Getting a puppy today! I can has your advice?

[Moss]

last I checked my brother was 'trained' to act in ways that are socially acceptable even though it isn't something he would do naturally. that part of your argument is deeply flawed.

"naturally" like, if he was feral?

Not seeing the comparison between training a dog and "training" a human. The notion of dogs as "slaves" (while it may hold an unnecessarily negative connotation in this instance) makes sense to me.

[Max™]

Perhaps it's because I'm the oldest brother out of 7 siblings, and my reflex is to basically adopt anyone who needs help as a sibling... but I like to think of them as wards/children/younger brothers/sisters more than slaves. Even working dogs tend to enjoy their duties due to deeply bred instincts to fulfill them/please their people. Saying "dogs are just social, not pack driven" neglects that social interaction involves consideration of status, a happy dog is one that knows it has a secure position, even if that position is the bottom of the totem pole, it beats being alone and hungry in the cold.

The way we treat dogs or cats gives a pretty straightforward message. I can provide you a nice easy life, no being hungry, cold, sick, injured, no worrying about losing your position in a pack. You just have to abide by certain rules, in a pack those rules are shit like: I eat first, because I'm the alpha, so you can follow my lead and benefit from my leadership or I'll bitchslap you.

In a home those rules are: don't chew certain things (the cat, the furniture, the kids, the tv cables), don't shit or piss in the wrong places, and I'll give you all the other benefits of prime pack member/maternal treatment because I'm a silly creature that is driven by love. Once Larry figured out all he had to do was anything, EXCEPT the few things we prohibit, to get praised, fed, and played with... he caught on pretty quick.

Accordingly, you have responsibilities to that animal, if you'd feel bad doing it to a 3 year old child, you're probably an asshole for doing it to a pet. Sometimes a little kid needs a swat on the butt, and sometimes you only have time to pop them on the hand when they reach for something too dangerous like an electrical socket/knife/piece of a broken plate that just got dropped/whatever random shit little kids are fascinated by.

Would you just spank a kid for doing something without explaining why, and consoling them afterwards? Would you just smack their hand without immediately showing them why you had to do that, and making sure they understood? Same shit with a dog, except they're not as good at language.

[kuronosan]

"naturally" like, if he was feral?

Not seeing the comparison between training a dog and "training" a human. The notion of dogs as "slaves" (while it may hold an unnecessarily negative connotation in this instance) makes sense to me.

It's called socializing. It's natural for animals to shit wherever they want. I dunno, kind of a like a human who shits their pants? But you potty train your kids out of diapers, wean them off of pacifiers and breast-feeding, and teach them not to act like fucking toolbags and cry to get their way.

Training a dog is the same thing as training a human. Once you forget the obvious line between "dog" and "human being" you realize that you're doing the exact same thing with both.

[Cesaria]

It's called socializing. It's natural for animals to shit wherever they want. I dunno, kind of a like a human who shits their pants? But you potty train your kids out of diapers, wean them off of pacifiers and breast-feeding, and teach them not to act like fucking toolbags and cry to get their way.

Training a dog is the same thing as training a human. Once you forget the obvious line between "dog" and "human being" you realize that you're doing the exact same thing with both.

I believe the 2/3 year old child level intelligence has been used before on here - it's actually pretty much the same principle (I often work with 3-4 year old kids) as you'd have dealing with a kid who really really desperately wants to please you and hear praise and you just channel that to the ends you want to achieve from them. You can see our guy eagerly looking over for which button to push to get these funny two leggged people to tell him he's fab or whatever - exactly the same way you can with a room full of kids if you bring out a pack of behaviour stickers. Just have to make the RIGHT connections - so you don't end up with shit like inadvertently rewarding him when he's stealing your pants and you swap them for a treat to get them back - and you've got the same deal with dogs (and kids) for whom ANY attention is good so you going batshit crazy for him barking rewards him for that. I did a tonne of reading and worrying before we got our guy (because I was not planning on having a headcase dog that dragged me down the street and made my life hell) and once I did I realised it was exactly the same principle, just with a much tigher timeframe between positive behaviour and reinforcement needed (because you obviously can explain to Dog that "I'm giving you this because I liked it when you did X" till the cows come home but it's going to make naff all use on that front!)

Yes you've got the knowing who's boss aspect of it as well - which is where the whole tone of voice thing comes in, but why develop a relationship based on fear when you've got a creature there that is so keen to get your approval for doing the right things (as opposed to my cat who has the "naff off, I'm God, you love me, deal with it bitch" attitude that most cats do).

