conflicting advice

[john333]

Hi, I'm a new member of this forum. I came here because I am planning on bringing a dog home soon even though I have never owned one before (other than during childhood). Anyways, before I get a dog I was trying to learn about dogs and I've found in the training world several different schools. I've narrowed it down to those who focus on positive reinforcement, don't physically correct their dogs, and don't believe that dogs are pack animals, AND those who believe dogs are pack animals and need a pack leader who does lots of alpha behaviors and also training using at least some physical corrections. (That's my understanding).
When I first began looking for information online, I found one website (I can tell you which if you want to know in a PM, but I think it is best not to mention the name publicly on this post) that was all about understanding dogs in a pack animal sense and how you had to be their pack leader (and they used corrections- but they also mixed in some positive reinforcement in some areas of training). They had lots of articles on that so I read them all and I believed it. Some of the things talked about were how you had to make your dog heel on leash, always go through doors / gates ahead of them, make sure they respond to your commands, and lots of other things. They also had a section about them raising their own dogs (and they had also worked with neighbors and friends dogs over the years but dog training wasn't their job) and it seemed like their dogs were very well behaved and trustworthy dogs. The way their dogs seemed was really appealing to me- the dogs weren't perfect (I know no dog is perfect, but what I mean is that some highly trained dogs are better behaved than them) but they are very well behaved and good with most everyone.

Another thing that struck me was that they had (years ago, when they more were newbie dog owners) a couple of dogs that fought each other. From their post, one day after teaching their dogs to heel on the leash and showing them leadership, they got a lot better, and with continued corrections at crucial times in the future they could coexist very peacefully. Now granted, I know now that teaching the dog to heel on the leash and likely other "leadership" would have been physically correcting and intimidating the dog so logically I can believe that is the cause, however, the so quick turn around is surprising and, because this was the first school of thought I read into and therefore *want* to believe it it leads me to doubts that the leadership was not at least part of the cause.
Granted, when I look at some of the pictures or videos of them training their dogs, now that I know what calming signals are I can often observe them in the training sessions. However, their overall relationship with the dog and how they take the dog on so many outings, and how the dogs enjoy petting, almost makes me want to second guess myself.

Another example is how they talked about when one new dog of theirs was behaving really rowdy in play one of their stable minded dogs rolled that dog over on his back and held him down. They said it was because their stable minded dog could sense how dominant the other dog was getting and was correcting it to teach it its place (they also said that the dog who did the correcting was not trying to dominate the new dog and out rank it, but simply that it was trying to get the dog to be submissive, lower than the humans, as the other dogs in the house are). What was really going on here do you think?

Also, they state that all dogs, if given a strong pack leader and responsible dog owner, will be able to be rehabilitated so that even previously scared or aggressive ones are no longer that way

Now that I've been reading about it in several locations I've found that it seems like the most educated trainers are the ones who know what they are talking about and agree that dogs aren't really pack animals like some people say, and that corrections aren't the best way to go, and can be risky and do cause a dog more stress. So logically I am thinking that this makes more sense and is probably right. But for some reason I am still thinking about that first website I went to and how I was sure that was what I should do- and even though from further research it seems like that is wrong, I still *feel* like it is right. Maybe cause it's the first thing I learned? So let me know what you think about the above situations.
So in other words, any general info is fine, but specifically maybe touch on

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

[Shalista]

Just to clarify your question:

You read about positive training and intellectually it makes sense to you.
But you saw a website with someone who uses pack theory and their dogs seem to be great despite it. Why is this the case?

If that's the core of your question I'm not qualified to answer but I'm very curious to see the response myself. It's something I've wondered for awhile to.

[Nettle]

"Wastage".

Reward-based training works for all dogs. Bullying (which is what pack/dominance/alpha really is) will work for some breed types.

You will notice that whenever dominance trainers show their successes, they are usually limited to herding dogs or the more placid-natured gundog types. Even so, they will have many failures behind them.

