Latest Blog on the;

The Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors

A message that still doesn't seem to be getting through :O(

> A message that still doesn't seem to be getting through

It might filter better if we all put a link to this on our websites..

Don't know where the option has gone but you used to be able to tweet threads, maybe something like that would work with this kind of topic to keep spreading the word?

The option to 'Tweet this Thread' is still there...right at the bottom of the page.  Unfortunately the adverts are above it and kind of draw attention away from it.

I'm not on Twitter but perhaps some members who are could use the facility

Great article HuskyGal.

Very timely - just sent the link to that and the previous one flagged up on here - why won't dominance die - to my d-i-l.  She and my son were very cross today when Meg snapped (bit I got told but she clearly hadn't) at their son - one year old who was allowed too close to Meg who was sitting watching my husband for a biscuit.  Whether the baby stepped on Meg's tail or not is not clear but my d-i-l told me that Meg was trying to be too dominant - and she needed putting down into her place.  The both shouted bad dog while I quietly told Meg to go out of the room away from the children.  My husband was wrong to have food with a food guarder near the children and my family were wrong to let the child go too close to the dog when she was sitting as good as gold waiting for her reward.  She was either warning the child away or nervous that the child would hurt her - difficult to tell with my dog but being shouted at only reinforces the fact that children bring bad things as this article shows. 

Thanks for that -bookmarked in my ever growing collection of similar articles. :)

I've stuck the link on my Facebook page. I have recently met up with an old school friend who lives nearby, and who is *horror of horrors* a CM fanatic. I am having to keep trap firmly shut. Very disappointed as she is not an unintelligent person by any means, but won't hear a word said against the man. At least her rescue dog is so naturally well-behaved she will never need to try any 'whispering' on it.... I should be grateful for small mercies.

I wish the dominance thing would hurry up and die. I can't believe the amount of well meaning people (mainly strangers) who spout on about it now.

I was at a family bbq recently, when my Aunt, who's never owned a dog in her life, told my Husband the he'd have to fight our 8 mnth old Leo soon to let her know who's boss!!!

I was of the Barbara Woodhouse generation, yet when (off my own bat) I wanted to train my family's new puppy (I was 16) I went to the library and got a good book: The Obedient Dog by John Holmes, which was the best of its time, although not up to today's standards. A few years later I joined a training club and while it was all 'jerk & choke' I never once heard the word 'dominance'.

In fact when I started training my current dog a few years ago (positive reward based!) I didn't hear the D word then either. It's crept up on us thanks to a certain TV trainer and seems now enshrined in our culture re dogs. I find that disgusting, worrying and scary all at once. It's going to take years to shed this TV trainer's effect of dragging the general public's understanding of dog training back into the dark ages, complete with all its medieval torture implements. I really thought things had moved on...

Lol, I'd love to try and wrestle a Leonberger, I bet the leo wouldn't even notice...

> certain TV trainer

Oh he wasn't the only one.  When I first read a certain book which based all it's theory around the dog being part of a pack like a wolf I thought I had dog training sussed!  Eat before your dog, never let your dog go through a door before you etc - do all these things and your dog will know who is boss!  Dog training never sounded simpler!  Now I look at my complicated little dog and know that sometimes she is busy manipulating me into doing what she wants - not being dominant - just being her bossy little self - just like now when she wants a play with her tuggy toy - I can hear a little sigh come from the utility room where she is waiting!  She always has extra energy to burn off when she comes back in from a walk.  Oh well off to play tuggy! 

That reminds me of another of these missives that came from the dominance theory - tuggy is not a good game to play with your dog - and never let them WIN - otherwise they will think they are the boss!!!   Goodness playing with your dog helps to strengthen the bond and get the dog to want to do more for you. 

My pup and the setter play tuggy together while my bernese (the oldest) looks on in disdain :-) . The setter will push the toy into the pups face to get her to grab it then the two of them tug for all they are worth. Often the setter will just lie down and hang on while Teasel tugs and tugs the other end. No dominance - just play :-)

Sadly most pet owners won't get to read that sort of article.I think it would be great if the APBC(or other organisations) could produce leaflets which could then be put out in vets surgeries,grooming salons,pet shops etc to educate people of the dangers of this sort of training.
Sadly one of my customers had his Lab put down recently as it was becoming increasingly grouchy with him,he said he had been to a so called behaviourist(one of those that advertises on here who uses abusive methods) but he was getting worse.I didn't know about what had happened till after the dog had been put down-maybe he wouldn't have listened to me anyway-but maybe if he had been able to read that article the dog might have been saved.The problem is getting the message across.

The thing is dominance does seem to exist. I've certainly met dogs with dominant tendancies, and in my own pack there is a definite top dog.