[Max™]

Yup, exactly right with the stickers for schoolkids/rewards for dogs, dogs WANT DESPERATELY for you to tell them they're a good dog. That is their entire goal in life until they are absolutely certain that you approve of them, or they decide they're in charge.

You just gotta remind a cat that while they may be god, you're god's mommy. A mommacat will exercise that perfect blend of terrifying ferociousness with just enough restraint to say "I could end you, but I won't, because I love you, you silly baby, now I'm going to clean your head".

[miokomioko]

What is even being debated here? Training animals to be socially "behaved" that have been specifically bred to do quite the opposite is a rather conflicting topic in itself. The whole animal breeding/owning/training thing is a big contradiction when you want to talk about avoiding confusing a dog. I don't see how pet-owning is anything other than dominant and controlling in nature. Being a trainer usually assumes a bias from being a dog enthusiast (sympathizer???) in the first place. Dogs are still pack animals. They will still hunt in teams, work in teams, and immediately create a hierarchy upon social contact, sometimes after conflict. If you want to control (negative connotations watch out) their behavior in any way, you need to be on top of that hierarchy. If left untouched, they can easily grow to be feral. Humans, on the other hand... it's far more complex.

However, I think the whole "alpha-roll" thing is being taken out of proportion here. Me restricting my over-excited dog with two or three fingers on the neck until she calms down/gives up, and rewarding it for doing so... is a lot more subtle (while still being effective) than the usually assumed aggressive douchebag-style flipping a dog over, slamming it on its back, choke-holding it while the other dogs it was fighting sniff its crotch. My personal experience with training dogs has been working with intelligently stubborn and independent breeds (Spitz breeds & German Shepherds) that are known to test their owners and even occasionally regress. They can be extremely frustrating as they begin to experiment with adjusting their place within their pack. These breeds need to have their leadership strongly established in these situations. On the other hand, you have breeds that are extremely loyal, sometimes to the point of being unhealthily codependent. You'll never have to "alpha-roll" a companion dog that does nothing but want to please you in the first place. Shetland Sheepdogs, are most likely not going to require any notable dominance-establishing and thus, there's no point to this even being discussed for this specific puppy. Negative reinforcement always gets a bad rap because it sounds bad and people feel bad for crying animals.

Also, (I didn't think people would run with it this bad) I mentioned the "slave" metaphor because it's the extreme that animal "enthusiasts" like to use when I've debated the whole establishing-dominance-over-your-pets issue. I was actually comparing training a dog to teaching a human child... except dogs will never be able to rationalize what you're doing. All they can do is associate two immediate events/sensations/sounds/etc. This is the key to training. Positive reinforcement is wonderful for getting them used to and eventually accept normally frightening or uncomfortable situations like bathing, grooming, etc. However, it's not going to keep your dog from humping your guests legs, pissing on your door frames, or chewing on your coffee table legs. People like to bring up the whole "rubbing nose in shit" as the epitome of useless punishment because it's always done terribly wrong. Dogs don't have the memory or rationalization to understand that they are getting their own fecal matter smeared on their face because they shat in the corner of the living room an hour before you got home. They just try to associate what they just did with the punishment they are experiencing.

If punishment consistent and immediate, it can work like a charm as they can easily make the associations necessary to avoid future incidents. If it's sporadic and/or late, you're going to make a dog neurotic as it won't know why or when it's getting smacked for something it did a half hour ago.

I am just so tired of how taboo punishment has become in both training children and animals. It's necessary. You can't just offer rewards when your dog stops biting someone.

dogs WANT DESPERATELY for you to tell them they're a good dog

Noooonononono. If only this was always the case. There are a large number of breeds that are extremely independent and have very little interest in getting anything from their "owner" besides food in their mouths.

[Max™]

That is their entire goal in life until they are absolutely certain that you approve of them, or they decide they're in charge.

Thus the second bit of the quote.

Some breeds are just more hardheaded, and not all dogs from a breed behave exactly as expected, but in general it is easier to fuck up a dominant training style for someone who hasn't really trained dogs than it is to fuck up more restrained forms.

Me, I go by the dog, Larry took a couple thumps on the forehead to knock his brain into "don't do that again" mode with jumping on the girls, Bandit would send me a hallmark card if he found himself in a situation where he felt he actually had to bite me (usually cause his limbs are being stressed due to long/heavy body-short leg mechanics), and the one time he did snap at me because I didn't realize I was pushing down on the couch cushion that was pinning his leg, I apologized to him because I knew exactly why he did it, and didn't want him to feel bad about expressing pain.

