A genuine (and hopefully non-inflammatory!) question about dominance, pack theory etc.

[topbannana]

Following on from a thread I have just read.
I have recently lost my faithful old rotteiler bitch BlackDog at the age of 12 1/2. Looking back on her life, I have been a believer in pack theory (I think) and had certainly used many (now unfashionable) methods to train her though I never used physical punishment.
I have had lots of dogs over the years, many rescues including a couple of appalling abuse cases so my style of training has always been quite fluid and differed from dog to dog. Also I should clarify that most of the rescues were required to do nothing more than come when called, not mess indoors and not eat any small furry creatures (often not as easy as it sounds!) The others have, at various times been expected to be guard dogs, agility dogs, working trials dogs, gundogs etc.
Now I totally get positive reinforcement and have used it on many occasions, particularly with the use of a clicker (a personal favourite of mine :o) However I cannot envisage the sort of dog BlackDog would have become had I not asserted myself as the pack leader (as suggested by the breeder) BlackDog was a very dominant, determined and ultimately pig-headed bitch. She behaved perfectly for me, she was not a timid, cowed beast by any stretch of the imagination but everyday, and I do mean everyday, she would "try it on" in one way or another eg. not coming when called, not sitting when asked, barging etc. When picked up on it she submitted with good grace but these were rules that had been in place since the day I carried her through my door at 8 weeks old.
Was this not wilfully dominant behaviour after all then?
How would you approach training a dog that has a reputation for dominant behaviour while not asserting yourself?
Ultimately she was my "Once in a lifetime" dog and I cannot imagine ever having a dog of such caliber again. We will not own the breed again (at present at least) as both DH and I acknowledge they are simply "too much dog" for our lifestyle and circumstances. If I did though, I am not sure I would approach training a pup any differently. I am prepared to be put straight on this but am curious to see how other people would handle it?

What you are describing though is a pig-headed dog that wanted to continue running, wanted to get through the door as soon as possible and tried constantly to get away with it. Based on pack theory you interpret that as her wilfully intending to get one over on you. I would say that she liked those things and was very determined in trying to continue doing things she found rewarding. She wasn't doing with the purpose of dominating you, she just wanted to do those things. You responded, in your interpretation, by being a pack leader and asserting your higher status got results. I say you were firm and consistent with enforcing boundaries and that is why you were successful. Not because she thought you were Daddy wolf.

I assert myself every day with my dogs and I don't back down, I just don't do it by scaring them. I want them to learn to do what I say because it is good for them, rather than because they will be punished for not doing it. Leadership rather than dictatorship if you like, but not in a pack sense. They know full well I'm not a dog.

I've never been a fan of dominance theory and strongly believe that dogs do what works for them but Teazle, the Curly Coated Retriever bitch that I lost in September, had a very strong personality. She took bones from the other dogs without a fight and they deferred to her in almost everything. She always seemed to weigh up commands as though she was working out 'what's in it for me'. Luckily she was extremely food motivated so clicker training was a joy. I did sometimes wonder if she hadn't been food motivated or someone else had used a different training style if they would have a fight on their hands.

I'm not sure dominance is quite the right word but some dogs do seem to be that bit more determined to get their own way. Methods like clicker training, if you can find the right motivator, work especially well with that kind of dog because they are making the decision to comply, you are not forcing them.

I'm not sure what you mean by not asserting yourself. If you are using treats in training, the dog doesn't get the treat until it's done the thing you ask. In the very early days you might have to wait patiently but they quickly get the hang of it. Training is fun for the dog and they want to please you.

I have two rescues, both of which arrived with isshoos, and have only used positive methods with them. They were both fearful when they arrived and using rewards in training helped encourage them to try things and offer different behaviours.

Ignoring 'wrong' behaviours is actually very powerful. The dog that jumps for attention and gets zero attention is going to give up pretty soon. Then you reward with a fuss when she sits down and she's learnt how to ask nicely instead of bounding all over you.

I do say 'no' to one of my dogs sometimes, but just as a way of providing information that he's not got the right behaviour yet. I don't ever say 'no' to my other dog because even if I say it nicely, he jumps out of his skin (he was badly treated by previous owner). But this dog has wonderful manners now anyway so the times when I might say it are rare.

Does that answer your question? It's a common question, I think, although it helps to see for yourself by seeing the methods in action.

If you do watch a pack of dogs the "dominant" dog is not a pushy dog, it does not boss the other dogs around. It is usually the calm, still dog that does not get into confrontations etc. It will be the dog that can change another dogs emotional response by just a turn of its head or averting its gaze.

You are describing a dog that is either not trained or has more fun doing things away from you eg not coming when called. All this can be sorted by using positive training methods. Dogs that are trained consistently with positive training methods are relaxed dogs and dogs that clearly understand what is expected of them. Dogs that truly understand the commands and what is being asked of them and will do it as the rewards is always better than not doing it

You can have willful dogs, dogs that are harder to motivate but ALL dogs will respond to positive training.

The definition of positive reinforcement basically comes down to adding something good after a behaviour that will make that behaviour more likely in the future. It is all about building good habits:

• Reward the behaviours you like and want
• Replace the behaviours you don?t want

Simple as that! Easy concepts to a well-behaved dog:

• Create the dog you want
• Build a bond that will last forever

There is a great T shirt that says Train with your Brain and not Pain. That sums up positive training.

The dog which runs off instead of coming when called it's having more fun away from you - more likely to be an issue with dogs trained using aversive techniques than those consistently rewarded for being close to their owner.

Dogs which ignore a sit command may simply be unmotivated to do it. This is unlikely in a dog which is used to positive reinforcement - they naturally tend to respond quickly in anticipation of a reward.

Dogs which barge through doors really want to see what's on the other side. They perceive that to be the reward. Positive makes it easy to teach a dog that they will be rewarded for sitting nicely at doors.

Rottweilers are clever, pig headed and bred to work independantly...so they're completely capable of going, well I know you want me to come - but I like it over here, I'll stay here for a bit thanks... (most dogs are capable of it obviously, but Rotties are really good at it, lol)

With positive training you're trying to install the idea that there might be something better happening if they come back.

Rottweilers absolutely are chancers and will take advantage if you're not firm with rules - but dominance isn't the same as wanting to do what you want. They want to do things because they want to do them, not because they want to take over.

Ignoring dominance and pack theory makes most things much more straightforward - if a dog won't sit it's because it doesn't want to sit, you then have to make it want to, it's not because it's sizing you up for a coup and you then have to put some sort of complicated procedure in place so that it recognises you as leader but doesn't actually address the fact that it's not sitting.