No they don't, read my above article especially the quote I have quoted from it. Carry on arguing all you like but you are arguing with the expert behaviourists who disagree with you.

They disagree with me? I don't see my name, or anything I have said, quoted or disagreed with. Exactly where do they "disagree" with me?

I think it is YOU who needs to read your cited article. It is not arguing that there is no such thing as a pack. Quite the opposite.

OTOH, I can SEE the concepts I am talking about in real life action, with my dogs, and the many dogs I owned previously. So I'm not talking in the abstract. Also, I know expert behaviourists. I have had dogs trained by expert behaviourists. I don't have much surprise if there are varying opinions in any complex field but I think the problem is largely you misreading my position.

What is it you think I am "arguing" with? Do you actually even know?

I've been having a brief browse through some of the stuff posted by your Mr Kelley. For example:


I entirely agree that a dog must be brought out of an excited state into one of calm and no stress, before its behaviour can be modified. I wouldn't quite agree that "the right behaviour will always follows" - as the dog doesn't naturally know what you cnsider the "right behaviour" to be - but in a calm stae, it will be amenable to, and will soon, learn it.

The interesting thing I found was that Kelley espouses what he calls'"Natural Dog Training".

Well, quite. I myself gave the example of a young border collie being naturally able to exhibit herding abilities instinctively, and that is just how it works.


"Obedience", right? But obeying whom? And why? Surely not someone from whom the dog takes its lead? Like, say, the shepherd with the whistle?

I would incidentally, repeat the distinction I made earlier between addressing a dog's [ibehaviour[/i and [iobedience[/i. Some things are not the dog's natural choice but they are happy to be trained to obey, as well as to behave.

I can recommend you a dog trainer who will help you sort this out in one session, if you want his details PM me.

Its quite a complex problem and a little irrational to a human, and I possibly over-complicated things some time ago too.

Basically when we picked him up from the Dogs Trust he was fine, would walk with me alone to a large nearby playing field where he loves (still loves) chasing a ball around but I believe that at the time it was all new to him and he was acting very subversent to me basically clinging to me as the one who fed him every night.

Once he got a little more confident and settled then his phobia kicked in and it soon became apparent that he would not walk with one person, was fine with two, but with one he'll get to the end of the drive and panic - and you can see it in his eyes, its sheer panic and even food won't distract him (a Dogs Trust training trick), its quite upsetting to see actually.

What I did find at this time was that he was perfectly happy getting into the car so I'd load him up and drive to a park where he'd quite happily walk with me alone - its the leaving of the house and walking beyond the car where it kicks in, as soon as he sees that we are one on one and we're not going in the car then the panic hits.

Problem was that he soon started to have problems with confinment in the car, I had him in the rear of a hatchback with a steel tubular dog guard, he bit through the steel tube and demolished it in three sessions, I replaced this with a steel mesh dog guard and tie wrapped and jubilee clipped it to the head restraints - it lasted a few weeks until he'd wrecked it and chewed the back off one of the car seats trying to get out, I bought a harness with a seat belt and fastened him to the back seat but he bit through the seat belt material at his first attempt - all he wants to do is be free of restraint and sit in the front with me, which I won't allow - I've got a new car and he's banned from it



We haven't tried your trick and may give that a go, meanwhile we're taking him in pairs or I run him very hard in the garden chasing after a ball and treats, its not what I want though and is far from ideal.

Hope they are members of APDT which I guess they are not as no APDT trainer will claim to "sort out" a problem in just one session. It can takes many many months if at all to sort out the sort of trauma that JC's dog has.

My only problem is that I know that if a stranger spent five minutes associating with him then he would let them lead him down the street with no problem in the same way that he did with me when he first came to us, we've tried this with our in-laws who live in the north east on the one or two occasions that they've visited our house.

We've just got to keep persevering with him because he's a gorgeous dog otherwise and there is no way that I want to cause him any more trauma in his life.

You are arguing that you have to be pack leader:



I (and most trainers now) are arguing that there is no such thing. There is a big difference between pack and pack leader. I have quoted from the article by Mr Kelly and an article from the APDT which clearly states that there is no such thing as being pack leader or in your words" train the dog that you are leader of the pack" which is if I'm reading it correct you are saying you train the dog as you being a dominant (not using dominant methods, thats another thing) pack leader, ie you "show him who's boss", which is just not scientifically correct anymore therefore your way of thinking and application of methods is wrong (according to the experts).

