# Establishing Dominance



## LouCastle

Establishing Dominance


The alpha roll was repopularized in the book 'How to Be Your Dog's Best Friend' by the Monks of New Skete which came out in the late 70's or early 80's. Before that it faded in and out of popularity and use. 

I'm told that in the latest edition of this book the alpha roll is no longer included as a training tool. 

To perform the roll you're supposed to grab the dog by the excess skin around his neck, force him backwards into a sit and then roll him to one side. Some trainers advocate rolling him all the way onto his back. The idea is that you're simulating something that dogs do to one another when the dominant dog is displaying his dominance to the submissive dog. 

But it's just not so. If you watch some dogs at play, for example at a dog park or the zoo, or watch the Discovery Channel. Use a Video Camera (or record the TV) so you can play it back several times. You'll see what at first looks like an alpha roll but when you examine if carefully it's not even close. When dogs do this, the dominant dog doesn't force the submissive dog to do anything. It's the submissive dog who's doing all the work. The dominant dog puts his foot up on the submissive dog's shoulder or back and the submissive dog rolls himself under the dominant dog. 

And so when you do the alpha roll thing you're doing something that's completely foreign to the dog, rather than something he's familiar with. You're showing him that you're bigger and stronger than him, but he already knows that. It's the action of a bully, not a fair and just leader. 

Real dogs in the real world don't do anything like this. When a submissive dog rolls himself under the dominant dog it's because he's showing submission. This isn't a case of the dominant dog showing dominance. He's already done that merely by placing his foot on the other dog's shoulder or back and that's the reason that the submissive dog has gone down. 

And so the alpha roll as dogs do it, isn't a display of dominance; it's one of submission, where the submissive dog is doing the work. It starts with the dominant dog putting a foot up but the rolling portion, the part that the alpha roll is simulating, is done by the submissive dog. The alpha dog is only present by virtue of his personality, he's not rolling the other dog at all. 

If you do this to the right dog (wrong dog) he'll eat you for your trouble. And since the closest thing to bite is your face, that's where you'll get it. It's hard to give an out command when the dog is holding you by the face! 

Since 1979 I've been training some of the most dominant, most aggressive, most fearless dogs on the planet. I've never found the alpha roll necessary. I've done it once or twice when I was new and someone told me that I should. It didn't have the desired effect and after thinking about it and talking about it to the right folks, I discarded it. 

Domesticated dogs only rarely submissively pee to other dogs, especially members of their own pack. That's reserved almost exclusively for their humans who, without realizing it put the dog into an overly submissive position and the dog has no choice. Some dogs, ones who are extremely low in the pack pecking order, such as the omega dog may show submissive urination every time that a dominant dog (that's every other dog in the pack) approaches, but that's still a rare display. 

Your height already provides a cue to the dog that you're dominant. There are some trainers who will tell you to never let your dog stand over you but I think that you need to permit this once in a while. Some trainers tell you to NEVER allow it. But if you think about what I do and how it gets done, training and working police service dogs, you'll realize that it's good to, once in a while get on the ground with your dog and play with him as dogs play together. 

Let me paint a picture for you. Imagine the type of handler who's been trained that he has to alpha roll his dog once a week to remain in the alpha position. Also imagine that he's been trained never to let his dog be on top of him. The handler gets into a fight, and like most fights it winds up on the ground. He calls his dog for assistance and as the dog runs to the scene he sees the alpha dog on the ground, someplace he's never seen him. He remembers that this alpha dog has been rolling him every week since they've been together and maintaining his alpha position with brute force. He sees this alpha dog fighting with a complete stranger, someone who's never hurt him or done anything to him before. Do you think it's possible that he'll think that NOW is a good time to challenge the alpha dog and to try to the top of the pack? Could be! 

Wouldn't it be better if that dog had been lead by a fair and just pack leader who didn't use physical force to maintain his position? Since the #2 dog has rights that the #3 or #4 doesn't, wouldn't it be better if the dog thought of himself as the #2 dog in the pack not just as any subordinate animal. 

If you alpha roll your dog consistently he may become afraid of you. That's not a good relationship, particularly if you want the dog to work protection for you. He'll do it but you might find him "attached" to you occasionally. I think that the best relationship between the handler and the dog is one of mutual trust and respect. A dog that's rolled won't trust the handler, he'll fear him. This may not show up in the form of the dog cowering from the handler, except in extreme circumstances. But there other, much more subtle ways it shows up. 

Want to be an Alpha? Begin by acting like one. Stand up tall and act like a leader. Notice that most dogs are submissive to a good trainer just by him walking onto the field. That's because he knows how to stand, carry himself and talk as a leader. He hasn't alpha rolled your dog. He hasn't kicked your dog's butt, but your dog knows, at a glance, who the alpha is. Use a normal voice. When adult dogs play with other adult dogs they use a certain tone of voice (bark). When puppies play with adults or other puppies pitched they use a high pitched yip. If you use a high pitched voice when playing with or praising your adult dog how do you think he thinks of you? As a mature adult capable of leading him? Or as an immature pack member? Now I'm not saying that he'll immediately become alpha if you praise or talk to him in a high pitched voice but I am saying that you're sending a mixed message to him. One that can put some doubts in his mind as to your exact position in the pack. 

Being accepted as the alpha doesn't mean that you're the biggest, baddest one in the pack. Anyone who teaches that really doesn't understand what it means to be alpha. In human packs, without the politics, often it's NOT the biggest or strongest one who leads. It's the one who exhibits "leadership qualities." In dog packs it's the same way. 

Another part of being alpha has to do with food. In the wild the alpha leads the hunt. He decides which animal the pack will kill and when the eating will begin. Generally you provide the food for your dog so that helps him think of you as the alpha. I suggest that when you get a new dog you spend a couple of weeks hand feeding him. That establishes, even more than just putting down a food bowl, that you're providing his food. Don't let him crowd in and 'demand' the food. Make him stay at a respectful distance and wait for you to give it to him, one handful at a time. 

Another way to be fair and just is to be fair with your correction level. The Ecollar is perfect for this because it allows you to dial in exactly the level of correction that your dog needs. Not too high and not too low. It's difficult for the average handler to consistently give the exact level of correction that a dog needs with a leash and conventional training collar. 

Play is another way to get this but not the form of play that has the handler throwing a ball for his dog. Watch the Discovery Channel or spend a few hours at the zoo watching wild dogs play. They run, they bump shoulders, they throw hips into one another. Their interaction is quite physical. 

Another way to establish dominance and one of my favorites is through yielding. I stole the concept from someone who stole it from horse trainers. Yielding is based on the idea that a submissive animal will move out of the way of a dominant animal. Almost ritualistically the dominant animal will force the submissive animal to give way, even if he doesn't need to. It's just a reminder. 

To do this have the dog on leash and start walking into him. Going head to head is probably best, at first. Don't give any commands, just head towards him. When you get real close start quietly saying "move, move, move," Don't kick him and don't bump into him unless it's absolutely necessary. What you are trying to do is to force him to move by the power of your personality. When you do this make sure that you're looking like the alpha. Stand up straight, shoulders back, head erect. Don't stoop forward to look at your dog, that communicates to him that you're not an alpha. Some may need to practice this in front of a mirror before they try it with their dog. 

As soon as he does move, step back and praise him lightly. Not enough to break his concentration, but enough so that he knows he got something right. You should see a relaxation of tension in the dog's body. Think of your forward motion as applying pressure. Pressure that the dog can relieve by moving away. At first just one or two steps will relieve the pressure, but as you progress he has to move more to gain relief. 

As the training progresses you can approach from slightly off to one side, then directly to one side, then from the rear quarter and finally from the rear. When you start this have him move several times in a row. Once he's caught on you can go to about ten times a day. 

This is so subtle that many people believe that it won't have any affect on the dog, particularly one who's very dominant. But it will have more and better effect than a dozen alpha rolls. And it will establish your position with VERY little chance of a handler challenge or an attack on the handler. 

If you're going to do an alpha roll you'd better pick the dog you do this on carefully and you'd better make sure that you can kick his ass. You'd also better be ready for a trip to the ER, because sooner or later you're going to miss. 

It's really too bad that some people are still caught up in using force all the time for all of their training. It's not necessary. It's hard on the dogs, and it's hard on the handler. AND most importantly it doesn't give a good a working relationship with the dog as more subtle, but still effective methods.


----------



## SunCzarina

"If you do this to the right dog (wrong dog) he'll eat you for your trouble."

Yep, Luther was that dog. After 2 days in our house, Luther learned that Mommy wasn't trying to muscle him, she was the one who bought the groceries, Mommy knew where the flatmeat was, Mommy had the cool toys, Mommy made dinner. Don't give Mommy a hard time, you won't get anything tasty and no one will play ball with you.

"If you're going to do an alpha roll you'd better pick the dog you do this on carefully and you'd better make sure that you can kick his ass. You'd also better be ready for a trip to the ER, because sooner or later you're going to miss. "

DDH was a doer, not a thinker. He tried to use force, not intellect to win over the dog. Some other machomen got it into his head that he should alpha roll the dog. Also that he should pin the dog on his hind legs up against the wall. 

Guess what it got him? A forearm that was black and blue for months. Eventually he gave up on trying to muscle the dog and started listening to me - the dog respected him after he started dolling out the prosciutto for nice behavior.

Luther, what a beast that dog was when he was young!


----------



## GSD07

Yana moves out of my way every time, no exceptions, since she was a puppy. I haven't trained her to do that, it's just I never changed my path because the dog was on the way so she got an idea. Also she always waits 5 steps away for me to fix her food and then I have to call her to have her dinner. But she started going up on the couch (it's usually my place) when I'm not in the room, and when I enter the room she's off. My husband says that she tries to take my place but I doubt it.

One machoman also wanted us to alfa roll her when she was a pup, and even showed how on his own dog. Before I opened my mouth he grabbed his huge golden retriever male and flopped him on the ground on his back. The dog had his tale covering his stomach and looked so pitiful. I'm so glad my husband listened to me and not to that guy because I can only imagine what it would do to our poor Yana with her weak nerves and fear issues.


----------



## Timber1

I appreciate your continued participation on this board, and regarding your comments I agree 100 percnt.


----------



## LedZep

I had always been raised to belive that you had to show your dog who is boss - physically if necessary. Old habits are hard to break, but when we got our new puppy I was determined that I wanted a more obedient, happy, and balanced companion. So, I've been working very hard to achieve this, and reading everything I can, taking multiple points of view into consideration, etc.

I have found with Kuno (now 7 months old) that he responds very well to leadership - not force. Following the NILIF guidelines and similar leadership habits has really been making a difference. As does praise. He loves to be rewarded (often just verbally) for having done the right thing.

I don't see any need to "roll" a dog as a dominance method. 

Good article Lou.


----------



## SunCzarina

Anyone else have any comments? I'd like to show this thread to someone...


----------



## lawhite

I have a question.. and it is just something i have been rolling around in my head.... does dominance = (good) pack leader?


----------



## Chris Wild

> Originally Posted By: lawhitedoes dominance = (good) pack leader?


Yes. The dominant individual in the relationship is the leader. The pack leader is the most dominant individual in the home.

HOW one goes about establishing that dominance however, is a big part in determining if they are a GOOD pack leader.


----------



## lawhite

this whole yielding thing has got me paying alot of attention and i realized something today..
if I walk toward kali she will yield, but (after i bumped my elbow when we were running stairs) i realized that I yield when we are on walks without even noticing it! No wonder she is confused! I am going to pay more attention to where I am in the future. 
and all it took was this thread and slamming my elbow on a metal railing (ow)


----------



## doggiedad

i have never tried to establish dominance over a dog. i think the pack leader comes naturally. we do everything for our dogs. they probably like they're place where ever that is. we bring them there food, we bathe them, we give them treats, we play with them. who's dominating who? i think people want to dominate a dog so they feel like they're in charge. coexisting is where it's at. i just got up to go to the bathroom, my dog is laying beside me. should i have made him move or step over him? i stepped over him. did i need to show dominance and make him move? when i'm standing in the doorway and he wants to come into the room he walks around me. i think through training and feeding you establish a place with your dog or your dog establishs it's on place. that making your dog sit and walking towards him to make him move. when i first read about it i tried it. i told him to sit, i backed up and walked towards him. he just sat there. i stepped over him and turned around and stepped over him to face him. i told him to sit, why should he move? something else i don't exercise NILIF. i give my dogs treats for no reason, i pet them just to be petting them. they don't have to do something for something. my dogs are well trained and socialized and i've never thought about establishing dominance and all is well. what's there to dominate when your dog is well trained and it does what you ask??


----------



## doggiedad

i've never rolled a dog and i've never followed the NILIF and i've never tried to dominate a dog. i think through training and feeding, petting and treating it all comes together. maybe some dogs you need to dominate. i haven't found that to be true with GSD's. it's only natural that you're the leader. you do everything for your dog. just think wouldn't you be happy if some one brought you your food twice a day, take you to the play ground (dog park), take you to the toy store (pet store), walks in the woods, you're driven everywhere while you sit in the back of the car (chauffer driven), you stand there while some one bathes you and dry's you off, you get your teeth brushed for you (you don't have to raise a paw to do it), you can sleep on the sofa, the bed, or on your dog bed, how much did i miss? now i bet you do all of the above things plus. now who's dominating who?


----------



## lawhite

i do not think it is about dominating, as much as making your relationship clear to your dog. Kali has some issues with other dogs, in part because I did not live up to my role when she was young, and she is of the mind that it is her job to deal with strange dogs. In our case it is not about me being the boss, as much as me being consistent so she can feel comfortable and relaxed. It is just this last little bit that we are trying to get down, as in all other ways we have a great companionship. I do agree that some people do thing naturally, and you may not even realize how consistent and clear your body language is to your dog(s). Unfortunately, some of us are not naturals and have to learn to be consistent and clear in our communication.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

What makes a good boss? Is it someone that is a harsh task master, makes free use of disciplinary actions but never gives out Kudos or Attaboys, is the empathic type or the ‘Just get your work done’ type??

It all depends on the people the boss needs to boss!!

What makes a good Pack Leader? Someone who knows what each of their dogs NEED as far as leadership goes.


----------



## Timber1

You raised all the issues I wanted to post. We do so many things for our dogs and they know that. Beiong a so-called Alpha Leader is not a big deal. If we care for our dogs they know it immediately.


----------



## Dohhhhh

> Originally Posted By: Timber1You raised all the issues I wanted to post. We do so many things for our dogs and they know that. Beiong a so-called Alpha Leader is not a big deal. If we care for our dogs they know it immediately.


This "doggie do as you please" mentality may be successful in a single dog household but have you tried it in a multi dog one? Don't you end up with alot of dog fights?


----------



## lawhite

OK I think this is somewhat a matter of semantics... at least for me it is. The words "dominance" and "alpha" bring to mind many of the things that positive dog trainers associate with compulsion type training. However, providing a consistent and strong presence to your dog (which some people would describe as "dominant" or "alpha") is also a big part of both our relationship with our dogs and our training with them. We all know that dogs read body language very well, and that being consistent (in our schedules and in our training) with them makes them more comfortable. I think that many of the things discussed in this thread are focused on how our body language indicates to our dog that we are "on the job" for them and ready to take care of them beyond the feeding. For some dogs this is a very important part of the relationship and it is at the core of many dog-aggression problems. (For example.. think of the person with the dog-aggressive dog that tenses up every time they see a dog and the role this plays in maintaining and feeding the dog-aggression issue). This may be very important for breeds like the german shepherd which (as Suzanne Clothier says) "take notes". I have started using her method with Kali which focuses on your relationship with your dog and building trust with them, and I have become more aware at how consistent/inconsistent I am with Kali on our walks. Since I have started being more "present" on our walks and paying attention to her and what we are doing, she is calming down quicker when she is put in a stressful situation, and in some cases she does not respond at all. So NILIF etc are all ways to help you build your relationship with your dog and give them a "job" to do. So for me it is not about being "dominant" as much as making sure I am being a consistent and predictable companion to my dogs so they can feel confident in me.


----------



## Skye'sMom

Great post Lorie. I haven't added my two cents because I was trying figure out how to word it. You did it much better than I would have.

I have trouble with the dominance/alpha verbiage. Sounds heavy handed to me. However, if I choose to say 'leadership' it can actually mean the same things and I feel better about it.

I am a positive style trainer. I use NILF and bits and peices of many other styles, except what I call strong arm styles.

I have always had a multi dog household (3 ) - no fights and all feed side by side, too. They know arguments are not allowed.

They have always been genorously rewarded by getting my time and attention - when it is their turn. They love to work with me and they know I don't like back talk.

Being a leader is all about consistency, fairness (and yes, dogs deserve for us to be fair) trust and fun. If you want to call it alpha, go for it.

We are just following different lanes to the same pasture.

BTW - I wish everyone would read Suzanne Clothier and Jan Fennell. Proof positive that you don't have to be the stongest to be the boss.


----------



## Guest

As has been said many times before, it boils down to attitude. Yes, it is being a leader first and foremost. What a leader _is_ however is what muddies the issue. Being a leader is not throwing your weight around. Being a leader is having your followers have absolute faith in you. Respect for _who_ you are is what counts. Not what you are. Terms like "alpha" and "pack leader" are okay for many and I will not gainsay those who use them. I guess for me I prefer the term caregiver best because ultimately that is what earns you respect. When you care so much for dogs (and people) that their trust in you is without question then you can lead - providing of course that you have the skills to do so. But having the skills to lead is coincidentally a major part of the ability to give proper care. 

My dogs do as they should and obey the commands they are given not because they _must_ do so either by stimulus or threat. Nor do they do so in hope of any reward other than my praise. They perform as they do simply because pleasing me is their greatest goal in life. Does this build upon being a pack leader? Of course it does, but it is not the sum and end all of the relationship.


----------



## doggiedad

here's what i mean by natural. establishing our place with our dogs is natural for all of us. we feed our dogs, we groom our dogs, we train our dogs. our dogs want for nothing. our dogs don't have to hunt, i don't think they worry about who's the leader nor do i think they want to challenge who's the leader. they don't need to. i think our dogs are happy in their place, why shouldn't they be? we do everything for our dogs. not a bad place to be. i strongly believe through feeding and training we establish who's who. i don't use the NILIF method, i lay on the floor and play with my dogs sometimes they're standing over me. my dogs have always listened. when we're out people are always saying how well trained my dogs are. i find having a Shepherd is a peice of cake. i think we read into it more than what's really going on. as far as body language i do what ever i want to do. i carry myself in any mannr i want and i do worry about what my dog is thinking. so far none of my dogs have had a problem with body language and if they did they didn't show it.


