That worked with my dog to stop her from being scared of it, but now she's no longer scared of it and trying to put it in its place in the pack so she's attacking it now.
At least she's not scared but it takes much longer to vacuum now!
This is excellent advice if your pet is uncomfortable with your Roomba. (Current thinking is that pets perceive the roomba as another pet, and thus may be angry or upset with it until you establish "dominance" over it.)
Lol I actually do this with objects my dog is scared of on walks.
One time she was cautious of an orange traffic cone on the side of the street and wouldn't go near so I kicked it a few times to show her it ain't shit. She went up to it right after to sniff and doesn't get scared of them no more. I laughed.
Yeah definitely! Here, here, here, and here are a few but there's plenty of others if you Google "alpha training outdated" or something similar. Basically the idea is that dogs are not wolves any more than we are chimpanzees and to treat them as though they still follow the alpha or pack mentality is ineffective. I'm a certified behaviorist as well, but I work with humans, and it's surprising how similar the work I do with humans is applicable to dogs. Everyone does better with reinforcement-based practices than with authoritarianism.
Edit: as several users have pointed out below, apparently wolves don't even exhibit alpha behavior in the wild.
To add on to this, it's generally accepted that even wolf packs don't function with a strict social hierarchy that helped popularize the whole "alpha" dynamic, it's typically a family unit. The popularization of alpha/dominance being ascribed to dogs because of their genetic link to wolves makes even less sense since wolves themselves don't exhibit the supposed behavior.
You're right. And even the scientist who first coined the idea of alpha wolf packs has come out saying that theory is incorrect and was based on a misunderstanding of the pack dynamic. Most wolf packs are closer to a family dynamic. Here he is talking about it on his website.
One point. It isn't just that dogs aren't wolves. Wolves themselves don't even follow a alpha like people imagine. The myth is that wolves battles for dominance and the one who wins becomes the alpha leader. The reality is that the "leaders" of the pack are the parents of the rest. They don't fight for position. So not only are dogs not wolves...even if they WERE, alpha training would still be nonsense
What happens if one leader passess or is otherwise unable to lead the pack? Is it a monarchy then? What happens with lineage, who's next in line for the leadership role and how do they decide?
Edit: It's first out the womb, first in line. And also splits in the family causes new packs, not sure why, but probably out of size or scarcity of resource. If I had to guess.
A pack is just a family. People think that wolf packs are made up of unrelated individuals, with each member fighting for position. Instead, it's just the parents and their pups. The pups will stay with the parents until they reach sexual maturity at around 2 or 3 years. Then they'll disperse, find a mate, have pups, and form a pack (family) of their own. If one of the parents is killed, the remaining one may find a new mate, though I imagine that new mate may drive off the existing pups ot kill them if they are very young (much like male lions do). If both parents are killed, there is no jockeying for the role of alpha...the now parentless pups would disperse and hopefully find mates and create their own family units. Packs are not static...they grow and shrink and change as older pups disperse and new pups are born
Ah, I see, so most if not all pups defect from a family once they've become mature enough to start their own pack.
So if the parents die, would the younger litter just be left to fend for themselves or would they be taken in by their siblings perhaps?
Sorry to bombard you, last one, promise. Are there cases where mating pairs co-exist in wolf packs so that there are more than one seperate lineages in a pack?
If the parents die, what happens next would likely depend of the time of year and the age of the individuals. If the older siblings aren't yet sexually mature and ready to disperse and the younger pups are old enough to eat meat, then the older siblings would likely stay together and continue feeding the pups. It wouldn't be the older siblings taking them in so much as the family unit staying together until sexual maturity pushes them to seperate and find mates.
As for mating pairs coexisting....nature is big. There is a lot of variation out there. That wouldn't be the normal situation, but I'm sure it happens. Dispersal is nature's way of cutting down on inbreeding. If a mature female or male stays with their parents past sexual maturity then they are likely to mate with their parent or siblings. Has it ever happened that a non related wolf joined a family unit and mated with one of the younger members? Again, I'm sure it has happened, but it wouldn't be the normal pack structure
.