No problems with my dog, we both know who the boss is



Him

No, in the context of going for a walk the dog understands that i am the pack leader. Once it gets that, it is happy to let me lead. Misconstrue as much as you want but the reason my dog happily walks at my chosen pace and in my chosen direction paying attention to me, and not to distractions, is because it knows and accepts that I am leading and it is following.


I think you are off on some arcane flight of fancy and not dealing with simple basics of dog behaviour. It is in this context pure semantics. It is clear to anyone that dog will happily do what you want it to do, if it accepts that it takes its lead and direction from you. I am happy to refer to that as being, in the context of the desired behaviour, the leder, and the dog thus the follower, if you like, but you can call it whatever you want. The end result is the same - I am calling the shots, and the dog is extremely content to follow my lead.


I would not use the word dominant because in the context you are using it you are suggesting the dog is doing what is expected out of fear or subservience or inferiority. I am trying to say that that is not how it works, the dog is bred in such a way that it is happy to take a secondary place and leave the decisions to its owners (well, in the case of most domestic breeds anyway) but here's the key - the dog is HAPPY to do this, it isn't being "dominated" as you put it. If you want to be pedantic, you could say that I am the dominat one in the relationship but that is just semantics, and misleading, as I don't dominate the dog - it just understands that I am in charge, and is relaxed and happy in that knowledge. This is a key distinction.


What do you mean by that? You keep suggesting by the phrases you use that there is some form of coercion, aggression or domination or something going on. Whereas I have repeatedly explained that the methods I have been taught to correct your dog's behaviour don't even involve saying a single word - much less any screaming, shouting, beating, telling off or anything of the sort. The dog "gets" that I am the decision maker of the things I want to be the decision maker of, and it is happy with that.

I would only say that the dog has to be happy with that, that is fundamental. It doesn't behave in a certain way out of fear or intimidation, but because it accepts and likes the situation.


There are thousands of "experts", and they have a wide variety of opinions. You shouldn't assume that one particular person has all the answers and anyone on the planet who disagrees is of necessity wrong. Be that as it may, however, as I haven't stated or been asked to state anything specific at all about any single method I use, I'd be interested to know how you feel able to say this.

And cost many months of recurring fees, eh? Hmmm....

The truth is, I have seen the trainer "sort out" common behavioural problems in one session. He's done it for me. Other more deep-seated issues he can effect an immediate and noticeable improvement. In each case he will explain what is going on, teach the owner the techniques to continue to address the issue to maintain the change in behaviour, or in more complex issues, to improve and eliminate it in time. The main thing there is that apart from anything else the owner would now understand what the issue is and why it is there, be trained in the methods of dealing with it, and then armed with that you are well on the way to resolving it.

I mentioned earlier this evening JC's specific problem to this trainer over the phone and he has previously dealt with a similar case, it isn't new to him.

And if he claims he can sort it in one session than he can't be a very good trainer as a trainer would understand how deep rooted the problem is and will be able to see that it will take a good deal of time, patience, understanding. The first session would be about getting to know you and your dog before a method is even worked out on the way to go.

As for pack leader, we'll agree to disagree. I've linked articles that scientifically disagree, I even linked a quote from a revered behaviourist that he even says we are more like parents than a pack leader to back up my point, I haven't seen any proof of yours.

Unbelievably and in that way that dogs do just to throw you, we've just had our first solo walk (for a long time) using a couple of distraction techniques that have not worked previously, if I can get him beyond the end of the street AND walking fast AND on a long lead so that he doesn't feel restrained AND with the aid of a very smelly dog sausage then he'll continue albeit that there are memory points on the walk that he recognises as being turning points for home, we got to one this morning and he almost hit panic mode trying to turn back so I let him on this occasion - little and often, next time we won't go to that corner



Fortunately I'm off work this week so plenty of time for dog therapy.

I'm knackered now though.

Thats brilliant.