----------



## big_dog7777

And that works well with some dogs. Not others. Within the GSD breed there is a massive variance of temperament, especially in the United States. A GSD that can stare down a helper or the most dominant sheep is a dog that gets to hunt and is not inhibited and may not have a "you do everything for me, so kiss kiss I love you" mentality. Different dogs need different leadership, just like different dogs need different training methodology. I am not referring to compulsion or beating a dog into submission, but certain dogs do need strong fair leadership with clear cut rules while others need to be built up along the way.


----------



## Qyn

There have been a few threads regarding the worth of "dominance" and "alpha" used as labels or descriptive terms and I find that for those who are either natural leaders, or who have not had a problem with their dogs, consider that these terms indicate compulsion methods. While I am aware that that can be a possibility, I (personally) mostly read it as a name for the role the dog would prefer to (and mostly will anyway) see the human have and be worthy of having, not the method used to obtain that role.

Many humans do not have any problems with their human/dog relationship but those that do (for what ever reason) and seek advice, are often told the problem is due to the dog not seeing the human as the "Alpha" or "dominant" partner in the relationship. This, IMO, does not mean that the human needs to dominate the dog or use compulsive methods but maybe the human needs some guidelines as to how the dog sees the relationship and some help in behaving like a natural leader worthy of respect. These should not involve bully boy tactics but should involve a guidance to attitude. 

If that means the human with less knowledge or leadership skills needs to do some things (example exit the door first; eat first; etc) that a natural leader does not have to do (because the leadership issue is not in question) then, that is not a something that should be considered unnecessary for everyone just because it is unnecessary for those that already have those skills.


----------



## Dohhhhh

> Originally Posted By: ZeusGSDAnd that works well with some dogs. Not others. Within the GSD breed there is a massive variance of temperament, especially in the United States. A GSD that can stare down a helper or the most dominant sheep is a dog that gets to hunt and is not inhibited and may not have a "you do everything for me, so kiss kiss I love you" mentality. Different dogs need different leadership, just like different dogs need different training methodology. I am not referring to compulsion or beating a dog into submission, but certain dogs do need strong fair leadership with clear cut rules while others need to be built up along the way.


Good post John. As a trainer do you not find that more dogs than not "need strong fair leadership with clear cut rules." The clear cut rules part, in my opinion, holds true with any dog. As a trainer, I find that the greatest problem most of our clients have with their dog(s) is confusion on the dogs part because the human is not being consistant.


----------



## GSD07

> Originally Posted By: ZeusGSD certain dogs do need strong fair leadership with clear cut rules while others need to be built up along the way.


I strongly agree. Take my dog Yana who is not your normal Rin-tin-tin. She has weak nerves, fearful, reactive, smart, stubborn, very independent, not food driven, physically strong and not submissive. She's a hard dog with mental issues, product of American breeding







, that couldn't care less about pleasing me or getting my praise. 

After meeting with a behaviorist I reviewed how I handled her (I was no correction/all positive approach fancier) and now I don't hesitate to apply a strong correction when needed. I do it every time if Yana desides to ignore me or my command, I'm making everything black and white for her. The result is immediate - calmer dog that starts respecting me and actually wants to spend time with me and show me affection.


----------



## Arobryn

Doggiedad - I'd venture to say that you're right - for you. You're probably a natural at this. I've a friend that's the same way - you give her a dog and she gets along with it - no matter how whacked it was before.

But some of the other folks are right - some of us just aren't naturals. Much like some people aren't natural parents to human kids. My rescue pit bull mix is a fairly fearful dog and I'm certain me not understanding her or myself made her worse. My pure bred, hand picked, middle -of-the-road GSD is a little high strung and anxious. I figure there's got to be something that I'm doing that's contributing to these anxieties so I'm not a natural, but the good news is I'm trying! 

I appreciate what you've said, though, Doggiedad and I'm interpretting it to mean that if I'm a better person I'll also be a better dog owner - and vise verse - as I learn to be a better dog person I'll improve personally, also.

And another thing that your notes got me thinking about Doggiedad - humans and dogs really are very similar - we're pack animals and we like knowing who the leaders is (not necessarily the "boss", but who's going to handle things) and looked at from that perspective - if some big guy kept walking right up into my space, yes, I'd move, but I'd also think he's rude. And I don't think I'd follow him as my leader. So maybe what I need to do is figure out what would work for ME and see if that works for my dog. Someone said it above - we are more willing to follow leaders we trust to take care of us than people who bully us into submission. Doggiedad - this is probably exactly what you're saying - you've earned your dog's trust because you take care of them, they know their basic needs are being met, they have food and saftey, then on top of that they get a comfortable life - you've not given them any reason not to trust you - not to believe you'll handle all the serious stuff, plus you make life fun and relaxing.

I didn't quite get what you were saying when I first read your notes, Doggiedad - I figured you just had this magical knowing or something that I obviously didn't. But now that I've put you all through this ramble I get it a little better and will think through this more.

Whew - being a good dog owner's tough! But I think I'm going to come out a better person on the other end of it.

Thanks for all the thought provoking dialogue!


----------



## Chris Wild

> Originally Posted By: Qyn
> 
> Many humans do not have any problems with their human/dog relationship but those that do (for what ever reason) and seek advice, are often told the problem is due to the dog not seeing the human as the "Alpha" or "dominant" partner in the relationship. This, IMO, does not mean that the human needs to dominate the dog or use compulsive methods but maybe the human needs some guidelines as to how the dog sees the relationship and some help in behaving like a natural leader worthy of respect. These should not involve bully boy tactics but should involve a guidance to attitude.


This is a very, very good post.

That is exactly the problem I see too. Too many people think the way to estabish dominance is to *dominate* the dog, using force. And unfortunately, there are all too many books/videos/trainers out there who advocate just that... roll you dog, correct him for everything, follow a list of rules (he eats last, he goes through the door last he doesn't get on the furniture, etc...) and you'll be the alpha. When in truth that is NOT the proper way to be alpha. And if you ARE alpha, whether it comes naturally or you really had to work at it, things like dogs on the furniture and who eats before who don't matter.


----------



## Brightelf

I agree with Qyn's post. True leadership pulls a dog happily along in it's wake. However, pairings of extremely "strong" dogs with extremely soft handlers exist. When both are far enough at opposite ends of the spectrum, the match may not be ideal, but it's the owner's job to behave like a consistant leader, as strong a leader as that particular dog needs to be able to relax. When the handler, for whatever reason, can only bend so far in morphing into a strong enough leader, that's what the NILIF can help with. Maybe also even the going through doorways first. These may help bridge the gap (or may not) when that particular dog needs strong leadership to feel relaxed. If leadership isn't there, the NILIF won't help. But for some relationships and odd pairings between dog and handler, it can definitely help.


----------



## car2ie

This is a great thread. My dog Alice has a higher drive than my last GSD, so I'm not sure if it's a female on female competition for status in our little world; or it's just adolecence. I'm still trying to find a balance between dominate your dog and letting the dog bully me.
She's sixteen months old so she's starting to come around but I'm the female human and must do NILF and first one through doors etc.

I've never liked the "alpha roll" and surprisingly enough at the park she dropped the ball and went after a geriatric pointer ignoring the Leave it command and I instantaneously tackled her to the ground and we left the park. We then went on park restriction and spent two weeks on leash walks and a park with the long leash. She hasn't shown such attitude but I do think since the taking her down she's like "wow...mom is dominant" 

I'd say it was my fault for not asserting my status at an early stage and on a more consistant basis. I still don't care for the alpha roll.


----------



## Keisha

This thread is great! I'm going to hopefully be getting a German Shepherd dog in the next couple of years, but I'm very interested in becoming a dog trainer. I'm curious for those of you who have to use corrections what sort of "correction" do you use?


----------



## Packen

I am also an advocate for fairness and consistency along with a serious daily workout. With these 3 factors one is already on the pack leadership path. 

Each dog is slightly different, the vast majority will easily accept the owner as alpha and hide the owners mistakes. One out of eight or nine owners end up with the alpha pup of the litter, this dog will require a slightly different approach keeping same basics of fairness and consistency. 

Now enter the variances (doggy genes and owner competency) and things become cloudy. A weak owner with an alpha dog, a weak owner with a nervy (insecure) dog, a weak owner with an Omega dog (by weak I mean someone not knowledgeable to the dogs needs). Keeping the owner as constant these 3 types of dogs will provide 3 different outcomes if training is not tailored to meet individual need. Then enter the individual drives (prey, defense and social) for these dogs and things become even more complicated! All would be ok if we owners educate ourselves and cater to our individual dogs needs.

Here one may enter the scenario of a nervy (insecure) dog with a low defense threshold, he is over weight, bored to death, his life sucks and when he snaps his owner tries to wrestle him to the ground, someone call 911


----------



## CookieTN

I'm not a believe in the dominance theory anymore. I use complete positive reinforcement training and I am still a leader to my dogs, but I am also a follower. Anyone know what I mean?


----------



## middleofnowhere

Cookie - yes, I know what you mean.


----------



## Timber1

Another silly comment, by a trainer i would never allow my dogs to be near. It follows:

This "doggie do as you please" mentality may be successful in a single dog household but have you tried it in a multi dog one? Don't you end up with alot of dog fights? 
_________________________

Well lets see. I now have three GSD's in my home, including two males that have not been neutered. My forever male, whom came from a breeder I would never get neutered, albeit he will also never be bred.

My newest from the urgent board, is also not neutered because he was scheuled to be killed killed a few weeks ago. And then I have a seven year old female. I served as a rescue and adopted because she is well trained and great for the male guys.

As for multi dogs, the most I have ever had at one time is four.

But yes, my two unneutered shepherds will fight. So until the rescue guy gets adopted I do keep the males apart.  

As a rescue, that is just something you deal with.

Finally, this is far from a doggie do as you please thing, so my continued concerns about trainers and silly comments. This is not PetSmart.

Howver, I do deal with a guy in the Midwest that helps rehab problem dogs, and now has twenty-two, including a wolf. 

If anyone wants to know the guy's name, please send a personal E Mail. He does a great job, and the dogs love the guy. 

As for the doggie do as you please comment, how silly.


----------



## Packen

> Originally Posted By: Not_Just_A_DogThis thread is great! I'm going to hopefully be getting a German Shepherd dog in the next couple of years, but I'm very interested in becoming a dog trainer. I'm curious for those of you who have to use corrections what sort of "correction" do you use?


Here is my take on the question. Corrections are used when the dog knows the command fluently in different environments with distractions and yet ignores the handler. Correction could be a curt verbal command such as "NO", a snap to the prong collar, a nick to the e-collar etc etc. The level of the correction is judged from the situation/dog's temperament, some are mild some are pretty harsh. For example a dog showing aggression to a calm dog or innocent bystander is typically given a harsh correction as compared to a dog who does not obey the down command when you have company.


----------



## BowWowMeow

The usual correction around here is a verbal, "Eh, eh!" My dogs look to me as leader and that's normally all they need to remind them of whatever it is they're supposed to be doing. I used to use much harsher training techniques (lots of collar corrections, scruff shakes, alpha roll, yelling, etc.) but realized they MUCH less effective than positive reinforcement. Instilling fear (of you!) in your dog is doing them a grave disservice. Instilling confidence in them will help you build an excellent, dependable relationship. My dogs look to me for guidance, not because they are frightened of the consequences but because they genuinely want to please and work with me. 

Just in case you're wondering, I have rehabbed several abused fear aggressive dogs, raised a very dominant (and very large) gsd female and several nervy, under-confident omega and beta dogs. I learned a tremendous amount from my first gsd (the dominant female) and the way she treated other dogs. She was fair, kind and consistent.


----------



## Packen

I forgot to clarify that a (correct) correction does not instill fear in the dog but rather mimics the mother's reprimand and doggy mamas can be harsh depending on the situation. If a working dog is being "dirty" to the helper a simple "eh eh" is not going to cut it in that situation with that dog. All I am saying is that there are there are different techniques for different situations and genetic make up's. No intent to offend.


----------



## BowWowMeow

Many people do not understand that there are different types of dogs and think it appropriate to apply harsh physical corrections to any dog if the dog does not immediately obey them. That said, there are several working dog trainers/breeders on here who emphasize positive reinforcement over harsh corrections. For one example, see this thread: http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=790215&page=2&fpart=1

As for the corrections that mother dogs issue, that is mostly done with body language and sound--very rarely do they issue physical corrections and then the other dog generally submits before any type of contact is made. I use similar types of language with my dogs. 

I am not trying to be obnoxious here but I have simply seen too many people applying corrections with prong collars and physical force and thinking that because their dogs cry out in pain or become submissive, the corrections are working.


----------



## sume747

What is your guys take on cesar millan? I think he is awesome with dogs yet he uses the alpha roll.


----------



## Chris Wild

> Originally Posted By: sume74What is your guys take on cesar millan? I think he is awesome with dogs yet he uses the alpha roll.


I think there is a VERY big difference between *raising* a dog and *rehabing* a dog as Milan does.

His methods are not intended to raise dogs properly, but rather to deal with a lifetime of behavior problems that exist because the dogs weren't raised properly. The dogs he deals with have years of bad habits, relationship, trust and leadership problems with their owners to the point where their owners are desperate for help (and it may very well be a case of "if this doesn't work we're getting rid of the dog"). This is a very different situation than raising a dog right, building a solid relationship from the beginning, therefore the methods employed will also be different. If things had been done the right way with those dogs from the start, they'd never be on Milan's show, and would not need, or benefit, from his sort of training. 

I absolutely do NOT agree with his methods as an illustration of how dogs should be raised. Raising a dog properly does not require Milan-esque techniques, and in fact many of those techniques could cause big problem. This is my biggest dislike of the show.. that people watching will think that is the way they should raise and treat their dogs in general, rather than taking it at face value as just one of many ways to deal with the specific behavioral problems the dogs on the show are exhibiting. 

As far as his methods in terms of dealing with the types of situations he deals with, I think there are better ways. But in the end, if it works things out and dog and owner can live happily, to a point the ends may justify the means and it's better than the alternative of the dog being dumped for behavioral problems the owners created in the first place.


----------



## Liesje

> Originally Posted By: sume74What is your guys take on cesar millan? I think he is awesome with dogs yet he uses the alpha roll.


I respect his genuine dedication to dogs and I can tell he clearly loves them. There is something to be said for having a pack of 40+ dogs interacting without a fight.

Beyond that though, I don't care for him. First of all, his basic principles are nothing new, ANY dog trainer would agree that dogs need exercise, discipline, boundaries, etc. I think his assessments of where the owners have gone wrong are pretty accurate, but any dog trainer or even a dog savvy person could make the same assessment and many of the same recommendations.

I think too often he mis-labels dogs. Once he called a dog "red zone aggression" when all the dog did was pull and whine to get at other dogs. It was just a dog that had never been taught leash manners and maybe slightly leash reactive, but NOT a truly dog aggressive dog!

He seems to often rely on physical corrections and/or flooding. Neither of these are techniques I use to train (or "rehab") a dog. I prefer setting the dog up for success, only asking of the dog what it already understands, and then rewarding the dog. Slowly increasing the time, distance, distraction, etc. but not asking too much of the dog so the dog always has a chance to do the right thing on his own and get rewarded. I do use physical corrections on adult dogs that are trained, but not on a dog that is still learning what I'm asking. For example, when he puts the dogs on a leash he strings them up on a thin choke lead and is constantly correcting and holding the leash tight. I would never do this to a dog that had never learned how to properly walk on a leash. Often the poor dogs look confused or just give up.

I see dogs that submit to Millan out of frustration or avoiding the physical corrections, but what are they really learning? What are the owners really learning?

I do not believe in building a relationship with my dogs by dominating them. I think dogs want things simple and they do what works for them. Therefore, it's all about communication and finding ways of letting the dog get what it wants by doing what YOU want.


----------



## CookieTN

> Originally Posted By: sume74What is your guys take on cesar millan? I think he is awesome with dogs yet he uses the alpha roll.


Cesar? Oh, he's okay, but I don't care for his methods. I think a lot of him for saving many dogs from being euthanized, but I wouldn't want him to train my dogs. I do look at both sides though. I checked one of his books out of the library recently.


----------



## GSD07

Cesar doesn't train dogs. He rehabilitates dogs with issues. I agree, he doesn't tell or do anything that other trainers don't know but he's willing to work with not so perfect dogs and not so knowledgeable owners.

Many trainers/dog owners have experience with solid stable dogs, train them, title them, give advice to others, and think they are experts and know everything about the dogs. Then they encounter a dog WITH ISSUES and all their previous knowledge goes down the drain. I see this a lot on this board too.

For example, a dog training facility around here that is considered very good with great credentials doesn't admit male dogs for training if they are not neutered after 10 months. The dogs are evaluated prior to the class and if there any signs of any issues then Good bye, poor dog and desperate owner... That's called setting themselves up to success, probably a very good business practice. Great reputation and everybody loves you, and who cares about the struggling dogs and their owners. At least Cesar doesn't give up on ANY dog or ANY owner.


----------



## Packen

I like the show and think it has given insight to a lot of owners with bad "pet handling" habbits that transform into behavior issues. He has done a great job spreading the exercise, discipline and then affection message. He has a HUGE audience, the positives about Ceaser Milan clearly outnumber the negatives.

We do have to remember that most of the time "The only things 2 trainers agree upon is what the 3rd trainer is doing wrong"


----------



## breezy

how do I know what training method to use when I getmy GSD. After reading about all these issues and hiring a trainer and shock collars it makes me alittle nervous . I did have a male gsd years ago and I trained him as I thought was right. I did do the heel on left side and sit when I stopped walking. What a great dog I had. He came from a therapy dog is this the calmer breed ?I need to look at?


----------



## GunnerJones

> Originally Posted By: Breezyhow do I know what training method to use when I getmy GSD. After reading about all these issues and hiring a trainer and shock collars it makes me alittle nervous . I did have a male gsd years ago and I trained him as I thought was right. I did do the heel on left side and sit when I stopped walking. What a great dog I had. He came from a therapy dog is this the calmer breed ?I need to look at?



Assuming you get your pupper from a good breeder, just use a positive only type of training for the first six months and then re evaulate which way you want to go, my first two GSDs are nerve bags and I rarely used any compulsive or negative training with them. mark and treat for most everything. My other two from SchutzHund/police lines I use a Louisville slugger


----------



## RamboGSD

I use the roll technique in certain situations, like when he attempts to show excessive dominance over our Jack Russell, when he fails to listen to the other warnings. The first few times his tail tucked but now he understands that I'm not hurting him but his behavior is uncalled for. And if you guys watch how the mothers interact with their puppies you will see them put the dog on its side when it's acting up


----------



## RamboGSD

Oh and neither of the dogs act fearful of me and they're not at all handshy. Dogs need structure in their lives and all dogs respond differently.