In general I go by the momma cat method of training; "I could end you, but I won't because I'm a momma-cat, and love stupid babies... but don't be TOO stupid, k?" I think most of the people are just saying they would never recommend someone new to training a pet to start out that way.

[miokomioko]

Well, I left that last bit out because while notoriously difficult-to-train breeds, like Siberian Huskies and Alaskan Malamutes for example, are often uninterested in pleasing their owners in the ways we are used to, I don't believe they necessarily think they're in charge. They do the job they were bred to do and then go do their own thing because they are often also bred to literally take care of themselves (hunting their own food, sleeping outside, et cetera.). When these types of dogs are placed in homes and apartments that are completely conflicting the natural instincts that the breeds have been specifically and genetically designed for, it takes extra discipline to curb their behaviors and is in every way a dominant, controlling thing for humans to do to an animal that should be outside herding sheep. In fact, a lot of neurotic behavior from working class dogs comes from the fact that they don't have shit to do in a house/yard when they were bred to pull sleds or dig up and kill rodents all day.

Which brings me back on topic regarding Shetland Sheepdogs... While they are known to be loyal companions with some ease with training, I would watch out for their herding instincts when it comes to socializing with other dogs and especially small children. I'm not familiar with Shelties' herding techniques, but nipping is a pretty common one for moving animals. The behavior might surface when given the opportunity and when they have pent-up energy (probably after he matures a bit as well).

[Max™]

Oh shit yeah, that's a GREAT point, reinforce non-contact herding, which is useful.

Pretty sure Shelties are a sight/posture/position herding type though.

[Silenka]

Most dogs dislike children to a certain extent, especially really young children. Either they exhibit fear and that makes the dog think he's the boss, or they're too playful and end up pulling things like tails/ears and the dog gets pissed. Neither of my dogs have been very good with children, they just don't really know how to handle them. I think it might be a behavior you have to teach your dog if you want good results with children, but I'm sure not all dogs have child problems. The herding instinct, at least so far as I've seen in my and others' dogs, shows up in more of a nurturing way than a nipping way: for instance, my dog would start to whine or come get one of us if one of our cats was sick, or if one of the kittens we were taking care of was toddling away from us too far. Again, probably not true of every dog, but that's been my experience.

[Max™]

Certain breeds are known for being great family pets, labradors, boxers, poodles, bulldogs, and oddly enough mastiffs stand out off the top of my head. They are all known for having really laid back dispositions, and giving extra leeway to kids. Usually the idea of a pitbull or a big ass mastiff with a little kid would make you think wtf, but they'll usually just ignore anything a kid/puppy does, or at worst go somewhere else.

http://leerburg.com/Photos/baby-064.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ljPFsoPA3-A/0.jpg

http://www.dogs-names.net/dog-breeds...with-kids.html
http://www.gopetsamerica.com/dogs/do...with-kids.aspx

[Caiyuo]

I'm of roughly the same opinion, or at least getting to that point after getting really into the whole Cesar Milan method of dog behavior. I'm really not sure which is most ideal, but I'm falling into the camp of avoiding the alpha techniques based on some criticisms I've read, mainly that dogs, unlike wolves, are not naturally "pack" animals so much as they're simply social animals, which if true, throws off the basis of the method. Outside of that I'm really not sure, but after letting up on the alpha behavior for a few weeks now, I am at least enjoying my dog's company a lot more and haven't found him any harder to command or more disobedient.

I'm not really sure where to start responding or even specifically to what, so I'll just cite some of what I mentioned here and let the discussion progress as it may.

Firstly, here's a short commentary on alpha roles or alpha males in wolves from the person who originally coined the term. I don't think it really breaks the entire argument for alpha males, but shows that the common understanding of an alpha male, at least in the case of wolves, isn't correct:



This next video elaborates on what's mentioned in the first and talks about how it relates to dogs: Extended interview with Adam Miklosi, Ph.D. on the dominance myth. or, "CAPTIVE WOOFS"

As far as dominance and alpha roll dog training are concerned, these articles shaped my opinion away from them which leaves me where I am now, trying to figure out the best way to interact with my dog, which I'm now leaning towards positive reinforcement and NILIF: (entire articles under spoilers)

Association of Pet Dog Trainers: Dominance and Dog Training

Spoiler: show

There has been a resurgence in citing "dominance" as a factor in dog behavior and dog-human relationships. This concept is based on outdated wolf studies that have long since been disproven. Contrary to popular belief, research studies of wolves in their natural habitat demonstrate that wolves are not dominated by an "alpha wolf" who is the most aggressive pack member. Rather, wolves operate with a social structure similar to a human family and depend on each other for mutual support to ensure the group's survival.

