between human/dog can also be established subtly/passively, like using NILIF and using positive training, so that a dog learns bit by bit that he has to submit, behave well mannered and be appeasing in order to gain access to resources that comes from us.

All in all, I prefer a natural approach about how to teach my dog what is acceptable and what is not. I don't need my dog to be a performing star, just a nice companion to live with, and I teach him tricks and good manners by treating and praising, and I'm not afraid of sharing food with him or have him sleeping on the same bed. But I will also correct him if he tries to steal stuffs I carry (like laundry or dinner) or do something he does know that he shouldn't.


----------



## Witz

So the debate goes on. It's not as complicated as both sides make it out to be. There is no absolutes in this world, much less that every dog will respond the same way with particular method. Start with the positive, stick with it if it works. Apply a different approach if it does not, whether it is introducing a tool or another theory of training.


----------



## Lilie

Training tools are just that, tools. There isn't a magic wand to wave over our dogs that will work every time for every dog.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

chelle said:


> Um. Well I'm soaking this all in, interesting conversation. I have a new dog in my house who has never had any training and I honestly don't know which avenue to pursue. Purely positive is not seeming to work. He does seem to need a combination. He's a very nice, human-friendly dog, but he is wild. I suppose, from my current vantage point, that I believe a combination of methods can be effective. I don't want to close my mind to any particular method/s.


With a dog like that I think NILIF and management would be very helpful. Control his environment so he has fewer opportunities to practice "bad" behavior, and make "good" behavior work to earn him what he wants. I don't know that corrections would be all that useful with a dog who hasn't had any training yet. What would a correction be teaching him? 

There are a lot of things you DON'T want him to do, so make sure that he CAN'T do them rather than correcting him after the fact, and then show him what you DO want him to do. It sounds like nobody has really tried to teach him what's expected of him.


----------



## Lilie

Cassidy's Mom said:


> With a dog like that I think NILIF and management would be very helpful. Control his environment so he has fewer opportunities to practice "bad" behavior, and make "good" behavior work to earn him what he wants. I don't know that corrections would be all that useful with a dog who hasn't had any training yet. What would a correction be teaching him?
> 
> There are a lot of things you DON'T want him to do, so make sure that he CAN'T do them rather than correcting him after the fact, and then show him what you DO want him to do. It sounds like nobody has really tried to teach him what's expected of him.


Really great advice!


----------



## mtmarabianz

or, take him to the dog park


----------



## emmettw

jcojocaru said:


> I'm guessing most of you know about this guy (Tab289) as he deals and trains his GSD (and does a great job as the videos indicate).
> 
> What do you guys think?


After listening carefully, I think that he is young and somewhat brainwashed, but also really smart guy who loves training dogs.


----------



## matthewm11

*Blackthorn GSD, thank you for that post re: Mech and dominance theory*

I was always confused about what exactly Mech's studies were saying because clearly dominance does exist in dogs and wolves, I wasnt sure if he was dismissing dominance completely or not. After reading your post it is much more clear to me.

My opinion is that the most important aspect to showing the dog you are its leader is to show him you control his resources, and I think this can be accomplished through NILIF. Ive never been especially concerned with things like who goes through doors first, whether my dog is higher up off the ground than me, who eats first etc. That being said, I always throw out the disclaimer that the dogs I have owned have always been on the naturally submissive side and I don't have problems with owners using what works for them.


----------



## BritishLineOwner

I realise this is an old thread. However I would like to point out a few studies I stumbled across. 

1st Mech DID say that he's not saying dominance doesn't exist but his research shows that wolves do not operate in an alpha pack system. This has been confirmed by many other studies.

Also additional studies on domesticated dogs have shown that they look at human owners in a similar light to canine parents. This is important as the aforementioned research has shown that wolves DON'T challenge each other for dominance.

The problem here is with projection. Humans will never fully understand other animals and it's not possible for us to fully know the psychology of a dog, we barely understand our own brains. This does however cause humans to project, people tend to project their own thoughts of what a dog MIGHT be thinking or MIGHT be doing, as fact, and it very rarely is. 

For example, my dog walks in front of me therefore he is being dominant - in actuality, dogs are naturally a lot faster and again to look at wolves, the parent wolves (not alpha as Mech's study DID show that wild wolves do not have alpha structures) do NOT necessarily walk in front leading the pack. Animals don't have the same social structure as humans, who actually DO operate in more alpha based heirachys whether we realise it or not. 

Owning and training dogs doesn't make you an expert, and while I don't claim to be one I do think that more dog owners need to understand that their experience is only relative to their interpretation of an animals behaviour, in a very non-scientific setting, and that when professional zoologists and behaviour biologists are all saying that dogs/wolves don't operate in alpha systems and that the dominance method of training is not scientific or the most successful in terms of getting results out of a dog... there is likely a lot of truth to that fact.

So yes, while dominance may not entirely be a myth, there isn't actually any real evidence to support that a dog who's misbehaving is trying to be dominant. There IS however overwhelming evidence to support what is now considered scientific fact, that wolves and domesticated dogs (which ARE a subspecies of wolf) do not operate in Alpha Dog social structures.


----------



## Pepper311

KZoppa said:


> Ideally every trainer would be balanced but it doesnt work that way. There are some who believe in compulsion only training and there are other who believe in positive only training. sad but true. There are times where positive training can work "magic" but then something doesnt click correctly and the dog needs a correction. Thats where a balanced trainer is awesome.
> 
> and yes, there are some dominant dogs. Not many but they are out there. We all know aggressive dogs are out there.
> 
> I agree..... i dont think he needs to be THAT close to the camera at all.


I love this Forum because you guys get it. I have been training and thinking this way all along. You need to use more than one type of training. I do think some dogs can be trained with Positive training only. Most dogs can not be trained with only one type of training. 

The way I train is Positive reinforcement first. If I need to use something more I do. I think Positive reinforcement should be the foundation to training. Negative punishment is what I do to teach a dog not to Jump up. The dog jumps you turn and stop playing or petting the dog. Positive punishment is what I resort to when my dog chases and runs at the fence or her hate for the UPS man. Something happens to her that she does not like if she does something bad. The use of an E-collar or even a choke collar would be a Positive punishment . 

People that say they are only doing Positive training in fact are doing more. I think Negative Punishment is used often in Positive training more than people know. When training Heel they use Negative punishment. Dog starts pulling you turn around. You are punishing the dog by not allowing it to go forward. Positive trainers use this method. 

As for Dominance I think is real but it's more that you have a strong leader type dog not an aggressive one. I see "Dominant" dogs tend to be dogs with control issues. That's why Shepherds and herding dogs breeders tend to be labeled as Dominante. Really they just have a need to control their environment. It is our job to show the dog we as Human leaders have it under control not to Dominate them.


----------



## Stonevintage

Mech did reverse himself on this. I am still a little confused. I suppose it's all in the definition of what "dominance" really is. Certainly, we are seeing something in the animal kingdom that many would call dominant behavior. 

What do you call it when one male fights another to retain control of "his" females? What do you call it when some members of a pack always eat first or are the only pair allowed to breed?

There are definitely hierarchies in place, so how does that come to be and what is it we are seeing if not dominance?


----------