----------



## LisaT

Rather than "establishing dominance", I prefer the term, "earning respect by providing appropriate leadership".......

I get so tired of threads on how to "establish dominance".......


----------



## JasperLoki

> Originally Posted By: LisaTRather than "establishing dominance", I prefer the term, "earning respect by providing appropriate leadership".......
> 
> I get so tired of threads on how to "establish dominance".......


Ditto


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

> Originally Posted By: RamboGSDAnd if you guys watch how the mothers interact with their puppies you will see them put the dog on its side when it's acting up


Yes but we are NOT DOGS!!!

Dogs communicate not only with their mouths but with their ears, tail, eyes, feet, legs, body, hair, etc.

We could NEVER imitate dog language and can only make matters worse if we try.


----------



## JasperLoki

This quote was from this article (in regards to an alpha role), has other info as well. It's up to the reader to decide their view on the subject manner. I agree with the quote.

"Closer observations of wolves over the last 40 years have shown that this infamous behavior is an act of submission, not dominance. A wolf voluntarily rolls on its back in a subordinate display. No contact is made, thus avoiding dangerous physical conflict"

http://4pawsu.com/dogpsychology.htm

I posted this article on another thread.


----------



## RamboGSD

> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The Gang
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: RamboGSDAnd if you guys watch how the mothers interact with their puppies you will see them put the dog on its side when it's acting up
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but we are NOT DOGS!!!
> 
> Dogs communicate not only with their mouths but with their ears, tail, eyes, feet, legs, body, hair, etc.
> 
> We could NEVER imitate dog language and can only make matters worse if we try.
Click to expand...

What makes it worse is when people pick up their dogs and tell them not to do it and expect the dog to understand what they are saying. Dogs understand eye contact, body posture, and tone of voice. They can smell adrenaline and sense changes in vocal patterns. Dominant dogs will put their chins on a dogs head and do a lot of back biting and neck biting (even gentle bites) and a human hand can immitate that communication if done properly.


----------



## novarobin

> Originally Posted By: Breezyhow do I know what training method to use when I getmy GSD. After reading about all these issues and hiring a trainer and shock collars it makes me alittle nervous . I did have a male gsd years ago and I trained him as I thought was right. I did do the heel on left side and sit when I stopped walking. What a great dog I had. He came from a therapy dog is this the calmer breed ?I need to look at?


I understand where you are coming from. When I got my first puppy (a lab) I was on a similar forum for labs. I was overwhelmed with the amount of information/opinions on how to raise a puppy. I started reading different training books. I quickly learned what worked for me and what didn't. For example, alot of people strongly recommended a book that encouraged treat training. With my lab, it was just not the way to go. I started picking different ideas from different theories that I felt worked for me. I also learned alot about how dogs learned, which helped. And I read everything, even methods I didn't think I would agree with, such as the E-collar. Not to mention I spend a ton of time on here. 
As someone else already mentioned, you are never going to find one theory that everyone agrees on. You have to decide for yourself and you dog what works. Not to mention every dog is different, what works for one, may not work for another.


----------



## SunCzarina

> Quoteominant dogs will put their chins on a dogs head and do a lot of back biting and neck biting (even gentle bites) and a human hand can immitate that communication if done properly.


I am not so sure about that. My female is very dominant, she never bites another dog on the back or neck. With my other dogs, she puts her chin on the back or on their neck but doesn't walk up and bite them just to prove she's in charge. Usually she goes for the face, occasionally the side.

When there's an issue she feels the need to address as the dominant dog, she will snarl progress into snapping her jaws and if that doesn't make the other dog lay down, she goes for the face. If the other dog does lay down, she gives a quick muzzle kiss and walks away. Now the other dogs in her life have been male. She's never been in a bitch fight becuase I won't allow it, I do not think it would end as well.

She respects me so if I need to get in the middle of it, most of the time, she backs down when I harshly say her name, glare at her shake my finger. Once in a while she gets so mad she ignores me but ends with me hauling her off by her collar to the penalty box.


----------



## RamboGSD

> Originally Posted By: SunCzarina
> 
> 
> 
> Quoteominant dogs will put their chins on a dogs head and do a lot of back biting and neck biting (even gentle bites) and a human hand can immitate that communication if done properly.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not so sure about that. My female is very dominant, she never bites another dog on the back or neck. With my other dogs, she puts her chin on the back or on their neck but doesn't walk up and bite them just to prove she's in charge. Usually she goes for the face, occasionally the side.
> 
> When there's an issue she feels the need to address as the dominant dog, she will snarl progress into snapping her jaws and if that doesn't make the other dog lay down, she goes for the face. If the other dog does lay down, she gives a quick muzzle kiss and walks away. Now the other dogs in her life have been male. She's never been in a bitch fight becuase I won't allow it, I do not think it would end as well.
> 
> She respects me so if I need to get in the middle of it, most of the time, she backs down when I harshly say her name, glare at her shake my finger. Once in a while she gets so mad she ignores me but ends with me hauling her off by her collar to the penalty box.
Click to expand...

My GSD bites the JRTs back and neck whenever he is trying to show dominance. The back biting is commonly seen amongst Hyenas. For the side roll I don't randomly do it to 'show dominance' but instead to correct and unwanted behavior that other correction methods aren't solving. We've tried everything to keep the Jack Russell more calm around new people (she use to get so hyper she'd urinate all over the floor) and this is by far the most effective method. The GSD basically rolls himself over when he knows it's coming and after that gets up and completely stops the behavior. But like I said, I don't do it for fun, I do it to correct behavior that isn't being stopped by any other means, whether it be with treats (which we will use) distraction or anything else.


----------



## Jax08

This thread is GREAT!! I'm having a quandry right now on how to help a friend train a 1 year old rescued dobie with 2 broken front legs. (and yes...the vet released her to start training...actually said it was a requirement). should be easy as she's so smart but how teach her down and to not jump? 


One person on the dobie forum said to grab her legs as she jumps on you and then stare straight into her eyes until she looks away then put her back on the ground. I was taught that was challenging a dog (saw it first hand with my GSD when a strange lady did it to her and all her marbles promptly flowed out her ears) and intimidating a dog.

What the general opinion on this? 

I think it's a good way to get a chunk taken out of your face and ruin your relationship with your dog if it's based on intimidation and fear rather than love and respect. I can whisper commands to my dog and she responds.


----------



## angelaw

ok, dobie has 2 broken legs and someone said to grab them to get her to stop jumping? 

how about one of those no jump harnesses to keep her feet on the ground while she heals?


----------



## Jax08

yeah...the idea was to catch the 60 lbs dobie as she's jumping on you above her casts and stare her down to show her who was the alpha. I almost fell out of my chair but I'll just agree to disagree on that one.

hmmm...I'll definitely suggest one of those halters. My agility trainer suggested we get her in a sit and then bring a friend into the house. If she jumps then the friend is to leave the house and start all over again. It would be really tedious but she's so smart I don't think it will take long.


----------



## angelaw

http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=3307+4+640&pcatid=640

might be easier than trying to knee her off, or grabbing her poor arms. this way she self corrects. Or you can put the dog on a leash, put her in a sit, bring friend in, she jumps, correct her with the leash, tell her off, and try again.


----------



## Jax08

That's exactly what my trainer suggested. I'm afraid to block her with my knee and take a chance on hitting her by accident.

It's nice to see so many training theories and not a single one that suggested intimidation and challenging the dog


----------



## darga19

I have to disagree and play devil's advocate here just a bit...

I do think it's important to have your dog follow rules such as eating after you, going through doors after you, getting off the furniture whenever you want them to, etc. Rules for dogs create structure, which they look for and actually like IMO. My dogs lay and nap for 20 mins while I have my dinner, and then they know it's time for them to eat. They know the routine. It's not a cruel rule, just a clear and consistent one. They recognize very quickly that that's just the way things are.

I do not condone the use of the alpha roll...however my dogs will roll onto their backs for me whenever I kneel beside them if they're laying down. That is true submission and respect. They love doing it simply for the belly rub! No need for force if your dog truly respects and trusts you. 95% of being alpha is mental...dogs can sense what you feel.

As far as making your dog move out of the way and things like that, that should be done when necessary. If you come home from work and your doggie is chillin' on your favorite spot on the couch...have him move if you want to sit there. If not, let him be. All I have to do is walk over and go to sit down and my dogs mosey out of my way. That's not being mean or a bully, that's just the way it is. 

The bottom line is, dogs respect a fair and consistent leader, not a bully. But IMO they do need rules and structure. If you're fair and consistent with the rules, they'll be happy to follow them.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

> Originally Posted By: Christian2009I have to disagree and play devil's advocate here just a bit...
> 
> I do think it's important to have your dog follow rules such as eating after you, going through doors after you, getting off the furniture whenever you want them to, etc. Rules for dogs create structure, which they look for and actually like IMO.


JMHO - If a dog HAS a problem with authority then they need these things. If they do have have a problem with knowing who is in charge - then they don't.

We rarely eat before the dogs. I like to get it our of the way so I can settle down and enjoy my dinner at my leisure.

I rarely make the dogs wait for me to go through a door first. They will if I tell them - but I rarely do it.

My dogs get off furniture if I tell them to.

I have never had a problem with the dogs not knowing who is in charge around here.


----------



## pupresq

I'm with Lauri. While I fully agree that dogs need structure and consistency and clear expectations of behavior, exactly what form the rules take from home to home can vary without necessarily causing any problems. We usually feed the dogs before we eat and they often go through the door in front of me (although they do know the command "MOVE!" and will get out of the way and wait to go through the door by name if we ask them to). I foster a lot of dogs and deal with a lot of dogs and I've almost never had any issues with dominance, even though I've certainly fostered some pushy and "alpha" dogs. They all respect authority when it is based on trust and understanding. 

IMO what is FAR more common than dogs making bids for the leadership position are dogs that are either too scared/lack sufficient trust to do certain things (like roll on their backs) or dogs that are simply untrained and frenetically spazzy. I am disturbed by the rampant misdiagnoses of "dominant" behavior in dogs because it frequently leads to "training" techniques that make a bad situation much worse.


----------



## meisha98

Wow- You people make me thankful it's just myself, Lainey and a couple of cats! No problem with alpha here. If I'm not here, Lainey has no freedom, food or water. She's a pup so she doesn't always listen, but for the most part she's pretty good. Thankfully I'm familiar enough with pups to know most "phases" are temporary, require patience and don't need a heavy hand.


----------



## Mozart396

> Originally Posted By: lawhiteif I walk toward kali she will yield, but (after i bumped my elbow when we were running stairs) i realized that I yield when we are on walks without even noticing it! No wonder she is confused! I am going to pay more attention to where I am in the future.
> and all it took was this thread and slamming my elbow on a metal railing (ow)


My dog constantly "bumped" and pushed me (and everyone else) on walks. We eventually wound up tripping over each other....someone observed that we were being herded into a tight group with kids in the center.


----------



## Timber1

Like some others I agree with you. My quite time comes when the dogs are fed and settled. 

Then it is time for me to read the newspaper and cook dinner.


----------



## TxRider

> Originally Posted By: Christian2009
> 
> I do not condone the use of the alpha roll...however my dogs will roll onto their backs for me whenever I kneel beside them if they're laying down. That is true submission and respect. They love doing it simply for the belly rub! No need for force if your dog truly respects and trusts you. 95% of being alpha is mental...dogs can sense what you feel.
> 
> The bottom line is, dogs respect a fair and consistent leader, not a bully. But IMO they do need rules and structure. If you're fair and consistent with the rules, they'll be happy to follow them.


Exactly, As a 6'4 healthy guy I have never run into a dog I couldn't whip, or owned one. But unless a dog is attacking me there's never a reason to do that, I reserve the "I'm a big bad dog and I'm gonna dominate and whup you" for if I'm being bitten out of aggression or the like. Of course that goes for more than just dogs.









With my dogs I am the boss, the leader. I control all resources and I'm a consistent and fair leader and I set the rules fairly. I make sure to teach the rules to the dog in a way it understands fairly as well. The only way I want a dog showing me submission, or rather trusting me enough to take a vulnerable submissive posture is by the dogs choice and trust in me not from fear.

I don't find it necessary to alpha roll a dog, or get physical or hit one unless it's an emergency.


----------



## norske

It is nice to read comments such as doggiedads's and Chris Wild's.

Way too much emphasis and import has been given to "alpha" and "dominance" IMHO. It's more a state of mind than a physical control. It is also more in the mind of the trainer than in the dog.

Many years ago my dogs had to be perfect at everything, and they usually were. Very highly trained and rarely on leash. Never a problem. But I came to realize that it was more about me and my ego (or lack thereof) than about my dogs.

My dogs now are fairly new and coming along fine. I don't compete in schutzhund or obedience any longer so I reassessed my goals in teaching my dogs how best to adjust to the world around them.

I talk to the dogs much more and "capture" the behavior more than I did in years past. With the new rottie pup, when he lays down I say "down" and reward him with a piece of chicken. Same with sit or a host of other behaviors. I've had him 2 days and he has about 4 behaviors down very well.

The GSD does the same thing and she is really doing well with the occasional stumble. While working at my friends house this AM, she became very reactive whenever he would approach. Took lots of treats and work interruptions but by the end of the day she was doing fine with him.

I think that some people expect results too quickly and put unrealistic expectations on their dogs. I did. Especially if you have had dogs in the past that basically trained themselves and now you actually have to work at it.

I think for many people (not all or even that it's a bad thing) alpha, dominance, and control says more about them than their dog. Just my two cents.


----------



## TxRider

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> IMO what is FAR more common than dogs making bids for the leadership position are dogs that are either too scared/lack sufficient trust to do certain things (like roll on their backs) or dogs that are simply untrained and frenetically spazzy. I am disturbed by the rampant misdiagnoses of "dominant" behavior in dogs because it frequently leads to "training" techniques that make a bad situation much worse.


I agree, for example it was over a month, maybe two before Hope had enough trust in me to not have all 4 feet under her in my presence at all times, the first time she rolled over for a belly rub was when I knew she really decided to drop her guard and trust me. And that was after a LOT of work on gaining her trust. I believe from this and some other behaviors that whoever treated her so badly that she nearly died was surely a man, possibly a large man like myself.

But I think it's not always black and white, there is some gray in the picture as well.

I also think some people misunderstand some of why some people do something like an alpha roll, for many it is simply to show the dog it can be in a submissive position and trust them, to show them nothing bad will happen if they let go and trust, and they can relax and be vulnerable and trust. Not simply to show it you can dominate it with force.

If you watch Milan do it, that is often his goal it seems to me. To get the dog in that position, and keep it there and allow it time to realize it's fear was unjustified and nothing bad is happening and it can actually relax and be submissive and calm and let go of it's fear and distrust and stress and be comfortable in that vulnerable position. 

To allow it to experience another way of being, a state of mind of trust and vulnerability it might not ever decide to take on it's own and that it actually feels good to the dog to drop it's guard and let go of the stress and fear and anxiety and allow itself to be submissive and vulnerable.

I waited for Hope to do this on her own, I probably could have rolled her on her side sooner, allowed her to realize nothing bad would happen, and moved on, but I had luxury of a couple of months of time so there was no real reason to, and definite reasons NOT to. One day she just did it, and never looked back. Not everyone in every situation has a couple of months of time and patience though, and not every dog will learn to trust in just a couple of months if ever.

I started with Hope with a dog that would yelp if I just began to reach down to touch her head though, and duck at anything that looked like a movement to raise my hand to her and just getting her to the point that I could apply drops for her ear infections without a fight or flight panic was a major victory.

I think most of what people call dominant behavior is simply a dog being opportunistic, and either practicing learned behavior or exploring it's limits/boundaries due to them not being clear or consistent.

Hope is a good example again, she was counter surfing day one, right in front of me. She would bolt out any door etc. No dominance, just no boundaries understood yet. She had experienced no positive reinforcement other than self reinforcement, it was all she really understood. She does neither of those things now.

She also trusts -everyone- now, men, women, kids, you name it. Once she let go with me, it didn't take long for her trust to extend to others with a little work.

I have no doubt my dogs see me as their leader, but I don't eat before them, they don't have to follow me out every door and rarely do, and I prefer they walk ahead of me on walks. None of that has anything to do with dominance or being alpha or leader. I don't hit them, or roll them, or do anything above speaking loudly in a low voice at times.

It's actually funny at times. Hope is always out in front, always putting pressure on her leash, but always just enough I can hold the leash between my thumb and finger. If I drop the leash, she acts like it's her fault and instantly runs to me so I can pick it back up as soon as she feels the pressure go away and realizes I'm not holding it.

Other people think she's dragging me along, and I'm sure believe she would just run off if I ever let go. I lead from behind is all.

The only exception recently was when Hope and Kaya decided to fight in the living room, didn't stop when I yelled, and got both their collars grabbed and pulled to the floor simultaneously and held there for a minute. Extreme circumstances require more extreme measures.

To me dominant behavior is more like if the dog is in my way, and rather than move stiffens up and growls. Or a dog that would come up to me and growl trying to get my food by force, things along that line.


----------



## crs996

I'm new here but now have my 4th GSD, and I never stop learning about being a good "pack leader". 

The biggest step I've taken personally with my latest GSD is being calmer, in everything I do with him and it's worked wonders. I've always been fair and firm, but adding calm demeanor has brought a new level of confidence in my 8mo old pup. Even if I am anxious about something he did or about my day, I have to take a minute and regroup before I interact with him. The change has been remarkable.


----------



## c1chelle

Thanks for all those that shared. I'm learning so much, and appreciating all the varieties of opinion. I want to educated my self as much as possible to be the best owner and 'pack leader' possible.


----------



## MyboyTank

I agree with your ideas here because i have found that with many dogs body language plays a huge role in how the dog behaves. A good trainer would be someone who can not only exert the pressure without touching the dog, but also someone who can get a dog to react to their movement. Ie. movements of hands, arms, legs. 

A good example of this would be that if I go into my dining room and place my hand on the handle of the sliding glass door both dogs come up at my side and sit, waiting for me to open the door, or that if I point my arm and hand away from the couch and across the room they get down off the sofa and move in the direction of where my arm/hand is pointing. It doesnt have to be forceful, you just have to provide direction when it is needed.

Some people are misguided enough to think that all you should have to do is teach commands and then the dog will be perfect all the time. They fail to realize that its better to teach the dog to do things a certain way by doing it when it should be done. I havent had to worry about my boys knowing what I want from them because if I want them to do something I tell them to do it right then and there, Ive found that this automatically gets them paying attention to see if I want them to do something.