Dogs are not wolves. The idea that dog behavior can be explained through the application of wolf behavior models is no more relevant than suggesting that chimpanzee behavior can be used to explain the intricacies of human behavior. While wolves and dogs share some similarities in behavior, there are many more significant differences. Dog training and behavior modification strategies that rely primarily on misinterpretations of wolf behavior are therefore irrelevant, ineffective and can lead to serious negative complications.

While dominance is a valid scientific concept, the term "dominance" itself is widely misunderstood, such as when it is used to describe the temperament of a particular dog. Dominance is not a personality trait but a description of a relationship between two or more animals and is related to which animal has access to valued resources such as food, mates, etc. It should not be used in any way to support the belief that dogs are out to "dominate" us, especially as that misunderstanding causes some people to respond with force and aggression. This only serves to create an adversarial relationship filled with miscommunication and even more misunderstanding. The unfortunate result is often anxiety, stress and fear in both dogs and humans towards each other. The use of techniques such as the "alpha roll" on dogs, which is based on these mistaken beliefs about dogs and wolves, has no place in modern dog training and behavior modification. Dogs often respond to this perceived threat with increased fear and aggression, which may serve to make a behavior problem worse and ruin the dog-owner relationship.

The APDT's position is that physical or psychological intimidation hinders effective training and damages the relationship between humans and dogs. Dogs thrive in an environment that provides them with clear structure and communication regarding appropriate behaviors, and one in which their need for mental and physical stimulation is addressed. The APDT advocates training dogs with an emphasis on rewarding desired behaviors and discouraging undesirable behaviors using clear and consistent instructions and avoiding psychological and physical intimidation. Techniques that create a confrontational relationship between dogs and humans are outdated. Modern scientifically-based dog training should emphasize teamwork and a harmonious relationship between dogs and humans that fulfills both species' needs. Most of all, it should be a fun and enjoyable experience for everyone involved.

The Association of Pet Dog Trainers encourages and supports continued trainer education in order to promote gentle, effective, fast, and fun ways to train dogs using the most up-to-date information and sound, scientifically-based methods.

Questions about ‘aversive’ training

Spoiler: show

Cesar Millan is one of the superstars of the canine world.

As the host of the National Geographic Channel show, “Dog Whisperer,” Millan has rocketed to fame based on his ability to reform and save misbehaving, over-aggressive dogs. It’s something he accomplishes through “firm” discipline—a “firm correction, a firm grab on the neck, which is what dogs do to each other,” as he says on his web site.

Millan’s show attests to his success, and he’s earned millions of loyal followers.

But according to a new study from Penn’s School of Veterinary Science, Millan’s approach may not be quite so effective as he makes it out to be. In fact, the study suggests “firm” discipline—and so-called “aversive” discipline techniques, in which dogs are corrected using aggressive measures—may actually backfire, making dogs more likely to lash out at other dogs, people and even their owners.

According to the study, published in the journal Applied Animal Behavior Science, 25 percent of dogs trained with “aversive” techniques react to their training with an aggressive response of their own. Dogs trained in a more positive, encouraging manner, by contrast, showed almost no aggressive behavior.

“It’s really the first study of its kind—it’s a kind of pilot study,” says Meghan Herron, a Penn Vet resident and the lead author of the study. “But it’s just the start of the science that needs to happen.”

Herron says the idea for the study came from her experience at Penn Vet, where aggressive behavior is far and away the No. 1 reason why people seek the help of behavioral veterinarians.

To attempt to understand the roots of this aggression, Herron and her colleagues—Frances S. Shofer and Ilana R. Reisner, both from the Department of Clinical Studies—wrote up a 30-question survey for dog owners who visited the hospital. The survey asked the owners what kind of techniques they used to control their dogs’ aggression and what kind of results they had seen. The owners were also asked where they had learned about the training techniques they used.

In total, 140 surveys were collected. The researchers found that the most commonly used methods of training included such aggressive techniques as hitting the dog (43 percent), growling at the dog (41 percent) and physically forcing the dog onto its back (31 percent). This, despite the fact that these techniques showed the tendency to produce the direct opposite response owners sought. A quarter of the dogs trained with aversive techniques showed aggressive behavior in response.

Herron says these techniques can fail because, rather than helping owners exert “dominance” over their pets, they instead make dogs fearful. That fear, then, manifests itself in aggression.

Even still, the aversive methods persist, simply because they’ve been around so long. The popularity of “Dog Whisperer” doesn’t help matters.
“It’s a very popular [school of thought],” she says. “If you look in the old textbooks, they basically say if your dog is aggressive you need to assert your dominance. This idea has been around for a long time.”