Its really satisfying when you see progress being made albeit just a small one. I use the distraction technique when Starbug asked me about approaching on lead dogs. I've also used it this morning as I deviated my route this morning as I had to take Mr HWS car to garage and didn't want it smelling of wet, muddy dog, so went down the old railway line but its continuous bikes so I used that method to bring them close to me and wait until the bike has passed us. It can work well as it did for me, until they spotted a whole loaf of bread just dumped, so it was on the lead and we turned around and came back because I knew they would just keep running back to it.



If you see him panicking, let him go home, tomorrows another day. Like I said, he has such a deep rooted problem that it may never be solved, but for me, just making the progress you have today is by far more satisfying then having a "quick fix" that may solve the problem today, but may not solve his underlying issues for tomorrow.

Not very obediant or well trained after all, mine does what he's told

He has sorted out problems for me with one session. It is no good you claiming he can't - he does. This does not mean quite a miracle "cure", for want of a better word, you are left with the tools to continue to work on the behaviour, and it may take you some time to work on it, but usually, he won't need to come back. This is what I mean by sorted. Not sprinkling some instant magic dust.


You're obsessing on the phrase "pack leader" because you read something, but you would be better off trying to understand the situation on the ground. Whether dogs, if they could talk, would use the phrase pack leader, parent, or pak choi, the point is, they know who the decision makers are. Your remark, in this context, is pure semantics.

You also misunderstand your own research. Parents are in the main a permanent and immutable fixture. So how do you explain that a trainer whom the dogs have never seen before can walk in and quickly be able to control their behaviour? My explanation is he knows a lot about how they think and about behaviour, and relationships in the dog world, and is able to give out the cues that dogs naturally understand. They quickly "get it" and are happy to take their lead from him. You, presumably, could only explain this phenomenon by saying that the dogs must have sacked me and promoted him to parent!? What happens when he leaves, then?

Just in case anyone is interested, the new Dogs Trust campaign for those who are thinking of obtaining a dog by whatever means ... [urlhttp://www.presspaws.org.uk/[/url

Lol, so do mine for the most , but unfortunately my lurcher survived on the streets by scavenging and its not something that can be erased from her memory or something that can be trained out of her. I have sought help about what we can do, but I live in the middle of a city which, like any other city, is usually strewn with litter wherever we go. Its hard to find somewhere close to where I live to walk which is free of bins, litter, wheelie bins etc.

I haven't read[i something[/i I have read a multitude of articles, magazines (which I subscribe to) and books, the best book by far is "In Defence of Dogs" by John Bradshaw. In it he explains how the pack theory is rebuffed and refuted. If you apply pack theory methods in your training (which, as I have quoted you, you say you do) then surely you believe in pack theory, as in who is top dog etc.? Mr HWS and I both share being care givers to them. They don't see either of us as pack leader, as far as they are concerned we are equal. I don't go through the door first to prove I am pack leader, they know I am not a dog and dogs have not been going through doors last for thousands of years to prove they are "alpha male", likewise I don't pretend to eat out of their bowl before my own meal. They know humans didn't eat their pray thousands of years ago before they did. I don't have to prove I am a dog (trying to be pack leader), they know this already.

I am trying to say that there is no "top dog", there is no "alpha male", John Bradshaw, in his book explains all of this. Its a good read for anyone interested in how dogs came to be besides humans and how they have evolved and how "pack theory" (as in alpha etc) has now been scientifically disproved.

I don't misunderstand my own research at all. People have belived (wrongly) that there has been a pack hierarchy with an alpha male and tuned training methods to suit this (you included, as you said). I now know how to alter my training methods (and understanding behaviour) based on the new research.

Your trainer can get your dogs to do whatever because he has experience and knows what he's looking for. Once he teaches you, you will be able to do exactly the same thing. An example is clicker training, once your trainer has showed and explained to you the timing of clicking, your dog will do for you as he does for your trainer. My two love clicker training because they know a treat is always coming, its just very limiting for me as I can't easily get down on the floor to their level to get started with stuff

As if on cue Dogs Today magazine drops through my letter box with some useful articles about what we are discussing



The first "Manners Maketh the Dog" - the by line:

[i"Dogs are not born knowing hot to behave in a way that doesn't annoy others....................So rather than let them do as they please, owners, just like the parents of a child need to teach their dogs good manners."[/i

Its the way you teach those manners thats important for me. If you believe you are the pack leader(as in your family and your dogs are your pack and a pack always has an alpha male) you will apply training methods that favour "top dog". If you believe you are not in a pack but are a leader, you will apply training methods that favour manners, etc.