----------



## webzpinner

My wife is easily Alpha... which is funny since she weighs little more than Jake... but she establishes Alpha anywhere she goes with any species on God's green earth.... she's got the "Icy Glare of Death and Destruction" (patent pending).

Swear to god that she could stare down a great white shark and it'd flee with it's tail tucked between it's fins!

It's funny, coz if Jake chews something he shouldn't or dump the trashbin, my wife will glare at him, and he'll slink away, into his kennel, lay down, and hide his head. He KNOWS he's in trouble. It's adorable.


----------



## carmspack

Were there too many monks making cheese.

I spent many years talking to new pup owners to not do the alpha roll, to not tie their dog to the back of a car to exercise them . The book was very popular based on the romanticism of "artisan" monk - breeding . 

I haven't seen any stars or even great companions from the breeding program. There may be some or even many , just not the ones I have seen.

Just the other day I had to do the old reality check. After some 50 plus years one of my husbands high school friends decided track him down and drop in out of the blue. I guess he saw the dogs and assumed it was Pauls interest and then continued to regale me with stories of the breed and how to train and control "them". He was adamant that you had to let them know who was boss by biting them , on the ear , on the nose. YIKES ... does it ever stop . 

Carmen
Carmspack Working German Shepherd Dogs


----------



## JOSHUA SAMPSON

webzpinner said:


> she's got the "Icy Glare of Death and Destruction" (patent pending).


must be a good poker player. It's all about the poker face, with dogs, people, etc.


----------



## webzpinner

JOSHUA SAMPSON said:


> must be a good poker player. It's all about the poker face, with dogs, people, etc.


hehe... you could have a royal flush, and she could have nothing, but she'd still win, coz you'd show your cards, she'd glare, and you'd say "nevermind, take it!" and run away!


----------



## Texas_Eva

I'm new to the forum and to being a pack leader. There's so much amazing info on this forum!

Anyway, in my house we have a nice little chain of command. I take orders from my girlfriend, and the pup takes orders from me.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

Texas_Eva said:


> Anyway, in my house we have a nice little chain of command. I take orders from my girlfriend, and the pup takes orders from me.


Sounds about right!! 

Welcome to the board.


----------



## robertm

Anyone see that documentary where they compared dogs with wolves? They put them through a battery of exercises where they proved that both could be trained but when it came to testing where each had to be intuitive or try and take cues from the human only the dogs passed.

What we learn is that dogs want to please us, we just have to show them how.

I guess every situation is different but I avoided the don'ts that made a dog think it was an equal and did a few of the do exercises like establishing that their food was mine (to avoid food aggression) and they couldn't have everything on their terms. I really didn't think of it as establishing dominance as reinforcing their place in the pecking order.


----------



## John 57

First let me say I am new here. My dog is a primarily black shepherd, about 3 years old. She is a rescued adoptee that was very severely abused and mistreated by whoever previously owned her. There is also some behavioral evidence she was overly caged. She was not properly socialized but seems to get along well with most dogs, but can be somewhat aggressive with smaller dogs initially. All of her "issues" have exaggerated the "aloofness" into almost abject fear of strangers. She is very curious and wants to go for walks, but can become highly stressed and start pulling away and such, especially if there are kids playing and riding bikes, razor scooters, etc. She has never acted aggressive and if prodded will let them approach her and pet her. The same holds true for adults, with her taking far longer to warm up to men than women. Once she has gotten to know someone, she is fine, but it can take quite a while and a lot of work. Here is my dilemma: I work hard with her every day, and in the 7 months I've had her she has made tremendous progress. However, she can still act terrified on a walk if there are people around. She has good days and bad days, but often there is no pattern or constant "trigger" for her fear. A sunny day with lots of activity might make her especially nervous, but them lately, on a cloudy day with no one around she will still act nervous and look over her shoulder a lot. I have tried just about everything including a thunder shirt which didn't work for her. I think I am maintaining alpha status and she is generally very obedient and very smart. But for example, when on a walk where we go by a very small park or a house nearby that has five kids (all of whom she has let pet her a couple of times), she can become so upset and scared that she seems unable to listen and/or focus on my command. She will try to pull away and "pull out of her collar". Even if I make her sit and try to get her to look at me, do the dog whispering thing, etc., she keeps turning her head away to be sure no one is coming to get her or whatever it is that drives the fear. One other note, outside of a particularly aggressive game we play involving wearing gloves in which she only play bites with a firm grip when the gloves are on (she is reluctant to mouth and will not actually bite a bare hand), she shows no aggressive tendencies. I also want to add that in the beginning she would pee a bit when she thought she was in trouble or was being disciplined, but that stopped after a month or two when she started trusting me. I also should add I don't believe in beating dogs into submission or beating them in general and have tried to be creative in disciplining her because of the previous abuse. Except for the fear issues described, she has responded quite well to instruction and is a smart learner, when she isn't too scared to stay focused...Can anyone offer any suggestions for retraining a shepherd with these types of issues? Again, at home and around people she has had a chance to get to know, she is a completely different dog Thanx!


----------



## gsdraven

Hi John, 

Welcome to the forum and thanks for adopting. You should start your own thread to let people know about your situation.

Also, if you go to your User CP and add your general location, maybe someone can offer suggestions for a good trainer/behaviorist.


----------



## 2manyqs

This is a great thread so thanks to everyone for their contributions. I was interested to read about the "alpha role" b/c my girl started doing it with me just a few days into knowing each other. And since then, she pretty much does it anytime that I pet her which can be kind of funny.

Interestingly, she's one to try to "top from the bottom" in that she is pretty much passive aggressive. At least I know that she trusts me even if she's still learning who is really the boss.


----------



## Shrap

2manyqs said:


> This is a great thread so thanks to everyone for their contributions. I was interested to read about the "alpha role" b/c my girl started doing it with me just a few days into knowing each other. And since then, she pretty much does it anytime that I pet her which can be kind of funny.
> 
> Interestingly, she's one to try to "top from the bottom" in that she is pretty much passive aggressive. At least I know that she trusts me even if she's still learning who is really the boss.


She probably just wants a belly rub 

It's amazing to see how far behind America is with dog behaviour compared to the UK.


----------



## codmaster

Shrap said:


> She probably just wants a belly rub
> 
> It's amazing to see how *far behind America is with dog behaviour compared to the UK.*


 
Based on what?


----------



## AmberGS1Exit

*Great Info...*



LouCastle said:


> Establishing Dominance
> 
> 
> The alpha roll was repopularized in the book 'How to Be Your Dog's Best Friend' by the Monks of New Skete which came out in the late 70's or early 80's. Before that it faded in and out of popularity and use.
> 
> I'm told that in the latest edition of this book the alpha roll is no longer included as a training tool.
> 
> To perform the roll you're supposed to grab the dog by the excess skin around his neck, force him backwards into a sit and then roll him to one side. Some trainers advocate rolling him all the way onto his back. The idea is that you're simulating something that dogs do to one another when the dominant dog is displaying his dominance to the submissive dog.
> 
> But it's just not so. If you watch some dogs at play, for example at a dog park or the zoo, or watch the Discovery Channel. Use a Video Camera (or record the TV) so you can play it back several times. You'll see what at first looks like an alpha roll but when you examine if carefully it's not even close. When dogs do this, the dominant dog doesn't force the submissive dog to do anything. It's the submissive dog who's doing all the work. The dominant dog puts his foot up on the submissive dog's shoulder or back and the submissive dog rolls himself under the dominant dog.
> 
> And so when you do the alpha roll thing you're doing something that's completely foreign to the dog, rather than something he's familiar with. You're showing him that you're bigger and stronger than him, but he already knows that. It's the action of a bully, not a fair and just leader.
> 
> Real dogs in the real world don't do anything like this. When a submissive dog rolls himself under the dominant dog it's because he's showing submission. This isn't a case of the dominant dog showing dominance. He's already done that merely by placing his foot on the other dog's shoulder or back and that's the reason that the submissive dog has gone down.
> 
> And so the alpha roll as dogs do it, isn't a display of dominance; it's one of submission, where the submissive dog is doing the work. It starts with the dominant dog putting a foot up but the rolling portion, the part that the alpha roll is simulating, is done by the submissive dog. The alpha dog is only present by virtue of his personality, he's not rolling the other dog at all.
> 
> If you do this to the right dog (wrong dog) he'll eat you for your trouble. And since the closest thing to bite is your face, that's where you'll get it. It's hard to give an out command when the dog is holding you by the face!
> 
> Since 1979 I've been training some of the most dominant, most aggressive, most fearless dogs on the planet. I've never found the alpha roll necessary. I've done it once or twice when I was new and someone told me that I should. It didn't have the desired effect and after thinking about it and talking about it to the right folks, I discarded it.
> 
> Domesticated dogs only rarely submissively pee to other dogs, especially members of their own pack. That's reserved almost exclusively for their humans who, without realizing it put the dog into an overly submissive position and the dog has no choice. Some dogs, ones who are extremely low in the pack pecking order, such as the omega dog may show submissive urination every time that a dominant dog (that's every other dog in the pack) approaches, but that's still a rare display.
> 
> Your height already provides a cue to the dog that you're dominant. There are some trainers who will tell you to never let your dog stand over you but I think that you need to permit this once in a while. Some trainers tell you to NEVER allow it. But if you think about what I do and how it gets done, training and working police service dogs, you'll realize that it's good to, once in a while get on the ground with your dog and play with him as dogs play together.
> 
> Let me paint a picture for you. Imagine the type of handler who's been trained that he has to alpha roll his dog once a week to remain in the alpha position. Also imagine that he's been trained never to let his dog be on top of him. The handler gets into a fight, and like most fights it winds up on the ground. He calls his dog for assistance and as the dog runs to the scene he sees the alpha dog on the ground, someplace he's never seen him. He remembers that this alpha dog has been rolling him every week since they've been together and maintaining his alpha position with brute force. He sees this alpha dog fighting with a complete stranger, someone who's never hurt him or done anything to him before. Do you think it's possible that he'll think that NOW is a good time to challenge the alpha dog and to try to the top of the pack? Could be!
> 
> Wouldn't it be better if that dog had been lead by a fair and just pack leader who didn't use physical force to maintain his position? Since the #2 dog has rights that the #3 or #4 doesn't, wouldn't it be better if the dog thought of himself as the #2 dog in the pack not just as any subordinate animal.
> 
> If you alpha roll your dog consistently he may become afraid of you. That's not a good relationship, particularly if you want the dog to work protection for you. He'll do it but you might find him "attached" to you occasionally. I think that the best relationship between the handler and the dog is one of mutual trust and respect. A dog that's rolled won't trust the handler, he'll fear him. This may not show up in the form of the dog cowering from the handler, except in extreme circumstances. But there other, much more subtle ways it shows up.
> 
> Want to be an Alpha? Begin by acting like one. Stand up tall and act like a leader. Notice that most dogs are submissive to a good trainer just by him walking onto the field. That's because he knows how to stand, carry himself and talk as a leader. He hasn't alpha rolled your dog. He hasn't kicked your dog's butt, but your dog knows, at a glance, who the alpha is. Use a normal voice. When adult dogs play with other adult dogs they use a certain tone of voice (bark). When puppies play with adults or other puppies pitched they use a high pitched yip. If you use a high pitched voice when playing with or praising your adult dog how do you think he thinks of you? As a mature adult capable of leading him? Or as an immature pack member? Now I'm not saying that he'll immediately become alpha if you praise or talk to him in a high pitched voice but I am saying that you're sending a mixed message to him. One that can put some doubts in his mind as to your exact position in the pack.
> 
> Being accepted as the alpha doesn't mean that you're the biggest, baddest one in the pack. Anyone who teaches that really doesn't understand what it means to be alpha. In human packs, without the politics, often it's NOT the biggest or strongest one who leads. It's the one who exhibits "leadership qualities." In dog packs it's the same way.
> 
> Another part of being alpha has to do with food. In the wild the alpha leads the hunt. He decides which animal the pack will kill and when the eating will begin. Generally you provide the food for your dog so that helps him think of you as the alpha. I suggest that when you get a new dog you spend a couple of weeks hand feeding him. That establishes, even more than just putting down a food bowl, that you're providing his food. Don't let him crowd in and 'demand' the food. Make him stay at a respectful distance and wait for you to give it to him, one handful at a time.
> 
> Another way to be fair and just is to be fair with your correction level. The Ecollar is perfect for this because it allows you to dial in exactly the level of correction that your dog needs. Not too high and not too low. It's difficult for the average handler to consistently give the exact level of correction that a dog needs with a leash and conventional training collar.
> 
> Play is another way to get this but not the form of play that has the handler throwing a ball for his dog. Watch the Discovery Channel or spend a few hours at the zoo watching wild dogs play. They run, they bump shoulders, they throw hips into one another. Their interaction is quite physical.
> 
> Another way to establish dominance and one of my favorites is through yielding. I stole the concept from someone who stole it from horse trainers. Yielding is based on the idea that a submissive animal will move out of the way of a dominant animal. Almost ritualistically the dominant animal will force the submissive animal to give way, even if he doesn't need to. It's just a reminder.
> 
> To do this have the dog on leash and start walking into him. Going head to head is probably best, at first. Don't give any commands, just head towards him. When you get real close start quietly saying "move, move, move," Don't kick him and don't bump into him unless it's absolutely necessary. What you are trying to do is to force him to move by the power of your personality. When you do this make sure that you're looking like the alpha. Stand up straight, shoulders back, head erect. Don't stoop forward to look at your dog, that communicates to him that you're not an alpha. Some may need to practice this in front of a mirror before they try it with their dog.
> 
> As soon as he does move, step back and praise him lightly. Not enough to break his concentration, but enough so that he knows he got something right. You should see a relaxation of tension in the dog's body. Think of your forward motion as applying pressure. Pressure that the dog can relieve by moving away. At first just one or two steps will relieve the pressure, but as you progress he has to move more to gain relief.
> 
> As the training progresses you can approach from slightly off to one side, then directly to one side, then from the rear quarter and finally from the rear. When you start this have him move several times in a row. Once he's caught on you can go to about ten times a day.
> 
> This is so subtle that many people believe that it won't have any affect on the dog, particularly one who's very dominant. But it will have more and better effect than a dozen alpha rolls. And it will establish your position with VERY little chance of a handler challenge or an attack on the handler.
> 
> If you're going to do an alpha roll you'd better pick the dog you do this on carefully and you'd better make sure that you can kick his ass. You'd also better be ready for a trip to the ER, because sooner or later you're going to miss.
> 
> It's really too bad that some people are still caught up in using force all the time for all of their training. It's not necessary. It's hard on the dogs, and it's hard on the handler. AND most importantly it doesn't give a good a working relationship with the dog as more subtle, but still effective methods.


Very true, thanks for telling us all.


----------



## codmaster

What happens though if a dominant (would be Alpha) dog trys to put his paw on the shoulder of another would be Alpha? 

For example, I would be VERY surprised if my current dog (4yo male GSD) would ever allow this to take place - it would precipitate an instant and not very nice response! At least so far he has never submitted to any other dog that I can remember except as a small puppy.


----------



## LouCastle

codmaster said:


> What happens though if a dominant (would be Alpha) dog trys to put his paw on the shoulder of another would be Alpha?


Usually which dog is dominant is established long before dogs come together. Often it happens within seconds of having set eyes on each other. When they do come together there will be some sort of greeting behavior that confirms the way that they perceive each other. 

But if, as you say two quite dominant dogs come together, they will each realize this before they come together physically. They'll show an entirely different set of greeting behaviors than occurs if one dog acknowledges that the other is dominant. One of them will probably try to put his foot on the shoulder of the other one, at some point. If the second one does not submit, you'll see a display that is pretty scary for the APO (average pet owner – whatever that means). It will involve what many people perceive as a dog fight, but it rarely is. 

There's lots of growling, pawing at each other, chest bumping, teeth showing and spit flying. It's usually very loud and many people mistake this for actual battle. But it rarely is. It's another display that allows the dogs to determine which one is dominant without any damage being done to either one of them. But if one of the dogs has not been socialized with other dogs, or one of them does not submit, it can turn into an actual fight.


----------



## OriginalWacky

LouCastle said:


> It will involve what many people perceive as a dog fight, but it rarely is.
> 
> There's lots of growling, pawing at each other, chest bumping, teeth showing and spit flying. It's usually very loud and many people mistake this for actual battle. But it rarely is. It's another display that allows the dogs to determine which one is dominant without any damage being done to either one of them. But if one of the dogs has not been socialized with other dogs, or one of them does not submit, it can turn into an actual fight.


With the dogs in and out of our place, we've had lots of these very noisy 'battles' that never resulted in injury or problems, and a few actual fights with bloodshed and vet visits. For the most part, the fights actually happened more with insecure dogs, not confident dogs that could be considered dominant. I say considered, because I think that very few dogs are really really trying to be dominant over everybody and everything else. 

I have seen many dogs that others might call dominant throw off lots of calming signals to other dogs, and solve issues without ever resorting to fighting. It's pretty amazing how well some dogs can communicate with others, and how much dogs can learn from those dogs over time.


----------



## gsdraven

LouCastle said:


> If the second one does not submit, you'll see a display that is pretty scary for the APO (average pet owner – whatever that means). It will involve what many people perceive as a dog fight, but it rarely is.
> 
> There's lots of growling, pawing at each other, chest bumping, teeth showing and spit flying. It's usually very loud and many people mistake this for actual battle. But it rarely is. It's another display that allows the dogs to determine which one is dominant without any damage being done to either one of them. But if one of the dogs has not been socialized with other dogs, or one of them does not submit, it can turn into an actual fight.


I call this an argument. Raven and Kaiser have had a few and I was actually surprised by who came out "on top". It wasn't the dog that is typically yielded to in every day interactions.


----------



## lzver

I've been pushed into the world of dog training out of necessity. Our Jake is a hellion on wheels because I let my husband follow the 'alpha' and 'dominance' type training with him even though I never liked it.

Now that Jake is 10 months old, we have a 70 pound dog that thinks he can get away with anything.

We met with a trainer last weekend who uses Positive Reinforcement and Clicker Training. I have been diligently working with Jake every day to help resolve the counter surfing, stealing objects, jumping on people, etc. I can now allow Jake in the kitchen with me while cooking where I couldn't a week ago. I heavily rewarded Jake when he'd come into the kitchen and not jump on the counter or when he sat/lay down beside me. I'm still doing a lot of heavy rewarding because we are still very early in our training days. Put my husband in the kitchen and Jake goes backwards and continues jumping on the counter. 