With regards to dog whispering (Cesar Milan) techniques. Like anything some is good some isn't. I've seen him use very positive methods (goldie who was afraid of the air compressor, just associated it with food). Alot of his handling techniques aren't that different from some old school type handlers (that back kick has been around for years). I think the appeal is the simplness of the approach. The basic idea is be the top dog and everything else works out. This is alot easier to understand and apply than alot of the alternatives.

Does it work though? Sometimes. I've met people/dogs who have used the ideas and techniques and been very successful. I think it takes a certain personality type though (something Cesar does alot of is encourage the handler to change their attitude) and commitment. But I've seen dogs who have become obedient/happy/socialable without anything else being done. Other times it doesn't work of course.

I personnaly find it easy to be assertive ect but don't think it transfers to the owners as well. So I use different techniques.

Adam     

> Alot of his handling techniques aren't that different from some old school type handlers (that back kick has been around for years).

Yeah!  Totally out of touch with the real world.

> The thing is dominance does seem to exist. I've certainly met dogs with dominant tendancies, and in my own pack there is a definite top dog.

That's quite different to being "dominant" with one's own dog. Quite, quite different. My own dog is "assertive" (a better word, methinks) with other dogs but if I tried to "dominate" him a la CM, he'd have bitten me to bits and been PTS long ago.

> Alot of his handling techniques aren't that different from some old school type handlers (that back kick has been around for years).

Didn't I already say this a few posts ago?

> Other times it doesn't work of course.

Seems many dogs are ending up with severe issues after owners have tried to Cesar" them at home. I guess you know he quietly uses shock collars on them behind the scenes? No?
I'm (dare I say it!) shocked!

As you know I have no issues with e collars. I think its better to e collar than alpha roll ect, its certainly easier for the owner to apply and there's no confrontation.

I think assertive is a better word. But its what Milan uses (calm assertive is his mantra). Sometimes the dominance debate comes down to semantics.

Just because something is old school doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Adam

As some one who *has* spent time with a breed kennelled and working as a 'pack' and having worked with Racing Siberian Husky teams in USA and Norway I would urge anyone who is in anyway swayed by Adams comments to read this excellent article:

Dis-spelling the 'Dominance' Myth- published at WSAVA conference

Hope this helps :-)

Cheers HG -another one for my collection. Here's a repeat of what I posted the other day, 10 links that has actual proof and references and research quoted as to why there is no such a thing as dogs being dominant over people. It's interesting that the so called trainers (abusers rather) that claim dogs are dominant over people have NO way of backing it up officially, it's only ever their view.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6361.html Totally up to date study here
http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org/why-not-dominance.php Plenty of scientific references here
http://www.teamworktraining.co.uk/Dominancedebate.html
http://dogpublic.com/articles/article.aspx?sid=14&pid=1640
http://www.4pawsu.com/dominancemyth.pdf
http://www.clickersolutions.com/articles/2001/dominance.htm
http://www.mmilani.com/hollistic-animal-behavior2.html
http://www.ipdta.org/the-dominance-theory.html
http://www.drsophiayin.com/dominance.php
http://www.apbc.org.uk/articles/why-wont-dominance-die

> It's interesting that the so called trainers (abusers rather) that claim dogs are dominant over people have NO way of backing it up officially, it's only ever their view.

It has its roots in a study by David Mech, long ago, on captive wolves. He observed that there was an Alpha male & female in the wolf group, and made correlations between them and dogs, suggesting that a human being should be the Alpha in a human-dog relationship. It was much later when wild wolves were fully observed for the first time that it was realised there is no Alpha in a wild wolf pack. Mech reiterated his earlier claims and tried hard to erase the school of thought that had taken his earlier work as gospel (and that took some guts, I bet).

Later work by Coppinger et al realised that dogs evolved not from wolf packs, but from sole scavengers who fitted a new niche when humans started living communally. Feral dogs do not form packs as wolves do, so to assume a rigid 'pack' structure exists in a group of domestic dogs is a shaky premise; even worse to imagine a human being can be completely in charge of that as a "dominant" being, since it's not in their understanding to begin with.

However I am sure you all knew that anyway :)

Regardless of the studies what matters is practical application of the therory and its effect on the dog/human relationship. In many cases using this approach as a model for a relationship seems to produce good results. In others it may be counter productive.

I think its more important to think in terms of influencing behaviour making you the leader/top dog than anything else. So even if your really weak/submissive in the dogs eyes if you can make him do what ever you want (usually by applying an effective training approach) the dog will see you as top.

Adam

We go back to science and progression - things have moved on and lots of people see beyond the superficial surface of something 'appearing' to improve! There is overwhelming 'evidence' that this is a load of old tosh!