The other article is "A click works a treat" has a paragraph:

[i".........Concepts like teaching through dominance and hierarchies, although popular, are actually inaccurate and potentially harmful"[/i

It goes on to work through using the clicker as a reward based method, for instance instead of shouting and using your "I'm the pack leader" attitude to get your dog off the sofa/bed/chair, instead show him his own bed is where he should be be getting out the clicker and reinforcing the wanted behaviour.

Well worth a read and very apt that it should arrive as I was typing about dog behaviour

Don't think I'll be acquiring one of our four legged friends anytime soon if it makes me as [idog[/imatic as some of the owners on this thread.

Boom-boom.

SO, in a sentence, WHAT is "rebuffed" and "refuted"? Are you saying dogs aren't pack animals? I have read nothing much at all about “pack theory” and so don’t really know what you or he mean when they use that phrase. It doesn’t matter. What matters to me is the (self-evident) truth that a dog is a pack animal, as are many species. Whatever “pack theory” is, if it is “rebuffed” or “refuted” won’t change the fact that dogs are pack animals.

Edit: I just watched a short yotube vid by Bradshaw and didn't disagree with a word. The main thing was that "punishment training" is bad and "reward training" is good. I don't personally find anything novel in that, but just to be clear, punishment training is bad, the dog doing what it does cos it wants to and is thus de-stressed and happy doing it, is good.


What are they? Or what do you mean by them? If you tell me what you refer to, then we can establish whether what I do fits your definition, or not. It isn't helpful for you to accuse me of applying a "method" when we don't know what your mean by your label.


Either your dogs behave as you want, in which case you are leading their behaviour, or they don’t behave as you want, in which case you would indeed be being viewed as an equal or less, so the dogs could choose to do their own thing, regardless of what you want.

With respect, it is just nonsense to say you “are equals”. The dogs are entirely under your management, you feed them , provide them with shelter, exercise, health care, etc. They go out when you say, they go where you dictate, they stop in at your whim, they have to walk on a lead if you decide, they have to wait if you stop and chat. You may claim you see your dog/s as “equals” but its just ridiculous.


Unless your dogs are out of control, which I very much doubt, then they clearly see you as (a) “top dog”, since (presumably) what you decide goes, and they accept that. What labels you want to try to stick on it don’t matter to me, you are ignoring the fact that, when it comes to many aspects of their lives, you ARE in charge. Why are you trying to pretend to yourself that you’re not, but are somehow “equals”?


Meanwhile back on planet Earth, dogs quickly and automatically and constantly establish and re-establish their respective status and mostly this enables them to rub along just fine. We have 3 dogs at the moment, having recently lost a 4th. The “pack hierarchy” is crystal clear to anyone who watches them interact. The oldest, (who incidentally is the best-natured, most placid dog either of us has ever owned), is very much the “alpha male” to use your terminology, if by that I mean ultimately the others, when it comes to the crunch, defer to him. They occasionally have disagreements and he quickly and neatly puts the juniors in their place, and they settle down and happily carry on with life, having pushed a boundary and been told off. This is what I am talking about when I talk of pack behaviour. It’s natural and it’s part of their genetic makeup; and it is also learned and developed from being a puppy if they have regular interaction with other, older dogs (not all do).


Hang on, I said that!


Well, yes, isn’t that the whole point of using an expert?


We don’t use clicker training. What did dogs do for the thousands of years before clickers?


Whilst initial training is much helped by treats, my take on this is that the dog doesn’t specifically know – as it can’t speak much English – what a new spoken or other command means; so if I give a new command, then the dog does an action, and immediately is rewarded for that action, this, to me, is the method of communicating and explaining to the dog “Yes, that is what I meant when I said ‘lie down’ or whatever. You got it. Well done. “ I genuinely believe that the dog WANTS to understand what I want from it, and will be happy to do it, if it can only understand it. So once the dog “gets” the new command, it will happily do that for me, no treat required. The dog feels enough reward in knowing I am happy it obeyed. It might get the occasional “good dog”, or even a treat – but the point is, it’s not doing it for the treats, it is doing it essentially because it gets what I want, and does it because it likes to please me.