I whole heartedly believe in Positive Reinforcement now that I'm starting to see improvements in less than a week.

My husband hasn't bought into the whole idea yet and doesn't want to let go of his old dominance ideas. Jake continues to be wild and out of control with him. I'm not saying Jake is perfect with me yet, but he comes 'here' about 80% of the time when I ask him to and he spends a lot more time watching me waiting for direction. I think it is a lot less confusing for dogs because we are letting them know what we expect of them, as opposed to punishing them when they do something wrong. I don't understand how you could have a dog behave how you want it to without letting him/her know what behavior is expected and acceptable.

Shepherd's are smart dogs and I consider training with Jake a job for him .... he really seems to enjoy our training sessions. Right now, Jake is not free fed any food. He has to work for every piece of food he gets. I use a combination of treat balls and stuffed kongs to work off energy and save the other half of his meal for training purposes.

I'm waiting for the 'why is Jake better behaved with you?' question from my husband or being embarassed in front of the trainer when she figures out he hasn't been doing any of the homework she assigned to us.


----------



## Zisso

Always enjoy your posts Lou! Thank you for keeping us thinking and giving us value information


----------



## LouCastle

lzver said:


> I've been pushed into the world of dog training out of necessity. Our Jake is a hellion on wheels because I let my husband follow the 'alpha' and 'dominance' type training with him even though I never liked it.


Can you be a bit more specific please? I'm not sure what it means to _"follow the 'alpha' and 'dominance' type training"_ Can you tell us the specific method being used?


----------



## codmaster

Shrap said:


> She probably just wants a belly rub
> 
> It's amazing *to see how far behind America is with dog behaviour compared to the UK*.


 
How is that again?


----------



## Zola22

This topic is WRONG. Do not try to establish dominance over your dog. Instead, establish a wonderful bond with him or her. He or she will learn to trust you. You must set limits on his or her behavior for the dog's own good. But don't be an ARSE who thinks that a primate with tools and command over all of the resources must establish dominance over his dog. Anyone who suggests as much to you doesn't understand dogs, or wolves, or what makes for a good, lasting bond between a person and a dog, and the last thing you would want to do is rely on such a person for any guidance about how to teach your dog.


----------



## LouCastle

Zola22 said:


> This topic is WRONG. Do not try to establish dominance over your dog. Instead, establish a wonderful bond with him or her. He or she will learn to trust you. You must set limits on his or her behavior for the dog's own good. But don't be an ARSE who thinks that a primate with tools and command over all of the resources must establish dominance over his dog. Anyone who suggests as much to you doesn't understand dogs, or wolves, or what makes for a good, lasting bond between a person and a dog, and the last thing you would want to do is rely on such a person for any guidance about how to teach your dog.


Wondering Zola22, did you read anything beyond the title of the thread? The article is about, as you say, establishing _"a good lasting bond between a person and a dog."_


----------



## selzer

Topics aren't wrong, they are worth discussing or not worth discussing. This one is pretty old though. And yet, probably worth discussing again.


----------



## Zola22

Experts have definitively concluded that our old assumptions about wolf behavior are erroneously drawn from the observation of WOLVES IN CAPTIVITY, who, in this unnatural state, exhibit exaggerated displays of dominance and submission. But wolves in nature exist in extraordinarily loyal family groups: The father and mother remain together until one or the other dies. They have cubs and care together for the cubs. When one generation grows up, they help their parents to care for the next generation of cubs. They do not eat before the cubs. On the contrary, the father (and the mother if she can, and the older cubs) come back to the den and regurgitate their food so that the youngest can eat, and they eat first. The young always remain loyal and defer to their parents, even when the parents enter their declining years. They are extraordinarily loyal and devoted family units. That is how wolves in the wild actually behave. It is a fact, confirmed by observation.

Dogs are like this too, except that they have literally learned to regard their human caretaker as their adoptive PARENT, even though they recognize that this adoptive PARENT belongs to a different species, a distinctly primate species. 

Dogs, like wolves, thrive in loyal families that look after one another. They always regard their caretaker as a parent. 

Just as a good parent will not spoil his or her children but rather will give them the structure, guidance and sometimes the discipline that a child requires in order to be raised well, so too a good adoptive parent will treat his or her dog this way. 

The biggest difference is that dogs require INSTANTANEOUS instruction: You cannot tell a dog what he did in the past that was wrong, or what you want him to do the next time around. You have to catch him in the act and say, NO. More important, you have to catch him in the act of doing the right thing and reward him in that very moment with "YES," "GOOD BOY", etc. Eventually your dog will learn what you want him to do, and if he loves and trusts you he will do it. In the meantime do not let him practice bad habits. 
And for God's sake do not develop fantasies about how you must dominate him or else he will dominate you. 

This is all pretty well established now. It's a pity so many people still follow discredited theories about dominance and submission. It doesn't usually work, it leads to terrified, unhappy dogs, and it ruins the kind of bond that you should WANT to have with your dog!

I can confirm the above not only from what I have learned from learned books, but above all from what I have observed in my own dogs!


----------



## Sabis mom

LouCastle said:


> Wondering Zola22, did you read anything beyond the title of the thread? The article is about, as you say, establishing _"a good lasting bond between a person and a dog."_


So I log on to see if I can delete my account and find this thread, which I have read in it's entirety. Avid Lou Castle follower, even if the e collar didn't work. I agree with the theory and the methods. Since I have a fluid, multi dog household and a severely problematic mess of a dog besides, I use most of these methods daily and without ever thinking about it and all things considered I have a relatively peaceful house. I'm going to guess and say it's working well.


----------



## LouCastle

Zola22 said:


> Experts have definitively concluded that our old assumptions about wolf behavior are erroneously drawn from the observation of WOLVES IN CAPTIVITY, who, in this unnatural state, exhibit exaggerated displays of dominance and submission.



Zolla22 might I suggest that you actually read the article instead of assuming what it says? You might be surprised.


----------



## LouCastle

Sabis mom said:


> So I log on to see if I can delete my account and find this thread, which I have read in it's entirety. Avid Lou Castle follower, even if the e collar didn't work. I agree with the theory and the methods.


Thanks for the vote Sabis mom. I've never had anyone who didn't succeed with the Ecollar if they were following my methods. I've had a few who had problems and I discovered that they weren't following the protocols correctly. Feel free to contact me privately or better yet, send me an email. Happy to help if you're interested.


----------



## Lykoz

Zola22 said:


> Experts have definitively concluded that our old assumptions about wolf behavior are erroneously drawn from the observation of WOLVES IN CAPTIVITY, who, in this unnatural state, exhibit exaggerated displays of dominance and submission. But wolves in nature exist in extraordinarily loyal family groups: The father and mother remain together until one or the other dies. They have cubs and care together for the cubs. When one generation grows up, they help their parents to care for the next generation of cubs. They do not eat before the cubs. On the contrary, the father (and the mother if she can, and the older cubs) come back to the den and regurgitate their food so that the youngest can eat, and they eat first. The young always remain loyal and defer to their parents, even when the parents enter their declining years. They are extraordinarily loyal and devoted family units. That is how wolves in the wild actually behave. It is a fact, confirmed by observation.
> 
> Dogs are like this too, except that they have literally learned to regard their human caretaker as their adoptive PARENT, even though they recognize that this adoptive PARENT belongs to a different species, a distinctly primate species.
> 
> Dogs, like wolves, thrive in loyal families that look after one another. They always regard their caretaker as a parent.
> 
> Just as a good parent will not spoil his or her children but rather will give them the structure, guidance and sometimes the discipline that a child requires in order to be raised well, so too a good adoptive parent will treat his or her dog this way.
> 
> The biggest difference is that dogs require INSTANTANEOUS instruction: You cannot tell a dog what he did in the past that was wrong, or what you want him to do the next time around. You have to catch him in the act and say, NO. More important, you have to catch him in the act of doing the right thing and reward him in that very moment with "YES," "GOOD BOY", etc. Eventually your dog will learn what you want him to do, and if he loves and trusts you he will do it. In the meantime do not let him practice bad habits.
> And for God's sake do not develop fantasies about how you must dominate him or else he will dominate you.
> 
> This is all pretty well established now. It's a pity so many people still follow discredited theories about dominance and submission. It doesn't usually work, it leads to terrified, unhappy dogs, and it ruins the kind of bond that you should WANT to have with your dog!
> 
> I can confirm the above not only from what I have learned from learned books, but above all from what I have observed in my own dogs!


Dog/human/other dog interactions are closer built to the captive model, than the generic, Natural free roaming wild wolf pack culture...

I dont understand how people don't see this...

All positive trainers, keep bringing this up... But its fallible argument.

There is clear recordings of captive packs... Whereby sometimes newer introduced puppies actually establish higher rank than their older siblings who were already in the pack...

Dog-human-2nd dog-etc relationship is based on introduction at various time frames. An order will naturally arise most of the time... Sometimes not... However this relationship has a lot more to do with captive than naturaly wild born off-spring...

All species react because you have something you have, want, or they see as desirable... 
This is a Machiavellian philosophy...
However there is no completely selfless act in any species.

Also nobody ever said you correct a dog, after the act... No competent trainer does that... Dont know where you got that. All positive or not.


----------



## LouCastle

I forgot all about this thread. Based on Zola22's comments it did not looks as she'd (making an assumption about gender here) read the article. Since, it's now several months later, she's not responded, and she only has two posts on this forum, both of them in this thread, it's obvious that these were "hit and run posts," and that she's not interested in learning anything, only in spouting her own opinion. So I'll address her comments directly. 



Zola22 said:


> Experts have definitively concluded that our old assumptions about wolf behavior are erroneously drawn from the observation of WOLVES IN CAPTIVITY, who, in this unnatural state, exhibit exaggerated displays of dominance and submission. But wolves in nature exist in extraordinarily loyal family groups: The father and mother remain together until one or the other dies. They have cubs and care together for the cubs. When one generation grows up, they help their parents to care for the next generation of cubs.


Yep, this is true. But it has nothing to do with the article that started this discussion as anyone who has actually read it knows. If one read anything much beyond the title and the first couple of paragraphs would know. 



Zola22 said:


> * They do not eat before the cubs. * On the contrary, the father (and the mother if she can, and the older cubs) come back to the den and * regurgitate their food * so that the youngest can eat, and they eat first.


The act of regurgitation tells us that the older dogs have eaten BEFORE the puppies. We don't know how much of what they've eaten, that they regurgitate for the puppies, but chances are that it's not ALL of what they consumed. If it was, they'd have to immediately go hunting again for themselves. Fact is that they DO eat before the puppies and then they share some of what they've eaten with them. When the puppies are old enough to join in the hunt everyone feeds at about the same time, in a cooperative effort. Here's some video of Wild Dogs of Africa sharing in a kill. (BTW 'Wild Dogs' is their proper name, not a description of them as not being domesticated). 

WARNING: This video is graphic. It shows a pack of Wild Dogs feeding on a downed kill. 








Some things to notice in the video. There's some nervousness in the pack, probably due to the photographers being so close. And so they drag the kill away and into the bushes. It may even be that this is some scavenging, not a fresh kill. As the video progresses, some very young puppies appear. They are probably too young to have taken part in the kill, but they are there for the feeding. Notice that they are not shown any special deference. Then more of the pack takes part in the feeding. At about 0:10 one of the dogs disciplines another dog and chases him off the kill. At about 0:36 one dog commits some transgression (I can't tell what it is) and another dog quickly chastises him, but he uses only body language. The submissive dog immediately submits and it's over. They both go back to feeding. 

Of course our pets are not Wild Dogs but this does show how one wild group of canids interacts. Note that there is none of the dominating by physical aggression that some talk about. 



Zola22 said:


> The young * always * remain loyal and defer to their parents, even when the parents enter their declining years. They are extraordinarily loyal and devoted family units. That is how wolves in the wild actually behave. It is a fact, confirmed by observation.


Just about anytime someone makes such an absolute statement, they're going to be wrong. While many, if not most puppies may _"remain loyal and defer ..., "_ many will not. 



Zola22 said:


> Dogs are like this too, except that they have literally learned to regard their human caretaker as their adoptive PARENT, even though they recognize that this adoptive PARENT belongs to a different species, a distinctly primate species.


We know that many dogs do not defer to their _"adoptive parent."_ There are many threads here about dogs that try to dominate, heck, some even have bitten their _"adoptive parents."_



Zola22 said:


> Dogs, like wolves, thrive in loyal families that look after one another. * They always regard their caretaker as a parent. *


Here's another one of those absolute statements. 



Zola22 said:


> Just as a * good parent * will not spoil his or her children but rather will give them the structure, guidance and sometimes the discipline that a child requires in order to be raised well, so too a good adoptive parent will treat his or her dog this way.


We know that not everyone is going to be a _"good parent."_ Some WILL spoil their dogs. Some WILL apply too much discipline. 



Zola22 said:


> The biggest difference is that dogs require INSTANTANEOUS instruction: You cannot tell a dog what he did in the past that was wrong, or what you want him to do the next time around. You have to catch him in the act and say, NO. More important, you have to catch him in the act of doing the right thing and reward him in that very moment with "YES," "GOOD BOY", etc. Eventually your dog will learn what you want him to do, and if he loves and trusts you he will do it. In the meantime do not let him practice bad habits.


While these things are true, they have nothing to do with this article. 



Zola22 said:


> And for God's sake do not develop fantasies about how you must dominate him or else he will dominate you.


This is pretty much what the article says. Somehow, Zola22 missed that message.


----------



## Lykoz

LouCastle said:


> I forgot all about this thread. Based on Zola22's comments it did not looks as she'd (making an assumption about gender here) read the article.
> 
> This is pretty much what the article says. Somehow, Zola22 missed that message.


I dont know which article you are referring to...

She does not refer to any article in particular... 
She just makes very generalised statements...

These statements are often used by All positive dog trainers...
They are usually referring to the work of Dr. L. David Mech.

In any case it is a flawed view that is often a consequence of selective reading in what Mech was saying.

Also I just wanted to add that Wild Dogs are as closely related to the domesticated dog as it is to the walrus and the giant panda...


----------



## Hector3

Man, I love this thread, it's so awesome.


----------



## LouCastle

Lykoz said:


> I dont know which article you are referring to...


This thread started with my article entitled "Establishing Dominance." In rewrites I now call it "Establishing Leadership" because that is more descriptive. 



Lykoz said:


> She does not refer to any article in particular...


What do you suppose she meant by her opening statement, _"This topic is WRONG?"_ Don't you think that posts should have something to do with the post that starts the thread? 



Lykoz said:


> She just makes very generalised statements...


She does _"make very generalized statements,"_ but she's talking about what I wrote. I'll ask you the same question I asked of Zola22. _"Wondering [Lykoz], did you read anything beyond the title of the thread? "_ Did you read the article that starts this thread? 



Lykoz said:


> These statements are often used by All positive dog trainers...
> They are usually referring to the work of Dr. L. David Mech.
> 
> In any case it is a flawed view that is often a consequence of selective reading in what Mech was saying.


Mech has said that there were flaws in his original thesis. But it should not be completely discarded. In the video I supplied, (wondering, did you watch that?) there are TWO instances where a dominant dog chastises a more submissive member of pack. Care to comment on what's going on there? 



Lykoz said:


> Also I just wanted to add that Wild Dogs are as closely related to the domesticated dog as it is to the walrus and the giant panda...


_"[T]he walrus and the giant panda"_ are two unrelated species. About the only thing they have in common is that they both are mammalian grazers. They live in completely different physical environments and have completely different instincts. They are genetically completely different. 

Domestic dogs and Wild Dogs are both DOGS. They can live in the same physical environment and they have similar instincts. Both dogs are predators/opportunistic feeders/scavengers and grazers as the situation warrants. Genetically the Wild Dogs of Africa are nearly identical to today's domesticated dogs. And they share many of the same instincts. Many pets have had most of their instincts bred out of them but they still respond to the techniques described in the article.


----------



## Lykoz

LouCastle said:


> This thread started with my article entitled "Establishing Dominance." In rewrites I now call it "Establishing Leadership" because that is more descriptive.


Yes, correct.. I would consider more a post than an article... Didn't have many references. But well written none-theless. 



LouCastle said:


> What do you suppose she meant by her opening statement, _"This topic is WRONG?"_ Don't you think that posts should have something to do with the post that starts the thread?


Based on what she wrote: She ascribes to all positive dog training mentality... They often refer to: Dr. L. David Mech research (Albeit Incorrectly) that dogs like wild wolves (as opposed to captive wolves, which previous research was based on) do not establish rank or hierarchy.. the alpha does not exist.... 

I completely disagree with her... But based on her interpretation of Mech's work, it completely negates what you wrote, in your post... i.e. positive trainers dont believe in any form of dominancy, or structural heirarchy... You would have to spend time with all positive trainers, and read some of their literature to pick this up...

Personally I think your initial post is very high quality, and was a very nice read. All positive trainers however wont heel even to the slightest suggestion of dominant behaviour.. Even though you talk against physical dominance... They dont subscribe to the idea of being Alpha at all.. This includes any form of posturing, or what they consider "intimidating body positioning to dogs".



LouCastle said:


> She does _"make very generalized statements,"_ but she's talking about what I wrote. I'll ask you the same question I asked of Zola22. _"Wondering [Lykoz], did you read anything beyond the title of the thread? "_ Did you read the article that starts this thread?


Yes I read the article in full. I enjoyed it. Well written.. I am saying she disagreed with it completely based on a falsified way of thinking.



LouCastle said:


> _"[T]he walrus and the giant panda"_ are two unrelated species. About the only thing they have in common is that they both are mammalian grazers. They live in completely different physical environments and have completely different instincts. Domestic dogs and Wild Dogs are both DOGS. They can live in the same physical environment and they have similar instincts. Both dogs are predators/opportunistic feeders/scavengers and grazers as the situation warrants. Genetically the Wild Dogs of Africa are nearly identical to today's domesticated dogs. And they share many of the same instincts. Many pets have had most of their instincts bred out of them but they still respond to the techniques described in the article.


They are genetically completely different. 

The Walrus share common ancestral lines to the wild dog some 20 million years ago... They share caniform ancestry.. 

The Giant panda share Ursidae ancestry also +- 20 million years ago..

The Wild dog shares ancestral lines to wolf and domesticated dog, some 4-8 million years ago... 

These are hardly close relatives... An African Wild Dog, and domesticated dog, are very different. They can not produce offspring... The dog is closest to the grey wolf.. It is also closer to foxes and jackals... It shares almost nothing with African Wild dogs..

The closest thing between a african wild dog and a domesticated dog, is that they both have 78 chromosomes... Then Again so does a chicken have 78 chromosomes......