My mantra is "show me your well-trained basset hound - show me your well-trained saluki - then I'll respect you".

[doglover33]

Just to clarify your question:

You read about positive training and intellectually it makes sense to you.
But you saw a website with someone who uses pack theory and their dogs seem to be great despite it. Why is this the case?

If that's the core of your question I'm not qualified to answer but I'm very curious to see the response myself. It's something I've wondered for awhile to.

Yes, that's how I felt when I first started too. I'm more confident in positive training now.

[john333]

Just to clarify your question:

You read about positive training and intellectually it makes sense to you.
But you saw a website with someone who uses pack theory and their dogs seem to be great despite it. Why is this the case?

If that's the core of your question I'm not qualified to answer but I'm very curious to see the response myself. It's something I've wondered for awhile to.

Yeah, that is what I'm asking. Logically I know it is not the best way to train or treat a dog, but since it is the first thing I "knew" (read about and familiarized myself with it and believed it) it's kind of hard to get it out of my head.
Thanks.

[JudyN]

I think it's because most of us are control freaks at some level. It's so easy to think 'If I say "sit" you're going to darn well sit because I SAY SO!!!' And if the dog is dozing in the sunny spot on the sofa and we want him to get down, we worry that if he won't do as asked straight away (and who can blame him?) then we are weak, he is strong, and before long he'll be dictating all the house rules. And sooner or later, someone will tell us that it's because he doesn't see us as pack leaders, reinforcing our feeling of weakness. And as that other person is convinced he is pack leader of his dogs, that makes him stronger than us...

And it follows that if firmly commanding the dog off the sofa doesn't work, then we have to shout at him, and if that doesn't work we need to drag him off and then (surprise surprise) we get bitten. It would have been so much easier to go to the kitchen, open and close the fridge door and call him, and then do some fun 'on and off the sofa' training.

I know several people who end up sitting on the floor or the dog bed because their dogs have taken up all the sofa space and are comfy, but they can still get those dogs to do what they want when they want them to. It helps to be a bit of a hippy, I feel

A real danger of the 'pack leader' approach and using corrections is that you tend to be suppressing what the dog wants to do but not changing his underlying emotions. He's doing what you ask because he fears the correction. And if he's suppressing his urges then you're unlikely to know how he's feeling. I want my dog to be able to tell me how he feels, I want him to ask me if we can walk the other way because the dustbin lorry is scary. I even want him to tell me that no, we really shouldn't go into the vet's consulting room because the vet sticks needles in him. In this case I overrule him - positive training doesn't mean that you can't overrule your dog when you need to. In fact I think he goes along with what I say precisely because he knows I have listened to him and considered his views.

[Shalista]

I do think that a lot of what bax does for me he does because "Oh boy, oh boy, let's play a game! it's a game right? i bet it's a game!" which is an attitude i'd much rather then have then "oh no... it's her again.... she's going to yell at me isn't she?"

[mansbestfriend]

Hi john333. I've was on all sides of the fence in the early days RE dog behaviour theory, and training.

Pack type theory and aversive meathods tend to dumb dogs' behaviour down and keep it there, typically subordinate to a master (human). Different dogs and breeds have different talents and skills. Some dogs can tolerate those old school meathods.

Reward-based, Positive Reinforcement based, modern and better understanding of dog behaviour supports the training of dogs with rewards and reinforcement, and without force, intimidation, pain, or discomfort.

I've come across another 'side of the fence' that does discourage the use of pain and discomfort, and understands the importance of calming/appeasement/communication signals, but still encourages mental intimidation, pack theory, and viewing dogs as a subordinate.

Often we believe what we want to believe. I try to do what's in my dogs' best interest, and that means the modern, scientifically-researched understanding of behaviour (partly: individuals have individual associations within a group, not pack theory and strict hierarchy), and use of Positive Reinforcement for training. Science can't explain EVERYTHING, but it's getting closer all the time.