It won't get fed up and at some future point stop obeying that command on account of it never gets a treat for it any more.

Going way back to my earlier comments about border collies working on herding sheep, the dogs are trained what the chosen phrases mean (eg “away”, “come by”, etc., or whistles replacing words) and as soon as they get it, they do it. They love doing it too. Now, in the field, they will never, ever, get a “treat” for any one of those bits of obedience. They can’t; the shepherd might be hundreds of yards away and they won’t interact with him till the sheep are safely in the pen. And then they’ll all go home. The shepherd won’t have a bag of treats in his pocket. Yet they will merrily obey sequences of dozens and dozens of commands, precisely and with no reward (in the form of treats etc) whatsoever. They know their role in the “pack” (sorry) and they understand and want to follow the lead of the “leader” (sorry) and this is why it all works beautifully.

:13w8prgu

Thats evident





Maybe I haven't explained too well (I know in my head what I mean but I suppose I'm not clever enough to describe, I'd make a crap teacher

).

I don't refute the term "pack" to describe a collection of animals. What I do refute is that every "pack" has one dominant leader who everyone else submits to. I'm not covering old ground again explaining as I think I've covered everything in the last day or so. This in a nutshell:- (from Association of Pet Behaviour Councillors website)

[i:13w8prguThis meme originated in the “dogs are wolves” theory in the late 1960s. It was spawned in the pond of genetics from the premise that if a dog is the same species as the wolf they must behave identically. The perceived wisdom at the time, emanating from L. David Mech’s book, The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species(2), was that wolves pack and dominate each other, therefore dogs must also pack and dominate each other. The theories of wolf and dog “dominance” and the “alpha” firmly entered the imagination of not only the public, but also the scientific community. As a police dog handler in the 1980s I regularly tried to “dominate” my dogs using the best available scientific model.

[iHowever, as science advances our viewpoint changes and in Mech’s case, as he points out in his 2008 article Whatever Happened to the Term Alpha Wolf?(3) more rigorous examination of wild living wolves revealed that their social behaviour was centred on the family unit, built around cohesion and co-operation, not conflict. A fight for pack dominance would mean striving to displace one parent in order to mate with the other. The model of the wolf’s supposed fight for dominance and alpha status was replaced with one where parents and older siblings guide and lead younger offspring in order to enhance overall genetic fitness. In 1999 Mech published Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs(4), in which he corrected his earlier mistaken ideas. He happily reports that in the 2003 book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation(5) written by twenty three authors and edited by Mech and Boitani, the term “alpha” is only ever mentioned to explain why it has been superseded.[/i
You sound to me as though you are very interested in dog training, behaviour and psychology and I would thoroughly recommend John Bradshaws book which gives a great insight into how dogs developed into domestic animals and touches on "pack theory"

He should have given me a call. I didn't seek to dominate my dogs in the 80s either and could have told him that was not the way



Mind you it was around that time that I had the privilege of owning Rocky, a big boxer dog that was almost certainly the dumbest animal that ever walked the planet.

Me being from Leigh have access within 250 yards fields with wild deer in them, plus as I said, my dog is both obediant and extremely clever, his maths is coming along really well at the moment, but he is struggling a bit with his french

Quote ="Starbug"Me being from Leigh have access within 250 yards fields with wild deer in them, plus as I said, my dog is both obediant and extremely clever, his maths is coming along really well at the moment, but he is struggling a bit with his french '" Are you the owner of Chaser? ideas.time.com/2013/11/05/your-dog-is-a-toddler/

Quote ="Starbug"Me being from Leigh have access within 250 yards fields with wild deer in them, plus as I said, my dog is both obediant and extremely clever, his maths is coming along really well at the moment, but he is struggling a bit with his french '" Are you the owner of Chaser? ideas.time.com/2013/11/05/your-dog-is-a-toddler/