Does this really make a difference?

[Sarah83]

Rightly or wrongly I don't waste time and energy worrying about whether or not I'm being a leader. I've been there, done that, bought the tshirt with looking at my relationship with my dog that way and I didn't like what it got me. I have a good relationship with my dog and he's happy, well cared for and his training is coming along really well, do I really need to worry about whether he sees me as the leader/alpha/dominant/insert word of choice?

[jacksdad]

I agree with Ari and Judy.

To me being my dogs leader mean protecting them.
In a wolf pack the alpha pair protects and keeps their family together.

Being a leader mean just this to me. I don't care if my dog sees is as omg shes my leader or not. My dogs trust me because I've never allowed them to become hurt. I provide them food. Shelter, love, and anything else they need.

I don't use the I'm a leader thing in a dominance way. I use it to describe how i feel.

And that is ok. I don't think your wrong for it. And if your not using it to justify actions that harm your dog.....it's not hurting anything to think of your self as your dog's leader.

But both Sarah and Clair touch in part on the points I am coming up against and thinking...hummm, this isn't very helpful/useful in relation to addressing my dogs behavior modification needs, or training needs or simple life needs.

I will keep working on this and get back to you all.

[Sarah83]

And that is ok. I don't think your wrong for it. And if your not using it to justify actions that harm your dog.....it's not hurting anything to think of your self as your dog's leader.

But both Sarah and Clair touch in part on the points I am coming up against and thinking...hummm, this isn't very helpful/useful in relation to addressing my dogs behavior modification needs, or training needs or simple life needs.

I will keep working on this and get back to you all.

I suppose it depends on what you view being a leader to mean as to whether it's helpful in addressing a dogs needs. I think teaching dogs what you expect, setting boundaries and enforcing the rules, all of which could well come under the leadership banner, are extremely important. But to most people being a leader means the sort of stuff you see on a certain dog "training" show and I really do believe that that type of thinking is detrimental to living with any dog. And to the humans too!

As I say, I just don't tend to think of my relationship with my dog in terms of leadership, it just is what it is. He clearly finds working with me rewarding as he will ask to work. But then some would say that by trying to initiate a training session he's asserting his dominance while I just see it as him enjoying interacting with me and asking if we can do it some more.

I think I'm rambling now aren't I?

[bendog]

I dont think leadership is a bad concept. Not that anyone here does but too many people "baby" their dogs, and this is as damaging as punishment in some ways. So explaining dog ownership as a parenting role could lead to confusion just as leadership does. I do see the points - I treat my dogs and my three year old nephews pretty much the same.

Basically i do agree with Sarah. As humans we want to put mushy terms on things like pack leader or parent because we love our dogs and we want to think they love us too. But really it's just a mutually beneficial relationship. We are rewarded with well behaved dogs, they are rewarded with food an attention and things to do.

There are two ways to get what we want - the positive way or the shock collar, punishment, force way. Both will work. But dogs attitude in both is different. So really positive training is more of a good cop bad cop situation. Do you want your dog to behave because you have taught him good things happen if he is good, or do you want him behaving because he is scared of you? Some people won't care - they just want the dog to behave. Others hopefully want to build up a relationship with their dog to get the full benefits out of dog ownership and the dog will be happier too.

Many many people are convinced that walking through doors first, eating first etc are essential. We may laugh and think its a bit daft, and maybe it is, but those things alone aren't harming the dog either.

[lucyandbella]

Jacksdad, you also mentioned that possibly parenting is a way to describe our relationship with dogs.
Just to add to the discussion, if we look at raising dogs in terms of parenting there are interesting correlations to parenting styles we use on children, and training methods we use on dogs. When I was studying child development in school they taught us that there are three parenting styles people use. The first is authoritarian where parents demand respect from their children and, in general, rule with an iron fist and punish for any rule broken. The next is permissive (basically lack of parenting), where parents set no boundaries and simply let their kids do anything they want. The last is authoritative, where there are boundaries and rules given, but in a fair way and these parents allow children choice. The first two styles are considered bad ways to raise children; the last is believed to be the best way that will lead to children that are the most capable and have the best self image. What is interesting is the dominating style of parenting (authoritarian) can lead to children who grow up to be anxious and more prone to reacting poorly to stressful situations or when there is conflict (sound familiar?).

How does this relate to dogs? I see the dominance way of training in authoritarian style, and then permissive is those owners that do no training and have dogs that run crazy. The last parenting style I see as positive training. Although I don’t see myself as my dogs “mom” or my dogs as my kids (nothing against people who do) I think the term parenting can relate to our relationship with dogs. Also if we think of parents, can they not be considered a leader? I find it very interesting that the three parenting styles relate so closely with how we raise dogs as well. Or maybe I was bored in child development class so tried desperately to relate the lesson to dogs to add interest…
But this can also explain why some use dominating styles of training. So maybe these people are not using this style because a certain TV star said it’s the only way, or because they are reading old books, maybe it’s just the way the feel comfortable raising a dog. No matter the research they do, they naturally tend to “parent” in a certain way? To change style would take a long time I think, not as simple as reading a book, or watching Victoria’s show and buying a clicker.