I think its more important to think in terms of influencing behaviour making you the leader/top dog than anything else. So even if your really weak/submissive in the dogs eyes if you can make him do what ever you want (usually by applying an effective training approach) the dog will see you as top.

That's just an opinion based on old fashione training methods and outdated ways of thinking.  Dogs do what they have been trained to do whether it;s because they have been trained to so because they find it rewarding for whatever reason or because they have been trained through aversives using aversion, intimidation. fear, whatever other moticators to avoid unpleasant consequences - again there is evidence to back that up - there is no evidence to support your statment that dogs will see you as top or that dogs will see you as weak or submissive and that have a bearing on them doing something or not!

I'm not entirely sure the sciency methods do work that well tbh. I see lots of dogs trained with ''modern methods'' who aren't very good.
Though of course all methods are science based.

On the top dog subject. I agree that training ect is just about the reinforcement. However relationships may be about something more. In many cases simply by training the dog to respond to the owners commands (even using a totally inpersonal method) the dog becomes much more loving to the owner.

Adam

I'm not entirely sure the sciency methods do work that well tbh. I see lots of dogs trained with ''modern methods'' who aren't very good.

That's the thing about science Adam there are studies and 'proof' that they DO work, of course if the application is wrong then they won't but that is nothing to do with whether they work or not, it really isn't a case of whether you are sure about them or not.  I'm not sure the world is round as opposed to flat as once thought but thre is plenty of evidence to show me that it is!

No not all methods are based on science unless you mean they can be proven to work or not by science.

In many cases simply by training the dog to respond to the owners commands (even using a totally inpersonal method) the dog becomes much more loving to the owner.

I guess that depends what you mean by more loving and by a totally impersonal methods, what would one of those be anyway?

> I guess that depends what you mean [by more loving and] by a totally impersonal methods, what would one of those be anyway?

Can't we guess....?

> I guess that depends what you mean [by more loving and] by a totally impersonal methods, what would one of those be anyway?

Can't we guess....?

I guess probably, but would hardly be called impersonal, well depends on how you look at it I suppose :-(

Sadly it seems that some vets believe in the dominance theory.  There have been at least 3 males in my breed who have gone to the vets and been a bit wary where the vet has literally turned the over and held them down, making these poor dogs very nervous of people from then on.
Wish this theory would die, but whilst a certain male is still on TV and extremely popular it won't.

>In many cases simply by training the dog to respond to the owners commands (even using a totally inpersonal method) the dog becomes much more loving to the owner.

In many cases grovelling appeasement seems like 'loving' behaviour.

There have been at least 3 males in my breed who have gone to the vets and been a bit wary where the vet has literally turned the over and held them down, making these poor dogs very nervous of people from then on.

One of mine was treated like this by a vet when 6 months old. He's now 22 months and we are still working extremely hard to get him to accept being around people at ALL. There is no way om earth he could ever see a vet, let alone the inside of the show ring. We still can't even walk him where there are people he doesn't know. All thanks to a vet who felt he had to pin a scared puppy down to examine him.

As a puppy, my terrier had a similar experience with a FEMALE vet.  The vet got tired of her squealing and snarling in terror and scruffed her!

Sadly it seems that some vets believe in the dominance theory.  There have been at least 3 males in my breed who have gone to the vets and been a bit wary where the vet has literally turned the over and held them down, making these poor dogs very nervous of people from then on.
Wish this theory would die, but whilst a certain male is still on TV and extremely popular it won't.

I went to a seminar with run by a vet/behaviourist a couple of years ago and ,et a young vet there - she was really relieved at the way the behaviourist was talking and said it had really opened her eyes as she had been taught as had her colleagues all about dominance theory.  The vet/behaviourist speaker said that that unfortunately is stil what is being spouted at vet shcools and of course they have very limited amount of time to be teaching about behaviour anyway so unless vets choose to further their study in that are themselves then a lot oif the time it seems they are being misguided by the education they are getting in the veterinary degree :-(

I found a vets practise where they will let and are happy for me to be present for pretty much everything needed and are happy for me to be present for sedation if they are going under GA and with with them till the sedation has taken effect. Some of the problems vets cause are just disgracefu and so unnecessary.

I see no problem with appeasement behaviours. With a very ''dominant dog'' you can put them on cue to help the relationship.

I think vets should stay put of the training arena unless suitably qualified (practical or academic). I also am not a big fan of alpha rolling or scruffing.

Adam

> I see no problem with appeasement behaviours

Adam, if the dog is showing appeasing body language, he is under stress.. How can you have no problem with this? :-(

I see no problem with appeasement behaviours. With a very ''dominant dog'' you can put them on cue to help the relationship.