Relationship of African Wild Dogs to other Canids



LouCastle said:


> In the video I supplied, (wondering, did you watch that?) there are TWO instances where a dominant dog chastises a more submissive member of pack. Care to comment on what's going on there?


Watched a bit for entertainment.. Didnt give much attention to it... 
4-8 million years in evolutionary differences makes that video completely irrelevant in this conversation.


----------



## LouCastle

Lykoz said:


> Yes, correct.. I would consider more a post than an article...


It's been published in quite a few dog magazines. But I really don't care what you call it. 



Lykoz said:


> Didn't have many references. But well written none-theless.


Thanks for the kind words. It's not intended as a scientific piece, but as a how−to for dog owners who are having problems with their dogs not seeing them as leaders or for people who have been counseled to use "old school" methods of physical force to establish dominance. 



Lykoz said:


> I completely disagree with her... But based on her interpretation of Mech's work, it completely negates what you wrote, in your post... i.e. positive trainers dont believe in any form of dominancy, or structural heirarchy... You would have to spend time with all positive trainers, and read some of their literature to pick this up...


I'm well acquainted with these folks, their methods, their literature, and how they think. I picked all of those things up from Zola22's post. 



Lykoz said:


> Personally I think your initial post is very high quality, and was a very nice read.


Thanks again. 



Lykoz said:


> All positive trainers however wont heel even to the slightest suggestion of dominant behaviour.. Even though you talk against physical dominance... They dont subscribe to the idea of being Alpha at all.. This includes any form of posturing, or what they consider "intimidating body positioning to dogs".


Yes, I know. It's one thing that makes them so wrong about training and living with dogs. 



Lykoz said:


> Yes I read the article in full. I enjoyed it. Well written.. I am saying she disagreed with it completely based on a falsified way of thinking.


Well, I'm confused. Earlier you wrote, _"She does not refer to any article in particular... "_ And now you're saying that she disagreed with my article. 



Lykoz said:


> They are genetically completely different.
> 
> The Walrus share common ancestral lines to the wild dog some 20 million years ago... They share caniform ancestry..
> 
> The Giant panda share Ursidae ancestry also +- 20 million years ago..
> 
> The Wild dog shares ancestral lines to wolf and domesticated dog, some 4-8 million years ago...
> 
> These are hardly close relatives... An African Wild Dog, and domesticated dog, are very different. They can not produce offspring... The dog is closest to the grey wolf.. It is also closer to foxes and jackals... It shares almost nothing with African Wild dogs..


Relationship of African Wild Dogs to other Canids

Going by this chart that you gave us and your statement that, _"Wild Dogs are as closely related to the domesticated dog as it is to the walrus and the giant panda..."_ I'll have to disagree. Anyone can take a look at where "dogs, Wild Dogs, walruses and pandas" are on the chart and see for themselves that you're wrong. But I'm not a geneticist, and I don't care about such things, I'm just a po' dog trainer. The fact is that highly driven dogs have the same or similar drives as those of the Wild Dogs and they are far from the drives of either the walrus or the panda. The very comparison is absurd. As I said, _"Domestic dogs and wild dogs are both DOGS ... and they share many of the same instincts."_

Earlier I wrote,


> In the video I supplied, (wondering, did you watch that?) there are TWO instances where a dominant dog chastises a more submissive member of pack. Care to comment on what's going on there?





Lykoz said:


> Watched a bit for entertainment.. Didnt give much attention to it...


You also _"didn't give much attention"_ to the questions I asked about it. 



Lykoz said:


> 4-8 million years in evolutionary differences makes that video completely irrelevant in this conversation.


I'll disagree. The video shows interaction between members of a pack of dogs. Dogs of all species, especially those with relatively high levels of drive, relate to us, in very similar ways.


----------



## Lykoz

LouCastle said:


> Thanks for the kind words. It's not intended as a scientific piece, but as a how−to for dog owners who are having problems with their dogs not seeing them as leaders or for people who have been counseled to use "old school" methods of physical force to establish dominance.


Again I love your piece. It is a very applicable. Its great. Just like we have overly all positive trainers.. We still have some very old school abusive trainers who havent accepted many new advancements.



LouCastle said:


> Well, I'm confused. Earlier you wrote, _"She does not refer to any article in particular... "_ And now you're saying that she disagreed with my article.


When disproving your article she said: Based on "Scientific Evidence"... She was referring to other literature to disprove your article (even though she didnt even refer to anything in particular).... She disagreed with the whole idea of it.. Does not mean she didn't read it... Quite frankly she is just WRONG. Your article is just very well written and applicable. You were referencing your article against itself to disprove her... Your article is an informative piece... But it cant be referenced to in order to prove anything.
[/url]


Relationship of African Wild Dogs to other Canids



LouCastle said:


> Going by this chart that you gave us and your statement that, _"Wild Dogs are as closely related to the domesticated dog as it is to the walrus and the giant panda..."_ I'll have to disagree. Anyone can take a look at where "dogs, Wild Dogs, walruses and pandas" are on the chart and see for themselves that you're wrong. But I'm not a geneticist, and I don't care about such things, I'm just a po' dog trainer. The fact is that highly driven dogs have the same or similar drives as those of the Wild Dogs and they are far from the drives of either the walrus or the panda. The very comparison is absurd. As I said, _"Domestic dogs and wild dogs are both DOGS ... and they share many of the same instincts."_


I slightly over-exgarated, however the point was clear.... My point is that you can not make scientific, observations and infer characteristics from one species to another, with significantly over 4 million years of evolution separating them... 

People are arguing about weather wolves, the recent cousin of the dog, can be inferred to for observable behaviour in the dog.. There is about 14 000 years of seperation between some Wolves and the first domesticated Dogs... Sometimes, we still have hybridisation... And certain lines have included them in the more recent genetic make-up...

You surely can see that 4,8 or 10 MILLION years of seperation (for the Wild dog) is a BIG deal compared to around 14 000 years for with the wolf (likely much less - 14 000 is an estimate of first domesticated dogs..)

If they have any similar traits... It is complete co-incidence... You CAN NOT use a video of african wild dogs... To infer behavioural traits in the domesticated dog... It is simply bad scientific practise...
Yes you can observe similar behaviours... But you cant Justify a behaviour in a domesticated dog because it happens in african wild dogs.

I just mentioned that Walrus and giant pandas... Are also a form of an ancient Canid...


----------



## LouCastle

Lykoz said:


> Again I love your piece. It is a very applicable. Its great. Just like we have overly all positive trainers.. We still have some very old school abusive trainers who havent accepted many new advancements.


Thanks again. 



Lykoz said:


> * When disproving your article * she said: Based on "Scientific Evidence"...


I hardly think she _"disprove[ed]"_ my article. She came in with a closed mind, and left the same way, having learned nothing, having taught nothing. She didn't have the courage of her convictions to stick around and support her position. 



Lykoz said:


> She was referring to other literature to disprove your article (even though she didnt even refer to anything in particular).... She disagreed with the whole idea of it.. Does not mean she didn't read it...


I think it's pretty good evidence that she did not ready any further than the title and perhaps the first few paragraphs, but I have no proof of this. She joined the forum in May of this year. She wrote her first post here on May 3 and her second, that same date, about an hour later, after a very senior member pointed out a huge error she made in the first sentence of her first post. Then she disappeared and has not written any more on this forum. It's what's called a "hit and run post" that is typical of someone who has their mind made up and doesn't want to be confused by the facts. 



Lykoz said:


> Quite frankly she is just WRONG. Your article is just very well written and applicable. You were referencing your article against itself to disprove her... Your article is an informative piece... * But it cant be referenced to in order to prove anything. *


It's not intended to prove anything. As I said, it's not a scientific piece, it's a _"*how−to *for dog owners who are having problems with their dogs not seeing them as leaders or for people who have been counseled to use "old school" methods of physical force to establish dominance."_ 



Lykoz said:


> I slightly over-exgarated, however the point was clear.... * My point is that you can not make scientific, observations * and infer characteristics from one species to another, with significantly over 4 million years of evolution separating them...


You keep talking about things like _"making scientific observations"_ and I keep talking about dog training. We're not in a college classroom, a laboratory or even having a discussion about the science behind dog training. The article is in the "*Training *& Behavior of the GSD" section of the forum and it's about training. 

In any case, it makes no difference how far apart domestic dogs and Wild Dog of Africa are in the evolutionary scheme of things. Drives are drives no matter how far apart are the animals exhibiting them. Prey drive still has to do with the hunting−finding−flushing−catching−and killing of prey. It makes no difference if it's your cat hunting a mouse, a Wild Dog bringing down an Impala, or your dog hunting for possum in your back yard. The relationships between any kind of wild canid is associated with the one between the owner of a domestic dog and that dog. 



Lykoz said:


> People are arguing about weather wolves, the recent cousin of the dog, can be inferred to for observable behaviour in the dog.. There is about 14 000 years of seperation between some Wolves and the first domesticated Dogs... Sometimes, we still have hybridisation... And certain lines have included them in the more recent genetic make-up...
> 
> You surely can see that 4,8 or 10 MILLION years of seperation (for the Wild dog) is a BIG deal compared to around 14 000 years for with the wolf (likely much less - 14 000 is an estimate of first domesticated dogs..)


And yet, the relationship within the packs of both groups have many similarities. Perhaps, more similarities than differences. 



Lykoz said:


> If they have any similar traits... * It is complete co-incidence... *


Oh c'mon. There's a reason that they are all classified as Canids. There are many similarities between their inter-dog relationships and their food gathering habits. These are not merely coincidence. Coming from a common ancestor has a lot to do with this. 



Lykoz said:


> You CAN NOT use a video of african wild dogs... To infer behavioural traits in the domesticated dog... * It is simply bad scientific practise... *


Again, I'm not a scientist, I'm just a po' dog trainers. There ARE MANY similarities between the _"behavior traits"_ of domestic dogs and the Wild Dogs, because they have the same drives. 



Lykoz said:


> Yes you can observe similar behaviours... But you cant Justify a behaviour in a domesticated dog because it happens in african wild dogs.


I'm not _"justify[ing]"_ anything. I’m giving dog training advice. People can follow it, ignore it, or poo poo it as they like. Those who follow it, however, have found rapid, remarkable changes in how their dog relates to them, especially if they've been using force to try to establish leadership.


----------



## Lykoz

LouCastle:

I am done trying to infer what she said... Quite frankly it does not matter... 

I dont even approve of what she said...
Also when I said when she was 'disproving your article' I meant her attempt to.. Lets make that clear... I thought based on all my responses you understood that.. At the end of the day she tried to discredit you based on "scientific research"... And she quoted none of it.. And what I think she was referring to is not applicable anyways..

As for scientific reasoning... 
This is one of my pet hates and pet loves with efficient practical dog trainers like yourself.
Great:
1) You do what practically works.. i.e. you don't alleviate certain training tools like the Ecollar based on a skewed sense of moral considerations (it is abusive etc)... Its the way you use it.. The tool is not abusive if used correctly... Same with everything in life.
2) I respect what i call 'practical' dog trainers because they are on the field every day... They are achieving high quality trained dogs.. IPO certifications. Championships etc... All positive trainers are not, in spite of talking a big game.
3) Dogs are with us every day... Best place to learn about training dogs.. Is from the actual dogs... Why quote wolf articles when have much more exposure to dogs anyways.

Not So great:
a) Lack of scientific and critical analysis.
b) This is a problem because if you cant distinguish how relevant something is, it is more likely that you are going to receive inaccurate information.
c) There is relatively little progress... We needed the all positive guys to get most old school trainers on board with clicker training for example... A lot of them were more late than they needed to be...


I agree with you wholeheartedly with most things.. However you obviously had very competent mentorship, at some point, by the right people.. You obviously also have a lot of practical experience... 

However your inference from outside material is shocking.. Your insistence that African Wild Dogs can be used as a model to infer behaviours of domestic dogs is absolutely ridiculous... You do this because they are Canids? So is the Walrus ancestrally.. That means nothing...
Lions can also exibit some similar behaviours to a pack of wild wolves... 

You cant refer much from behaviour of one species to the other, that is not very generalised... i.e. they are hungry, so they hunt... Principles of Opperant Conditioning due to the work of skinner.. I.e. his work: The Behaviour of Organisms...

One last thing... I am not attacking your ability to train dogs.. Or that your advice is not good.. Everything you said makes sence..

I just feel we need people with a bit more scientific reasoning... No matter what your profession is... If you can not evaluate material critically, you're professional development is stunted... 
I find it highly displeasing that you cant get your head around the fact that 10 million years of separation IS A BIG DEAL!

You were justyfing what you wrote about dogs... By the use of a video. Showing wild dogs behaviour. that is an attempt at justification to me... 
You cant do that.

I am here to learn to.. 
Why you cant pick up this small message is beyond me...
It seems fairly obvious and rudimentary.


----------



## LouCastle

Lykoz said:


> LouCastle:
> 
> I am done trying to infer what she said... Quite frankly * it does not matter... *


I know. If she's not going to speak up for her own posts, I have no idea why anyone else would. Now I realize that you were not supporting her comments, but at first it seemed that you were. 



Lykoz said:


> As for scientific reasoning...
> This is one of my pet hates and pet loves with efficient practical dog trainers like yourself.


I’m not doing any scientific reasoning. Although what I do has with an eye towards the science that's involved with training animals. 



Lykoz said:


> Great:
> 1) You do what practically works.. i.e. you don't alleviate certain training tools like the Ecollar based on a skewed sense of moral considerations (it is abusive etc)... Its the way you use it.. The tool is not abusive if used correctly... Same with everything in life.
> 2) I respect what i call 'practical' dog trainers because * they are on the field every day... * They are achieving high quality trained dogs.. IPO certifications. Championships etc... All positive trainers are not, in spite of talking a big game.


To be accurate – I'm no longer _"on the field every day."_ I'm retired now and only occasionally do I do seminars or take on private clients. Most of my work these days is one on one with either SAR or LE K−9's. 



Lykoz said:


> 3) Dogs are with us every day... Best place to learn about training dogs.. Is from the actual dogs... * Why quote wolf articles when have much more exposure to dogs anyways. *


Because it's a great model for much of what I do. I referred to the supplied video of the Wild Dogs to discredit Zola22's statement that in the wild the puppies eat before the adult dogs. There were some other things going on in that video that spoke to the issue of establishing leadership, so I asked you about them. You had no response except that you _"Didn't give much attention to it."_ 



Lykoz said:


> Not So great:
> a)	Lack of scientific and critical analysis.


If I was working in a lab or preparing papers for peer review, this might be a valid criticism, but I’m not, I'm on a field training dogs, doing what works. And so it's irrelevant. 



Lykoz said:


> b) This is a problem because if you cant distinguish how relevant something is, it is more likely that you are going to receive inaccurate information.


I receive very little information from scientists these days. There's not much new under the sun as regards 'big thoughts.' By that I mean things like, what's the best way to get a police dog to find hiding humans, or contraband. What's the best way to get SAR dog to be obedient without interfering with their instinct to hunt. Or what's the best way to get a police dog to release a bite without inhibiting the rest of his work. There's lots of minutiae being done in the lab, but I'm not concerned with it. 

There is a bit of activist study going on recently. An example is the Schilder study, a POS study done to oppose the use of Ecollars. But most of it is very poorly done and it's based on an agenda. 



Lykoz said:


> c) There is relatively little progress... We needed the all positive guys to get most old school trainers on board with clicker training for example... A lot of them were more late than they needed to be...


I'm not much of a fan of clicker training or training that is based on handler supplied rewards except for what I call "tricks." This term is not meant to diminish that work, it's just that I only use it very little. I prefer to work with the dog's drives directly and channel them to get him to do what I want. 



Lykoz said:


> I agree with you wholeheartedly with most things.. However *you obviously had very competent mentorship, * at some point, by the right people.. You obviously also have a lot of practical experience...


Some of the best in the industry. 



Lykoz said:


> However your inference from outside material is * shocking.. * Your insistence that African Wild Dogs can be used as a model to infer behaviours of domestic dogs is * absolutely ridiculous... *


That's some pretty strong language right there, _"shocking"_ and _"absolutely ridiculous."_ That's pretty freaking rude! If I was some fly by night trainer making wild promises and never delivering, you might have a point. Since I'm fairly successful, people on this forum who have been to my training or used the methods on my website, recommend me quite a bit, I'll just say that you're very far off−base. 

I guess you missed my comment regarding prey drive? It seems that you are a scientist and that all your training is based on science. Almost universally the use and study of drives has fallen from favor in that group. Dog trainers are just about the last group of trainers that are still talking about them. Many, if not most, have gone over to the OC model and that's a shame. It's fine for pets and for working dogs that are in effect pets, although reliability is a problem with any handler supplied reward system, but for working dogs like those who search for people, and substances for real, not for sport, or as a game, it's a poor second choice. 



Lykoz said:


> * You do this because they are Canids? * So is the Walrus ancestrally.. That means nothing...


No. I do it because they are dogs. 



Lykoz said:


> Lions can also exibit some similar behaviours to a pack of wild wolves...


Yes they can and when we're talking about drives, he behaviors are nearly identical, differing mainly due to the species strengths and weaknesses. Dogs are good at stamina, pursuing game over long distances, while lions for example, since you brought them up, are good at short but intense bursts of speed. A single lion can bring down the largest of their usual food, very large antelope, but mostly it takes a pack of dogs cooperating to bring down the largest of their usual food. This cooperation is analogous to the cooperation that is necessary between, for example a police officer and his dog that are hunting a criminal. There, each species has their own skills, but they must work together to make the find and take the crook into custody. 



Lykoz said:


> You cant refer much from behaviour of one species to the other, that is not very generalised... i.e. they are hungry, so they hunt... Principles of Opperant Conditioning due to the work of skinner.. I.e. his work: The Behaviour of Organisms...