[JudyN]

There are two ways to get what we want - the positive way or the shock collar, punishment, force way. Both will work. But dogs attitude in both is different. So really positive training is more of a good cop bad cop situation. Do you want your dog to behave because you have taught him good things happen if he is good, or do you want him behaving because he is scared of you? Some people won't care - they just want the dog to behave. Others hopefully want to build up a relationship with their dog to get the full benefits out of dog ownership and the dog will be happier too.

I think we have to be careful not to be too black and white, though. There is a continuum, and I wonder if the regulars on this forum are so dedicated to positive training because it's what has worked for our dogs when other methods haven't worked so well. There is the concept of 'good enough parenting' and maybe we have to accept that there can be 'good enough dog training', too.

I'm thinking of a friend who has a pup of something like 6 months old. In the past she has used a firm 'no' when he tried to take things he shouldn't have, and this worked well. The other day he took a book off a side table, which surprised her, and she yelled at him, causing him to drop it. It's not something I'd advocate, but she says that this puppy has been 'naughty' twice in his life. He's a calm dog, and they have a great relationship. He's a fast learner and really wants to please, not out of fear but out of his natural tendency. I think it would be far to purist to tell her that this was the wrong way to handle it. It's possible to be almost completely positive but use the occasional aversive that seems to work for your dog (as long as you've already got a relationship where your dog trusts you). With most dogs you can get away with this, but not with all. After all, what parent has never yelled at their children at times?

The difficulty is that many owners won't recognise when their dog isn't as secure as he could be, and won't realise that their use of aversives is causing the issues they want to fix.

[jacksdad]

lucyandbella, while I did suggest that "parent" might be a better "catch all" label than leader, don't forget I also said that label to has it's own issues as well. you touch on some of them. Not the least is people slipping into thinking their dog is a 4 legged human child with fur. And while I may suggest that label better describes our role than leader, I am not sure the "baggage" that comes with it helps anymore than saying we are our dog's leaders.

People jump to the leader label in part because we tell our dogs what to do, so there for we must be their leader. but there is more to being the leader than just bossing someone around. And actually much of what we do in order to keep our dogs alive, care for, protect, train, enter act with etc...fits better with "parent" than leader as a "catch all" label.

My goal and reason for putting effort to this even though I don't find it all that important, interesting yes, important no...is to find a way to help free people from unnecessary "stuff" when it comes to their dogs.

lots of great contributions and thoughts...much to think about.

[JudyN]

I've been thinking about how we relate to other animals in comparison to dogs. Cats can be trained to some extent, but we don't think about dominating them, or being their leader. We take the approach of 'what works'. At an extreme, if you attempted to live with a lion or tiger or other big cat people would understand if you didn't try to 'dominate' the animal but used a method that was known to work (not that I imagine you could make a pet of a lion or tiger!). So the message should be not 'how to be your dog's leader/boss' but 'what works'. That's all that matters, really. 'What works' might well involve not leaving food out, not letting the dog share the sofa, avoiding other dogs, whatever. It is not about being able to impose our will on the dog, though it makes life easier if the dog will do what we ask, but having a dog who responds to every command because he's scared of the consequences is not big and it's not clever

[emmabeth]

I don't like the word leader because of the connotations it now has, not because of what the word actually means.

I prefer team captain, teacher, mentor, parent, all rolled into one, If I had to pick one word, perhaps Guide or Protector?

Just to pick up Judy's point about doing 'what works'. you even have to qualify THAT, because for some people, they will consider a method to have worked despite the costs - the farmer considers it works to shoot the dog who chases sheep - from HIS point of view, it does, he is right, but then, the life of the dog if it isn't his dog, is not a consideration in the 'cost benefit analysis'.

So we need to do what works - at a cost we are willing to pay.

I am not willing to pay the price of unwanted fall out, fear, pain, or damage to my relationship with my dog. I am willing to pay the cost of time, effort, rewards and sensible expectations alongside careful management.

It might sound obvious to people who came straight to positive training, but there are people who would NOT like to live with a dog who is always looking for ways to earn rewards - there are people who want a dog that does its job and does nothing else, to them the 'cost' of a miserable dog, or a dog who doesn't trust them might not be anywhere near so obvious!

[Sarah83]

It might sound obvious to people who came straight to positive training, but there are people who would NOT like to live with a dog who is always looking for ways to earn rewards - there are people who want a dog that does its job and does nothing else, to them the 'cost' of a miserable dog, or a dog who doesn't trust them might not be anywhere near so obvious!

Sadly I think there are a hell of a lot of people who don't want to live with a dog who looks for ways to earn rewards. Most people I know want a dog who's there to do something with when they want to be bothered and content to lie in a corner and do nothing when they don't want to be bothered.

Oh and I've been told by several people that I should be stamping out rather than encouraging Spens enthusiasm and the slightly dramatic way he follows commands. Apparently the fact he drops like a stone when given the down command and hurtles back to me as fast as his legs can carry him when I call him isn't good, he should be performing these tasks much more calmly and slowly than he does The thought of punishing Spencers enthusiasm, extinguishing the light in his eyes, wiping his silly doggy grin off his face...well that fills me with horror to be honest. Especially when it comes to doing it simply because he's enthusiastic about working with me! Where do people get ideas like this??