Yes but as said there's plenty of evidence to prove that dogs aren't 'dominant' with people so in that case the dogs labelled as dominant are usually misread and mis understood so getting them to offer appeasment behaviours particularly if on cue really doesn't do aything positive for a relationship.  People on ego trips might want their dogs grovelling to them in a bit to stop them doing what they are and mistke it for a 'loving' relationship but again all down to lack of understanding and mis communication nad a sad way for a dog to have to spend it time

I think vets should stay put of the training arena unless suitably qualified (practical or academic). I also am not a big fan of alpha rolling or scruffing.

I think there's lots of people in the training field that are qulified that should stay out of it - sadly we don't always get what we want!

I would dearly love the D-word to drop out of use.

It is misapplied to dog-person relationships (we now know they are not plotting to take over the world).
But it is often applied to dog-dog relationships; and because of confusion with the above, it's still perpetrating misunderstanding.

I'd prefer to see dogs who are so-called 'dominant' with other dogs, referred to as Bossy, Assertive or something else entirely. My own is like that, but I cringe when I hear people describe him as dominant, as it always makes me wonder where else they use the word, where they first heard it, and in what context.

Just adding on to the end not replying to anyone in particular.

I did have a fear aggressive dog, i believed everything Cesar Milan said. This dog was attacking me to be dominant and i needed to be dominnant over him.
I stood over him shoulders up in way that made me look bigger,
I put him on his side,
I made him walk to heel because he "should do" rather than he wants to.
I sprayed him with water,
I shook a bottle of stones at him,
I banged bowls near him,
I hated him, i really hated the dog, and to be honest i think he hated me.  I thought at one point his aggression was that bad i would have to have him pts.

I then spoke to a behaviourist and explained what i was doing. If i was him i would have attacked me too, i broke every bond i could with him.
It took me a while to completely believe what the behaviourist said but after seeing the results of reward based training i cant believe what i did to him.
We have such a close bond now, i feel like crying and often do when i think what i put him through becuase i didnt understand he was simply showing aggression because he was scared.
It has been a long hard struggle to gain his trust and confidence back and we still work on it every day and i suspect we will until the day he leaves me but what a different dog.

I really urge everyone who believes the dominance theory to really try and look at it from the other way and understand, i know new things dont always sink in but it really is such an important thing to know being dominant over your dog kills any trust you have with each other.

> It is misapplied to dog-person relationships (we now know they are not plotting to take over the world).
>

:-)  :-)  :-)

Couldn't have put it better myself!

I think vets should stay put of the training arena unless suitably qualified (practical or academic). I also am not a big fan of alpha rolling or scruffing

I think  there is a lot of people who should stay clear of the "training arena"  qualified or not!!

>I see no problem with appeasement behaviours.

How can someone not have a problem with a dog being in such an uncomfortably stressful situation that it has to resort to grovelling to try to relieve the distress?

tillyandangel -thanks for sharing this. I too have used both methods and therefore seen first hand the HUGE difference it makes to use kind methods instead, and I think anyone who HASN'T tried kind methods need to do so. They'd probably be very surprised to see what it can do -and how much nicer it is for everyone; dog AND owner.

tillyandangel, that was a very kind and brave thing to share what you have with everyone.  I'm so glad that you have managed to rebuild your relationship with your dog and that you found someone to help you do that.  It's just such a shame that old fashioned harsh and unecessary methods that are perpetuated by trainers still today whether in the media or not are causing that kind of damage to dogs and people in the first place :-(

So please for you and your dog that things have changed, that's one of the things that humbles me most about dogs - is they often have such an ability to get over past traumas and trust again - you both sound amazing and I hope your relationship with him just keeps getting stronger :-)

Scuffing.

Had to look this up, barbaric, why do people think that such an action should have a positive reaction on any animal dog or other when it would not if used on them?

I don't believe appeasement behaviours do equal stress though. Its just the animal communicating that they want to cooperate with you.

Adam

Btw Tillyand angels case is a good example of why I don't think its always relevent.

I don't believe appeasement behaviours do equal stress though. Its just the animal communicating that they want to cooperate with you.

No, they're communicating that they are scared of you so give up.

It's the animal indicating it wants to appease - the clue is in the word, appease.

Above is a reply to Adam, not Marianne :)

Appeasement.. the definition of:

giving in to the demands of a hostile or aggressive power in an attempt to keep the peace!

But appeasement is just the word people use for that body language when they want it to mean that. I could just as easily call it friendly body language (which is what 90% of people do) as appeasement.
I believe in one of her books Jean Donaldson refers to appeasement saying the dog might offer it to a stranger he was meeting for the first time if the dog was normal, in fact I think she suggests this is a good sign.

Adam