I'm sure that you're familiar with the work of Keller and Marion Breland, particularly their article, _"The Misbehavior of Organisms."_ There they wrote of their discovery of how food gathering behavior (drive behavior) interfered with the OC based training of their subject to such a degree that they COULD NOT overcome it. They called it _"instinctive drift."_ 

Here are some of their findings:



> However, in this cavalier extrapolation, we have run afoul of a persistent pattern of discomforting failures. These failures, although disconcertingly frequent and seemingly diverse, fall into a very interesting pattern. They all represent breakdowns of conditioned operant behavior.
> 
> These egregious failures came as a rather considerable shock to us, for there was nothing in our background in behaviorism to prepare us for such gross inabilities to predict and control the behavior of animals with which we had been working for years.
> 
> The examples listed we feel represent a clear and utter failure of conditioning theory. They are far from what one would normally expect on the basis of the theory alone. Furthermore, they are definite, observable; the diagnosis of theory failure does not depend on subtle statistical interpretations or on semantic legerdemain - the animal simply does not do what he has been conditioned to do.
> 
> It seems perfectly clear that, with the possible exception of the dancing chicken, which could conceivably, as we have said, be explained in terms of Skinner's superstition paradigm, the other instances * do not fit the behavioristic way of thinking. * Here we have animals, after having been conditioned to a specific learned response, gradually drifting into behaviors that are entirely different from those which were conditioned. Moreover, * it can easily be seen that these particular behaviors to which the animals drift are clear-cut examples of instinctive behaviors having to do with the natural food getting behaviors of the particular species. *
> 
> It seems obvious that these animals are trapped by strong instinctive behaviors, and clearly we have here a demonstration of the prepotency of such behavior patterns over those which have been conditioned.
> 
> We have termed this phenomenon "instinctive drift." The general principle seems to be that * wherever an animal has strong instinctive behaviors in the area of the conditioned response, after continued running the organism will drift toward the instinctive behavior to the detriment of the conditioned behavior and even to the delay or preclusion of the reinforcement. * In a very boiled-down, simplified form, it might be stated as "learned behavior drifts toward instinctive behavior."





Lykoz said:


> One last thing... I am not attacking your ability to train dogs.. Or that your advice is not good.. Everything you said makes sence..


Thanks again. 



Lykoz said:


> I just feel we need people with a bit more scientific reasoning... No matter what your profession is... If you can not evaluate material critically, you're professional development is stunted...


MORE rudeness! IN THIS LINK I refute a scientific paper, the Schilder study that I mentioned earlier. Take a look and you'll see that seem to be able to _"evaluate material critically."_ 



Lykoz said:


> I find it highly displeasing that you cant get your head around the fact that 10 million years of separation IS A BIG DEAL!


And _"I find it highly displeasing that you can't get your head around the fact that"_ prey drive is prey drive no matter what species is exhibiting it. 



Lykoz said:


> You were justyfing what you wrote about dogs... By the use of a video. Showing wild dogs behaviour. that is an attempt at justification to me...


I don't need to justify anything to you. My theories on this (stolen from some of the true giants in the industry) have stood the test of time and training over and over. 



Lykoz said:


> You cant do that.


Just did. 



Lykoz said:


> I am here to learn to..


It seems to me that you're only interested in the science of dog training. It seems to me as if you're not interested in learning at all in how drives interplay with what dogs do, why they do it, and how they interact with humans. The Brelands ignored the drives of the animals they trained, to their detriment, and those drives were not as strong in those animals as they are in many GSD's. Not everything that happens to dogs happens in the laboratory. And what works in the laboratory does not translate directly to what happens in the real world. 



Lykoz said:


> Why you cant pick up this small message is beyond me...
> It seems fairly obvious and rudimentary.


Ditto.


----------



## Susan_GSD_mom

Lou--

:thumbup:

Susan


----------



## sehrgutcsg

As difficult as it was to stay quiet on this thread, I was eating a rare New York Strip Steak and watching the wild dog video, so my hunt drive is very active at this moment. 

The OP is an acquaintance and we chat all the time about different subjects. One story that always comes to mind is the e-collar K-9 GSD without a lead walking through a congested area so the officer has both hands free. 

My post here would certainly be biased so I am just stopping by to say hello and give the nod of acceptance to the LACPCA and their dedicated police dog handler's who on an daily basis, challenge the bad guy, work with the dogs who are always, "ready to serve" and "ready to fight." 

For those of you who do not know.... Lou Castle started & was the founder of the "Los Angeles County Police Canine Association." His expertise is "imo" superior to Ed Frawley. 

* Old school, new school. It's school !!!! *

Oops I did it.. 

Every May they give a Police K-9 demonstration. I suggest if your close by, you put this on your calender.

Thank you for your lifetime dedication to protecting the citizens of Los Angeles County, CA 

SGCSG
Dec. 2014


----------



## Lykoz

I would rather reply in whole, rather than break up the argument, for fluidity and better message transferal. Also to not misquote out of context. This is not just a reply to your last message, but rather a more generalised response on our area of disagreement.

Sorry if I was rude in any way.. I posted in a bit of a hurry, and prematurely, and didn't manage to edit the post in the allowable 10 minutes.
I usually try use more tact.

I would firstly like to thank you for your time. My intention is not to be rude.. Infact I find this exchange rather stimulating. Even if we never agree on this one philosophical issue (wild dog transferal to domestic dogs), I believe it will stimulate people to think and question more.

Either way I feel strongly on drawing conclusions about dog training on dogs from other species. Wolves are the closest relatives.. And some will argue that Wolves are not dogs. Its a matter of correct scientific reasoning I have an issue with, and not so much with your conclusions. 

(I believe your conclusions are based on your vast experience on dogs.. And you are finding similarities in Wild dogs... So what you say is inherently correct anyways.. Its just that you are using reverse reasoning in that initial post.. By saying watch the wild dogs: This tells us X about dogs. When in fact what you are really doing is applying your vast knowledge about dogs... And observing similarities in wild dogs.) 

This may be a subtle difference for most, but is of major importance in correct scientific reasoning.. But like you said you are not a trying to be a scientist... 

However I think any professional should base some of what he does on good science...

But I can understand what you are saying....In a Boxing perspective: To put it in a different way A academic would never be able to manage Mike Tyson the same way as "Cus" D'Amato... "Cus" D'Amato was one of the greatest coaches in boxing.. And had no history in any form of Academia.. But we also cant deny.. And Mike Tyson says it too.. The athletes of today (irrelevant that the heavyweight division is in shambles, this is a different discussion altogether) are faster, stronger.. They are on more scientific diets.. They cut weight better... Exercise science has progressed substantially, and the results are undeniable. Professional sports have made huge leaps with correct use of science. And todays managers and trainers rely heavily on the latest scientific principles... Athletes are smashing 100m records and doing things that were impossible some years ago.

Dog training, IPO, World Championships in dogs, even training working dogs is of course years behind compared to professional sport in humans (This is undeniable, weather dog trainers want to accept it or not) There just isnt the same breadth of literature and professionals involved.... And the only people trying to utilise an acedemic style are the all positive dog trainers.. Yet they have a flawed set of hypothesis to begin with.. i.e. they assume abussiveness.. So they ignore entire segments of studies, just to be able support their arguments. They set scientific constraints and don't objectively observe what is happening. I.e. The huge undeniable difference in results between a trainer of your caliber and that of a purely positive trainer, simply because they chose to ignore many of the tools and proven methodology that has been proven to work through passing down of knowledge in practical applications... 

Dog trainers, especially old school guys have incurred knowledge through mentorship and passing on what they learnt, and are less interested in new developments and pushing boundaries. This unfortunately slows things down a bit... What I call 'better trainers - more realistic trainers" like yourself (I acknowledge that fully) have one flaw.. They often refute scientific papers... But never really produce any. I am not saying you have any responsibility to do this... Personally you dont.. I am just saying it would be nice to see a study where all the parameters are not rigged, so that the all positive methodology comes out on top. I am talking about the community of professionals as a whole. As an individual with some academic background (Not in dog training).. I see right through these low quality studies.. Your refutal was a very nice read. Great work. It is however not a replacement for well set scientific study. Disproving the first, with allocated parameters.

(You must understand as an individual trying to sort out facts from fiction, and 100's of different opinions (everyone has an opinion on dog training), seeing things scientifically has a vast amount of benefit in how to approach a subject as diverse as training dogs)... The fact that I can honestly ascertain that based on the things you post, you know what you are talking about... Instead of listening blindly to the highly popularised Zack George (All positive - look him up on youtube... All rubish... yet has more following than even Leerburg, the marketing genius..)

I have made myself as clear as I possibly can on this matter. I will not reply again on the particular topic of wild dogs vs domestic video. If you would like to reply to this post, and have a last word. I will definitely read it and try absorb everything you have to say.

Instead I would rather like to go into learning mode... I would like to pick your brain on what you said about clicker/Marker training... Don't reply to clicker/marker training comment... I wont bring up my questions right now... I have already written too much that you might want to critique. So if you have the time and are willing, I would like to ask some questions, either in this thread or a new thread.

Again thanks for your patience and time...


----------



## Lykoz

In previous post: I talked about Zack George... with thousands of views... And big followings... Here is a video to piss you off a bit 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vR7ObDLUN4

I can say good scientific reasoning brought me to follow people like you instead of him... It would be much easier to just fall in the trap, and follow popular culture like Zack George... In fact these guys with their terrible advice is winning the WAR by a long shot in how to train a dog...

They are probably putting grey hairs on your head... Trying to justify your training methods and people calling you abusive....
When in fact you know how to use the tools correctly... And he has no idea what he is saying...

Its "efficient trainers" flaw that they dont engage more scientifically in combatting these types of trainers... At the end of the day professionals like yourself are the ones being shunned...

As someone from what i gather, that deals in law enformecement.. It probably does not effect you as much...

But the bigger market for you guys is normal pet owners... And these guys are painting you as the enemy and winning..

At the end of the day you cant win the war without good scientific reasoning.. This includes good referenced papers...
i.e. Result driven.. Some of these statistics would be easy for guys like you to come by...
One example is two groups of dogs being trained in your methods vs being trained in all positive methods.. Who performs better in IPO... Or BH.. Or some other agreed upon behavioural intervention.

Which dogs display more fear.. etc.. By how much.. With proper parameters. The dogs ofcourse would enter the groups with no prior training...

Maybe some professional trainer on the forum can issue Zack George a challenge


----------



## LouCastle

Lykoz said:


> Sorry if I was rude in any way.. I posted in a bit of a hurry, and prematurely, and didn't manage to edit the post in the allowable 10 minutes.
> I usually try use more tact.


Apology accepted. I've read that half of the communication that takes place in a face−to−face conversation is in tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language. Since we don't have any of that here, the exchange of ideas is not as clear and sometimes there are misunderstandings. 



Lykoz said:


> I would firstly like to thank you for your time. My intention is not to be rude.. Infact I find this exchange rather stimulating. Even if we never agree on this one philosophical issue (wild dog transferal to domestic dogs), I believe it will stimulate people to think and question more.


You're welcome. I rarely hope to change the mind of the folks who are directly involved in these discussions. But there are many who have not made up their minds and who are on the fence. It's those people that I mainly write for. Along the way, I learn better ways to phrase things so that people can better understand the concepts and theories. Later, when I'm teaching, the words come out better. 



Lykoz said:


> Either way I feel strongly on drawing conclusions about dog training on dogs from other species. Wolves are the closest relatives.. And some will argue that Wolves are not dogs. Its a matter of correct scientific reasoning I have an issue with, and not so much with your conclusions.


I understand that wolves are closer to dogs than are Wild Dogs. But they're all dogs. They have similar instincts, and in the wild, they do similar things. And so inferences can be drawn from one to the other. I know that when domestic dogs go feral they don't form packs and behave in the same way as wild canids do. I think that's because many of the instincts of wild dogs have been bred out of them and so, they're not as efficient hunters. Rather they become scavengers as can be seen from any pack of dogs in any inner city. But the dogs that I work with need to be the most efficient hunters that they can be. They are bred and then selected especially for that kind of work. They have pronounced levels of the drives necessary for that kind of work. And so they are much closer in nature to the wild canids than is the average pet. Along the way, the average pet still has enough instinct left in him, that the techniques described in the article that started this thread work. 



Lykoz said:


> (I believe your conclusions are based on your vast experience on dogs.. And you are finding similarities in Wild dogs... So what you say is inherently correct anyways.. Its just that you are using reverse reasoning in that initial post.. By saying watch the wild dogs: This tells us X about dogs. When in fact what you are really doing is applying your vast knowledge about dogs... And observing similarities in wild dogs.)


I don't think so. I had this theory about interactions between dogs very early in my K−9 training career. As the article here states, I took a chair and a video camera to the zoo and videotaped hours of the interaction between wild canids, mostly wolves and coyotes. Rather than playing with a ball or a tug toy as humans mostly think of playing with their dogs, I saw that dogs at play with each other, were quite physical. _"They run, they bump shoulders, they throw hips into one another."_ When I started interacting with my own dog and those that I trained like this, the dynamic changed dramatically. Before that, I'd been trained, as was in vogue then, to dominate my dog with physical corrections, Alpha Rolls, and physical force. Suddenly I was getting dramatically better results, and I never looked back. When Clicker Training came along I jumped on it, thinking that it was going to improve my work even more. I joined half a dozen lists, read a dozen books and attended some classes put on by the early leaders in that field. I quickly learned the limitations of that sort of work and how dependent much of it was on the quality of the handler. One of the biggest strengths of the system that I use now is that it matters little, if at all, how good is the handler. He's removed to a great extent from the basic work. The System involves selecting the right dog, invoking the drives you want/need and then getting out of the way. 



Lykoz said:


> However I think any professional should base some of what he does on good science...


I think anyone who owns a dog _"should base some of what he does on good science."_ Especially the average pet owner (whatever that means) who is only interested in having a well behaved, obedient, and compliant pet. The basics are quite easy. Reinforce what you want repeated and punish that which you don't. 



Lykoz said:


> But I can understand what you are saying....In a Boxing perspective: To put it in a different way A academic would never be able to manage Mike Tyson the same way as "Cus" D'Amato... "Cus" D'Amato was one of the greatest coaches in boxing.. And had no history in any form of Academia.. But we also cant deny.. And Mike Tyson says it too.. The athletes of today (irrelevant that the heavyweight division is in shambles, this is a different discussion altogether) are faster, stronger.. They are on more scientific diets.. They cut weight better... Exercise science has progressed substantially, and the results are undeniable. Professional sports have made huge leaps with correct use of science. And todays managers and trainers rely heavily on the latest scientific principles... Athletes are smashing 100m records and doing things that were impossible some years ago.


I think, as this related to dog training, you're talking apples and oranges. The science of physical training, especially diet and exercise is completely unrelated to the science of Operant Conditioning, or for that matter a drive training system. They're not making use of the drives of the boxers, they're just making them better athletes. The use of video has improved the techniques to some degree in boxing, but basically little else has changed in the physicality of what's going on. 



Lykoz said:


> Dog training, IPO, World Championships in dogs, even training working dogs is of course years behind compared to professional sport in humans (This is undeniable, weather dog trainers want to accept it or not) There just isnt the same breadth of literature and professionals involved.... And the only people trying to utilise an acedemic style are the all positive dog trainers..


If you're going to say, as I think you are, that _"all positive dog train[ing]"_ exists, we're going to have a very basic and wide disagreement. It is IMPOSSIBLE to train a dog using only reinforcement. Punishment, at some point MUST enter the picture. They are opposite sides of a coin and there aren't any coins with only one side. But perhaps you're using the term differently than I understand it so I'll await your definition before continuing in this vein. 



Lykoz said:


> Yet they have a flawed set of hypothesis to begin with.. i.e. they assume abussiveness.. So they ignore entire segments of studies, just to be able support their arguments. They set scientific constraints and don't objectively observe what is happening. I.e. The huge undeniable difference in results between a trainer of your caliber and that of a purely positive trainer, simply because they chose to ignore many of the tools and proven methodology that has been proven to work through passing down of knowledge in practical applications...


If these things were being done out of a lack of knowledge, I might be able to forgive it. But in most cases it's not. It's a deliberate turn of the head to pretend that things that they don't like, simply don't exist. I've had dozens of arguments with these folks, pointing out their fallacies and over and over again going to see their work, only to wind up pointing out that they don't have reliability in the face of high level distractions. 



Lykoz said:


> Dog trainers, especially old school guys have incurred knowledge through mentorship and passing on what they learnt, and are less interested in new developments and pushing boundaries. This unfortunately slows things down a bit...


Many people subscribe to an ethos that says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 



Lykoz said:


> What I call 'better trainers - more realistic trainers" like yourself (I acknowledge that fully) have one flaw.. They often refute scientific papers... But never really produce any.


I don't think that I have never seen a single scientific paper put out by a professional dog trainer, no matter what theory they subscribe to. The people putting them out are scientists first, and they happen to use dogs in their labs. Often they have an agenda. 



Lykoz said:


> I am not saying you have any responsibility to do this... Personally you dont.. * I am just saying it would be nice to see a study where all the parameters are not rigged, so that the all positive methodology comes out on top. * I am talking about the community of professionals as a whole. As an individual with some academic background (Not in dog training)..


In virtually EVERY study that I'm aware of it's fairly easy to see where the deck is stacked. This should, to anyone with a degree of honesty, completely devalue those studies. 



Lykoz said:


> I see right through these low quality studies.. Your refutal was a very nice read. Great work. It is however not a replacement for well set scientific study. Disproving the first, with allocated parameters.


Thanks again. The problem is that in order to do a scientific study one needs a background in science. I don't know of any professional dog trainers with a background in producing papers for peer review. And even if they exist, I don't know any who are interested in bothering. We're too busy training dogs. 



Lykoz said:


> (You must understand as an individual trying to sort out facts from fiction, and 100's of different opinions (everyone has an opinion on dog training), seeing things scientifically has a vast amount of benefit in how to approach a subject as diverse as training dogs)... The fact that I can honestly ascertain that based on the things you post, you know what you are talking about... Instead of listening blindly to the highly popularised Zack George (All positive - look him up on youtube... All rubish... yet has more following than even Leerburg, the marketing genius..)


Having a following because you are popular does not mean that he is a good dog trainer. There's a dog trainer with a large following who started selling franchises to trainers who he schooled in his system. He's messed up more PSDs (Police Service Dogs) than any other trainer that I know of. Being good at marketing, does not a good trainer make. And so I'm happy for these folks, but I know where their real skills lie. 



Lykoz said:


> Instead I would rather like to go into learning mode... I would like to pick your brain on what you said about clicker/Marker training... Don't reply to clicker/marker training comment... I wont bring up my questions right now... I have already written too much that you might want to critique. So if you have the time and are willing, I would like to ask some questions, either in this thread or a new thread.


I don't think that this thread would be a good place for such a discussion. If you'd like to start that discussion somewhere else, I'll be happy to take part. Please link back to it in this thread or PM me with its location.


----------



## LouCastle

Lykoz said:


> In previous post: I talked about Zack George... with thousands of views... And big followings... Here is a video to piss you off a bit
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vR7ObDLUN4


That doesn't _"piss [me] off."_ I just laugh at those people. His vast ignorance of what he thinks Ecollar training is, "dominating through submission" is just stupid and ignorant. Years ago, such stupidity might have been successful, but today there are too many people who know that it's a lie and that there's more to training a dog than just having a relationship with him. That's vital, but it's not all there is. But such folks who preach nicey nice training will always have a following. As the phrase goes that's widely attributed to PT Barnum (although he probably wasn't the one who said it) "There's a sucker born every minute." 