[Wilkie]

.

[Wilkie]

It might sound obvious to people who came straight to positive training, but there are people who would NOT like to live with a dog who is always looking for ways to earn rewards - there are people who want a dog that does its job and does nothing else, to them the 'cost' of a miserable dog, or a dog who doesn't trust them might not be anywhere near so obvious!

Sadly I think there are a hell of a lot of people who don't want to live with a dog who looks for ways to earn rewards. Most people I know want a dog who's there to do something with when they want to be bothered and content to lie in a corner and do nothing when they don't want to be bothered.

Oh and I've been told by several people that I should be stamping out rather than encouraging Spens enthusiasm and the slightly dramatic way he follows commands. Apparently the fact he drops like a stone when given the down command and hurtles back to me as fast as his legs can carry him when I call him isn't good, he should be performing these tasks much more calmly and slowly than he does The thought of punishing Spencers enthusiasm, extinguishing the light in his eyes, wiping his silly doggy grin off his face...well that fills me with horror to be honest. Especially when it comes to doing it simply because he's enthusiastic about working with me! Where do people get ideas like this??

I know someone who has stuffed animal dogs because she said that they don't do anything, they don't make noise, they don't have to go to the bathroom and they don't bother her. I think that's what some folks look for in animals. They want the luxury of bragging about the animal, but they want a statue that does nothing at the same time. They couldn't be bothered with caring for others, but they think it's pretty. I think they have a torn, warped way of thinking and the animal loses in the long run. I also know someone who thinks that all animals are good for is doing specific jobs and that's it. Dogs aren't allowed to have fun or be happy, they were meant to work whether they liked it or not, in his mind. Also, some people wish life were perfect where everyone listened and did things in a perfect, stiff, and serious way. I think that mindset gets dumped on animals. Cats are thought of a indepent, lazy and stupid and therefore should be treated as such. Dogs are thought of as working dogs until they're dried up and dead. If they act in such a manner that is the complete opposite of that, the dogs are treated like they're stupid, lazy and useless.

[Wilkie]

lucyandbella, while I did suggest that "parent" might be a better "catch all" label than leader, don't forget I also said that label to has it's own issues as well. you touch on some of them. Not the least is people slipping into thinking their dog is a 4 legged human child with fur. And while I may suggest that label better describes our role than leader, I am not sure the "baggage" that comes with it helps anymore than saying we are our dog's leaders.

People jump to the leader label in part because we tell our dogs what to do, so there for we must be their leader. but there is more to being the leader than just bossing someone around. And actually much of what we do in order to keep our dogs alive, care for, protect, train, enter act with etc...fits better with "parent" than leader as a "catch all" label.

My goal and reason for putting effort to this even though I don't find it all that important, interesting yes, important no...is to find a way to help free people from unnecessary "stuff" when it comes to their dogs.

lots of great contributions and thoughts...much to think about.

Bossing people or animals around doesn't qualify anyone as a leader. Positive training is leading, positive parenting is leading. Leading means guiding. You're guiding someone to safety (you're leading someone) or you're leading your dog to something constructive rather than letting them run astray to something harmful. You have their best interest in mind. You love them and want to protect them and you'll lead them because you have the confidence and knowledge to do so.

I don't like the word "pack" when talking about animals because it has such a harsh meaning and it symbolizes the old way of how animals were perceived to be. We now know that a lot of what scientists and researchers lead us to believe about animals and families are false. That's why we had to go back and re-evaluate and weed out the lies in the first place. There is no such thing as pack leadership. Just like the pecking order in birds. Both are caused by human beings wanting to scientifically analyze everything. Humans try way too hard to understand and know everything and when we can’t figure it out, we make something up. Of course we end up paying for it later with horrible consequences. Animals aren't as vicious and careless as people think and they are actually a whole lot less animalistic than humans are.

[chay]

There is no such thing as pack leadership. Just like the pecking order in birds. Both are caused by human beings wanting to scientifically analyze everything. Humans try way too hard to understand and know everything and when we can’t figure it out, we make something up. Of course we end up paying for it later with horrible consequences.

okay, i've just got to jump in here in defense of the scientific method :p

the dog/wolfpack theory results weren't "made up" - they were wrongly interpreted. when more evidence presented itself from later, more rigorous study, the very author of that study modified his opinion in light of the new data (as all good scientists should).

i'm not arguing the damage done by this idea is still prevalent and pervasive today as it was in the 80's, but i don't believe it was "made up" just because we wanted a theory for dogs and couldnt find one.

[jacksdad]

If your referring to Mech, he didn't do the initial studies that came up with the incorrect "dominance" definition/explanation/model. Though he does takes some responsibility for perpetuation of it. And yes, he later adjusted his thinking based on additional study and improved understanding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNtFgdwTsbU

I do agree that there wasn't anything being made up in terms of the actual science studies that lead to "dominance theory" in dog training. It absolutely appears to have been a case of misinterpreting what was observed. something was observed, than an attempted was made to explain what was observed. the conclusions turned out to be wrong.