That’s why Herron says it will likely take years of work to begin to convince owners of the potential flaws in aversive training. That work will most likely take the form of studies like hers, as others in her field work to produce evidence supporting an idea that she and her colleagues already believe in: That positive training is more effective than negative training.

“In the behavioral field, they’re cheering [about this paper],” she says. “But we’ve been on this page for years. It’s the public … and the vets that we want to reach.”

According to the study, published in the journal Applied Animal Behavior Science, 25 percent of dogs trained with “aversive” techniques react to their training with an aggressive response of their own. Dogs trained in a more positive, encouraging manner, by contrast, showed almost no aggressive behavior.

In fairness, this surveys some specific forms of aversive training that no one's arguing for here, being actual hitting and aggressive behavior, but I think the idea is that they're all forms of physical interaction that are meant to instill fear in the form of dominance.

Lastly, I wanted to add this as I thought it was an interesting exchange I found in comments regarding the PBS video about studies done by Ray Coppinger, the author of Dogs, A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution:

Can you elaborate on why you say they aren't "pack" animals? I agree that dominance theory is nonsense, but to me, the main misconception seems to be that they have a linear social hierarchy system within packs. I've always been okay with the term "pack", what don't you like about it?

Have you read coppinger? They studied the feral pariah dogs and found that the domestic dog, while social does not form packs. (which really when you think about it is intuitive)

They have social groups who's members change on a regular basis. Usually dogs forage singly or in pairs. As dogs are scavangers more than hunters it is a disadvantage to travel in a large group. They don't form family units. Male and female dogs mate with who ever is handy, not due to a pack structure. They don't help raise each other's pups (as a rule). They are not overtly territorial.

Basically if you compare them to any pack/pride/herd type species they just don't share many of the same characteristics. They are about as much of a pack animal as domestic cats. (who are social and like living together.) Cats will form bonds, and will occasionally partake in co operative behaviour, but no one calls them pack animals. Its part of the mythos that dogs are pack animals like wolves.

Oh and I love to point out that even IF you want to believe dog's are pack animals (to CM type lovers) your dog is smart enough to know humans are not dogs. Dog reactive/aggressive dogs are not always (or even usually) human reactive/aggressive and vice versa. If they saw humans and dogs the same this would not be true.

[Caiyuo]

Was just reminded of this thread, not really sure what to make of the lack of replies. Was hoping to build onto the conversation, not end it!

[Vandole]

i've had pudge since sunday and have taught him sit, lay down, and speak. so much fun

[miokomioko]

I've never had as much fun with my old dog (trained by my mother when I was little) as I do with my new dog that I trained myself. It's such a rewarding experience.

However, I would be careful about the speaking trick... I taught my dog that one really early on and it has been somewhat of a speed-bump to get over since because I definitely want to keep my dog on the quiet side (luckily this breed is generally quiet outside the grumbles and growls). When learning new tricks from then-on, when they get confused, they tend to run through their other, previously learned tricks hoping one of them works for whatever treat you're offering them. They'll always come across "speak" because it's easy each time and hopr that it will get them something and it gets kinda' frustrating as you don't want them to bark really loud, and then immediately to the right thing, and rewarding them right away could inadvertently rewarding the barking... It's just such a delicate science when it comes down to the timing of positive reinforcement or aversion.

[Vandole]

oh well, pudge only bark barks if someone he doesnt know enters the house(which is funny, the second he sees their face he gets retarded happy and prances like a deer.)
his speak is more of a quiet growl.


i'm gonna teach him Bang! next i think.

[Max™]

I always teach speak as a muttering "mrrr-rrrurrr-rrrurrr" thing like when dogs "talk".

[miokomioko]

I always teach speak as a muttering "mrrr-rrrurrr-rrrurrr" thing like when dogs "talk".

Yeah, that's what I have been doing, turning away and ignoring if they do it too loudly. Luckily for me, Malamutes are known for their funny mutterings and low grumbles (Chewbacca's voice was based off Lucas' Malamutes' noises) so it came pretty naturally. She already has the three syllables down for "I love you" while cliche, is pretty damn funny sounding.

[Max™]

Larry has two volume levels, mute, and "RARK!"

So he just kinda does the head tilt like "what are you, retarded?" when I try to get him to mrr at me. He's learning words pretty well though, figuring out ball by contrasting it with water seems to be working.

[Cesaria]

More pics please! Loving our new guy - he's had me and the man crying with laughter at some of the stuff he gets up to and he's got the biggest grin you'd ever seen if he hasn't seen you for 10 seconds and you come back in the room.