Lykoz said:


> I can say good scientific reasoning brought me to follow people like you instead of him... It would be much easier to just fall in the trap, and follow popular culture like Zack George... * In fact these guys with their terrible advice is winning the WAR by a long shot in how to train a dog... *


I don't think they're winning the war. They are probably winning some battles. If you read the forums frequented by those folks you REPEATEDLY see threads that begin with something like "He never did this before but ..." and they continue to describe some horror show where their dog got distracted by a squirrel or a deer or something else, and wouldn't recall. Sometimes these dogs get hit by cars. Sometimes they disappear into the woods, never to be found. Sometimes they aren't found for days. Usually they appear hours later, worn out from the chase and they happily obey commands, now that the distraction has disappeared. These folks sometimes realize that what they thought was a trained dog, really isn't unless everything falls properly into place. When that strong distraction shows up, their control goes out the window. I've traveled to see what people insisted on the Net was perfect OB. NOT ONCE did anyone actually show it to me. But they had plenty of excuses, ranging from the test wasn't fair to the sun was in their dog's eyes. I spent so much money doing this that I set up some challenges with a $1,000 reward to people who could demonstrate what they claimed. But there was a catch. (There's always a catch, right?) If they could not support their claims with their dog's behavior, they paid my expenses in getting to their location AND they paid me $1,000 for the training that I'd just given them. When put to these terms in about 15-20 years (differing for the various challenges) NOT ONE PERSON, and the challenges have been seen by thousands, even TRIED to claim the prize. One of them is for 100% reliable OB. Another is for someone who claims that their dog can trail someone who's riding in a car. Another is for someone who can point me to a PSD that has been trained ONLY with positive methods. 



Lykoz said:


> They are probably putting grey hairs on your head... Trying to justify your training methods and people calling you abusive....


My hair started turning grey when I was 16 years old. It started falling out when I was 21. Lol. The longest running argument I've ever been involved in went on for years, and came out of the UK, where there's little knowledge about modern Ecollars OR their use. I got dozens, maybe hundreds of converts and became a much better teacher because of it. 

The "abusive" attack, just rolls off my back, because it says more about the complete arrogance and ignorance of those making the claim, than it does about my training. That sort of argument only works where people don't know how modern Ecollars can be used. When a couple of very brave people (brave enough to go against the majority of members, who often are horrible bullies) speak up, their argument starts to circle the toilet. 



Lykoz said:


> When in fact you know how to use the tools correctly... And he has no idea what he is saying...


Ignorance at this level can only exist in a vacuum. And as the saying goes, "_horror vacui, Nature abhors a vacuum." When facts appear to fill that vacuum, these folks try to carry on their argument, usually resorting to name calling and other ad hominem attacks, and their ignorance is shown. They lose lots of followers. Nowadays, because of enlightenment, they're relatively rare. But there still are some forums where they occur over and over. Zealots (and I include myself in that group) never rest. And there's no shortage of ignorance in this field. On some forums, anyone who can get their dog to sit in the kitchen with a cookie in their hand, thinks that makes them a dog trainer and they have an opinion about how dogs should be trained. One of the horrible things about the Net is that it gives a complete novice the same voice as experts who have been 'doing it' for decades. This is seen on any topic you care to name, not just dog training. 



Lykoz said:



Its "efficient trainers" flaw that they dont engage more scientifically in combatting these types of trainers... At the end of the day professionals like yourself are the ones being shunned...

Click to expand...

LOL. As a retired police officer, I've never been interested in being popular. Dog training has never been a popularity contest. The ONLY thing that counts is "RESULTS, achieved humanely." 



Lykoz said:



As someone from what i gather, that deals in law enformecement.. It probably does not effect you as much...

Click to expand...

Yep. Lol. 



Lykoz said:



But the bigger market for you guys is normal pet owners... And these guys are painting you as the enemy and winning..

Click to expand...

Not in the long run. People discover that having a good relationship by shoving treats at a dog all day just does not work. They discover, often it takes "an incident" to show them that Fido really doesn't recall, if the distraction is strong enough. And when they discover this, they discover that they've been fed a lie. I have more work than I want. I turn away more work than I take these days for pet training and when I do work, I can't believe that people will pay my (very high) rates. But I deliver. Something that these folks don't guarantee. As far as I know, I'm the only dog trainer who offers a MONEY BACK guarantee if the client is not satisfied with the results. Others, offer things like 'unlimited classes' but if their training didn't work the first time, it's probably not going to work just because it's repeated. 



Lykoz said:



At the end of the day you cant win the war without good scientific reasoning.. This includes good referenced papers...

Click to expand...

I don't think that this is part of the war. 



Lykoz said:



i.e. Result driven.. Some of these statistics would be easy for guys like you to come by...
One example is two groups of dogs being trained in your methods vs being trained in all positive methods.. Who performs better in IPO... Or BH.. Or some other agreed upon behavioural intervention.

Click to expand...

The problem is that's not scientific. There are just too many variables and not enough controls and it takes too long to show results. But we do have some evidence of the success of these "scientific methods." It's very rare that anyone who uses these methods exclusively stands on the top of the podium at high level competitions at most types of competition. There are some exceptions of course, but if these methods were as superior as some claim those folks would be DOMINATING at ALL these competitions. But they're not. 



Lykoz said:



Which dogs display more fear.. etc.. By how much.. With proper parameters. The dogs of course would enter the groups with no prior training...

Click to expand...

People who believe in gold at the end of the rainbow, will not be persuaded by scientific studies, trial results, or proof that's shown to them. They prefer to believe in unicorns than what they see with their own "lying eyes." Many of them are making an emotional response, rather than one based on logic, reason, and facts. 



Lykoz said:



Maybe some professional trainer on the forum can issue Zack George a challenge

Click to expand...

I've done that many times. (Not with Mr. George) but with many others. When they're shown to be wrong, they just move the goalposts. This is nearly a religion to some, and few are ever going to stop believing._


----------



## Lykoz

Thanks for the responses....

Do you think it would be possible to start a thread based on this: Obviously i should get your permission before starting a thread based on what you said... 

"When Clicker Training came along I jumped on it, thinking that it was going to improve my work even more. I joined half a dozen lists, read a dozen books and attended some classes put on by the early leaders in that field. I quickly learned the limitations of that sort of work and how dependent much of it was on the quality of the handler. One of the biggest strengths of the system that I use now is that it matters little, if at all, how good is the handler. He's removed to a great extent from the basic work. The System involves selecting the right dog, invoking the drives you want/need and then getting out of the way."

Lou Castle


----------



## Lykoz

I also would like to discuss this in a second thread: I agree very much with what you said here about dogs playing with each other in these primal ways instead of with toys... We should be enganging in this with our own dogs... I always have:

" I had this theory about interactions between dogs very early in my K−9 training career. As the article here states, I took a chair and a video camera to the zoo and videotaped hours of the interaction between wild canids, mostly wolves and coyotes. Rather than playing with a ball or a tug toy as humans mostly think of playing with their dogs, I saw that dogs at play with each other, were quite physical. "They run, they bump shoulders, they throw hips into one another." When I started interacting with my own dog and those that I trained like this, the dynamic changed dramatically. Before that, I'd been trained, as was in vogue then, to dominate my dog with physical corrections, Alpha Rolls, and physical force. Suddenly I was getting dramatically better results, and I never looked back."

LouCastle

Obviously i should get your permission before starting a thread based on what you said.


----------



## LouCastle

Feel free to start threads based on either or both statements. Please post links to them if you do.


----------



## Lykoz

LouCastle said:


> Feel free to start threads based on either or both statements. Please post links to them if you do.


Thanks: Threads are here:

Physical play - Getting primal with dogs.
http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...lay-dogs-getting-primal-dogs.html#post6327546

Clicker/Marker training vs invoking drives.
http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...icker-marker-training-vs-invoking-drives.html


----------



## cammo

lots of fantastic info and thoughts on this older thread, minus the most recent 2 pages that end up being the back and forth debate over differing semantics and terminology.


----------



## EyeDogtor

Resurrecting this thread because Akiva and I came back from puppy class where the alpha roll was taught. About half the pups let their handlers do it. I just let Akiva sit comfortably between my legs. 

I did not attempt it as I've seen my father & father in law try it on my pup a few weeks ago. I was as uncomfortable watching as she was resisting being pinned. 

The trainer recommended I do this every night this week. How should I tell her no thank you?


----------



## Jax08

EyeDogtor said:


> Resurrecting this thread because Akiva and I came back from puppy class where the alpha roll was taught.....
> 
> The trainer recommended I do this every night this week. *How should I tell her no thank you*?


*In such a way to make any construction worker proud and a sailor blush.*


----------



## selzer

EyeDogtor said:


> Resurrecting this thread because Akiva and I came back from puppy class where the alpha roll was taught. About half the pups let their handlers do it. I just let Akiva sit comfortably between my legs.
> 
> I did not attempt it as I've seen my father & father in law try it on my pup a few weeks ago. I was as uncomfortable watching as she was resisting being pinned.
> 
> The trainer recommended I do this every night this week. How should I tell her no thank you?


A good trainer is like your partner that works with you to better your dog's behavior, provide advice so you can teach him what he needs to know, just like a good vet is like your partner that works with you to better your pup's health and provide needed advice. At the end of the day, you are responsible for your dog's health and behavior. They give you options, pros and cons, advice, suggestions, but you have the final decision, and you have to live with the consequences, they do not. 

I have a GREAT trainer, but I do not do everything she has the class do. Some of it seems like teasing to me, and I don't play those games with my dogs. I tend not to say a whole lot during the class if I am not going to do something, I just do my own thing or let the pup sit between my legs as you said. Sometimes it is helpful to practice a quiet stationary exorcise while the others do their thing, just don't draw attention to yourself. 

2 weeks ago we were teaching, LEAVE IT. She handed everyone a big milkbone dog biscuit. I came in late so I did not get one. They were to put it on the ground and then tell the dog to LEAVE IT. Praise and treat from the pocket when they did. When I teach LEAVE IT, I never let the dog have what I told them to leave. So I thought about it, and instead of a treat, I threw my inhaler on the floor. I told her to LEAVE IT. she did, praise and treat. The instructor asked if I wanted a biscuit and I said, "No, when I train this, I do not let the dog have it." She said, she was going to tell the other folks to put it in their pocket and give it to the dogs later. 

The thing with that though, I have seen a 5 week old puppy find a chicken bone in the yard. I snagged the pup, got the bone and put him in his play yard. I got the mess out of the yard, and 8 hours later. I released the pups to bring them back inside. That puppy made a bee-line to that spot where he found the bone. These dogs CAN remember longer than a couple of seconds, especially if it is rewarding. So you are teaching them, that sometimes something you want them to leave is a very tasty treat. Whatever. 

The thing is, you don't have to do everything your vet says. You do not have to do everything your trainer says. For some things, I would find a new vet or a new trainer. Alpha rolls are old school. With young puppies, they may safely give the pup the impression that you are bigger and stronger and the boss. And that may be carried forward later in life. Probably will with a lot of dogs. There must be success or it would be so prevalent. If you are ok with your relationship being hinged on that premise than following the trainer's advice.... Most of us, and it sounds like you are included in this, want a different kind of relationship with our dog. 

I wouldn't tell her anything unless she asks, and if she does ask, just say, "We're not going to do that." If she persists, she gets what's coming: "because it is a stupid, outdated technique that can get your face bit with the right dog and with the wrong dog will cow way beyond any reasonable reason to do so."


----------



## EyeDogtor

@selzer Good story about the inhaler. I'll follow that advice and try not to draw attention by doing something different. I know my trainer will ask since it's a small class, so I was thinking of just coming in early to tell her that it is a no-go in our house and not be THAT GUY undermining her in front of everyone.

One of her arguments was that she said it let's you handle the dog any which way you need for the future. But I can carry Akiva, touch her toes and tail, and the vet/techs already do whatever they need on her without a flinch. The other argument was it calms them down. 
Well, petting Akiva seems to do that, too. 

@Jax08 Thank you lol. Hopefully I won't have to get to that point.


----------



## Steve Strom

You have your answer right there. Tell the trainer you can already handle your dog any which way you need and ask her to show you something that actually is useful, like a motivational down because you don't want to pick stupid fights with your dog.


----------



## Castlemaid

My philosophy with my GSD was that I never wanted to do anything that would destroy his trust in me. Sure, easy to alpha roll and hold down a puppy and feel all powerful, but try it with a 90 lb SchH trained Working Line full grown GSD. I too could get Gryffon to do anything, as long as I was no-nonsense and gently insistent, but if he sensed that I was going to use force or fight him, his whole demeanor changed, and I knew he would win. 

Like one knowledgeable person told me: "With these dogs, once you start a fight, your MUST win, but the only way you will win is if you take a two-by-four to them, and that is not were we want to be going with our dogs".


----------



## Sabis mom

@EyeDogtor I have two questions, one for you and one for your trainer.


For you, why are you going to this trainer who sounds sadly behind the times?


For your trainer, who do you want watching your back, the dog you bullied and forced into submission or the dog that thinks you are the sun, moon and stars?


I was a hand on a large cattle ranch in Wyoming. Lots of the guys laughed at the way I treated my horses. We were out rounding up for the sale and one of the guys started on me so I asked him, when you get caught in a stampede, what do you want under you? The horse you broke or the horse you trained? 


Dogs are no different. When it comes to crunch time one is going to fight to save you, one is going to save himself. Training done by force will never hold in a real struggle.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

EyeDogtor said:


> Resurrecting this thread because Akiva and I came back from puppy class where the alpha roll was taught.


Was this described as an alpha roll? Was the intent to show that you're the alpha? Or is it possible that the exercise was to desensitize the puppy to being handled and gentle restraint such as during a veterinary exam? 

The first is bad, the second is not. We did handling desensitization exercises in the puppy classes I took with Dena, Keefer, and Halo, teaching them to be calm and relaxed while we cradled them in our laps and touched various parts of their bodies, like ears, feet, tail, muzzle, and bellies. This was to be a positive experience for the puppies, not a show of dominance. https://www.dogstardaily.com/training/handling-gentling


----------



## EyeDogtor

@Sabis mom
Initially, I signed up for her because of the advertised "positive" approach and we needed the controlled puppy socialization and training with distractions aspects. Three weeks in now, and this thing just came up.
@Cassidy's Mom 
The trainer did not use the term alpha roll, but she said the primary intent was to show dominance. To her credit, she said to do it when your puppy is calm (mine is calm only when asleep). It was easy for her to do on her own labrador of course, but when I wasn't doing it she tried to demonstrate on Akiva and straddled her tightly and pinched her muzzle shut. Whimpering and wiggling ensued. She couldn't get her calm enough to lay her down. So maybe it's not the alpha roll, but in the same line imho.

The secondary and tertiary purposes she mentioned are the desensitization and calming effect. I've been working on that since day one. I haven't tried cradling her like in the photo though--I will try it.


----------



## selzer

I currently have 15 GSDs that range in age from 4 months to 12.8 years. Most of them were born here, but some have not, or have lived elsewhere for a while. I have never alpha rolled any of them, nor have I let anyone else do that when they were my dogs. For the couple that I did not have the entire time, I cannot be 100% certain that it did not happen there. But evenso, I can take any of them anywhere, handle any of them anywhere. Any of them will allow a vet or vet tech to take blood or stick a scary object down a sore ear if I am there and am allowing it. I don't know that alpha rolling would make this worse, but I know it can't make it better for my dogs.


----------



## wm97

*Let's dump the dominance idea*

I always wondered where people find dogs that are so stupid that the dog thinks it can dominate its human. Further, I wonder what the dog could possibly hope to gain by dominating.

Look at it from their perspective. You get good food every day, you get back rubs and treats ten times a day, and any time you get near your human they tell you that you are the best dog that ever walked Planet Earth. In return, your only duty is to tell them when someone comes to the door. What are you going to gain by dominating that human?

For those who want the science, look up the research of Dr. James Bradshaw. He concluded that there is no evidence that dominance is a character trait of individual dogs. None. Any "evidence" that is out there is correctly classed as "confirmation bias". People interpret things the way they want to interpret them.

I have raised lots of dogs over the last 70 years. My method of training is what you might call the "boy and his dog" approach. That is, I stay as physically close to them as I can for the first year. Physical contact all day long, with an hour on the floor every morning where we all do a puppy pile. During those times, I tell them what I like and don't like just by the way we play together.

If you look up the latest research on dog play, you will find that dogs playing together could be described as a "dance". If you slow the motion down, you will see that they are sending all kinds of signals back and forth to each other about which way they are going to jump next. They learn to understand their peers just by watching them and interacting with them. They know what to do next because they understand the signals, just like you understand facial expressions when you talk to someone. The same thing happens if a human is in the puppy pile. The puppies will try to bite the human. All you have to do is say "Ow! No bites!" and indicate your displeasure. They know that playing depends on not ticking off the ones you are playing with, so they will get the idea fairly quickly. No dominance is required. They will comply just because they like playing with you. By the time we get to actual training, they already think of it as play.

For those who might think that this result is only because I was dealing with small, non-aggressive dogs -- most of my dogs have been GSDs of 150 pounds plus. That is GSDs -- the breed known for being so aggressive that your insurance company might drop your homeowners insurance if you have one. In the puppy pile, I may have 350 pounds of dog standing over me, ready to rip my throat out if they thought it was a good idea. None of them have ever been confused about who is boss. They will stop what they are doing and comply with my wishes if I make any sign at all. By the time they are adults, most of my dogs will respond to single finger commands to do things that they weren't even formally taught. They just learned to read me and what I want.

A lot of this dominance stuff comes from Leerburg. This is the guy who will tell you that, if your dog asks to be petted, they are trying to dominate you, so don't allow it. Never mind that the reason you pet your dog is because it feels good to you, and also feels good to him. Forget the simple pleasure of being close to someone you deeply love. Instead, the dog thinks that they can dominate the human who is bigger, smarter, and knows how to operate a can opener. BS.

Let's also recognize that dogs don't act like wolves. If they did, you would kill them the first day. They have recently concluded that dogs have socialization genes that are not found in wolves. Dogs are far more agreeable than wolves. One example of the difference -- if they give a wolf a problem that the wolf can't solve, the wolf will sit there and struggle with it all day. Given the same problem, the dog will try a few times and then sit down and wait for his human to help him. The dog knows that the relationship is a partnership and that the partners have different roles. They are quite happy with their role so you don't have to worry about them stealing the car and running off in defiance.


----------