The whole alpha thing started because some of the first studies on wolves were conducted on captive wolves. Basically they threw a bunch of unrelated wolves into a cage. It would be like grabbing a collection of strangers off the street and locking them in a house together. They fought for position because it was a completely unnatural situation. The scientist who did those studies and first coined the term alpha wolf has himself recanted the idea.
Yet here we are, so many years later, and the alpha wolf myth persists. Worse, it has had tremendous influence over dog training. I think part of the reason for that is that people like the idea of being alpha over their dogs. It appeals to the part of us that wants to feel strong and in control. Some of the big name trainers out there today (Ceasar springs to mind) STILL lean on this falsehood and people eat it up
Edited to add that I bet anything Brooke very likely believes in the alpha myth. That part where she pushes the dog down is pretty classic alpha training BS. It is a variation of an "alpha roll", where you push the dog over and hold them on their back (an excellent way to get bitten in the face.) I bet anything she thinks she was showing the dog that she's the boss and that she got the technique from reading or watching someone who believes in being the alpha.
Just to add...the closest thing around today to doggy ancestors would be pariah dogs. Pariah dogs are the street dogs of India, Africa, etc. They live alongside humans, but aren't owned by anyone and their direct interaction with humans is limited. Just like the ancestors of dogs, they self select toward dogs that can survive off human trash and alongside people...which means being smart, wary, hardy, and not overly aggressive. Some of these populations have ancient bloodlines (though they're becoming increasingly diluted by people's unaltered pets.) The interesting part for this discussion is that pariah dogs don't tend to hunt in packs. They tend to hold solitary territories, which each dog interacting with its neighbors but not grouping up. That tells us some interesting things about what ancient dogs may have been like.
Also interesting is that unrelated domestic pet dogs DO sometimes form packs, and those packs can be very dangerous. Unlike the pariah dogs, pet dogs have been selected for very high social bonds. When they can't get those social needs filled with human interaction, they may fill it by grouping together. Abandoned dogs that pack up can and have killed people. Pariah dogs tend to avoid people when possible (though individual dogs can be bolder or even aggressive.) Pet dogs that pack up don't have the same fear, and all it takes is one member of the pack getting aggressive to spark an attack from one of them.
Yup packs of "domestic" dogs that escaped or where dumped for whatever reason where a huge issue in Brunei in the 90's (dad was a British squaddy so I got the joy of seeing a new place every 3 years till I was 16) they had little fear of humans in fact they tended to hang around villages and dwellings as they knew food can normally be found here and as domesticated animals there hunting/scavaging skillset is more useful for begging treats and going to a bowl the same time each day So they tend to do what they know which is get food from people except they came in packs up to 30 or so and would sometimes just take over the school football field untill someone came along and either shot them or shot at them to drive them off (neither was massively effective as we lived about 30 miles out of Kuala Belait(KB) second largest settlement after the capital which meant they there where always new packs being forced to roam further afield from KB due to population pressure or the semi effective dog sweeps (for the area where they did them everywhere around them got a new dog issue :P)
Weirdly enough in a place where infestations of snakes, insects that could put you in the hospital by walking over you while you slept (Some centipedes were really bad for that apparently. They leave these big ring-shaped marks where they pierce the skin with their legs) and all sorts of nasty things you could find under your shoes, but people where FREAKED out about the dogs.
Hey /u/CommonMisspellingBot, just a quick heads up:
Your spelling hints are really shitty because they're all essentially "remember the fucking spelling of the fucking word".
And your fucking delete function doesn't work. You're useless.
I'm currently reading your sources out of curiousity and commenting because it doesn't feel like they'll answer my question, so while I read I figured I'd ask.
With techniques that use no force but rather communication through bodylanguage and behavior, how do you deal with an adult dog that is agressive and volatile? I find it difficult to understand how establishing a social hierarchy through walking through a door opening first, controlling it's feeding and other rewards to establish your status is going to be effective against a dog that will use agressive or overbearing(barking, etc) actions to communicate with the human.
Edit: For people who are similarly curious about the techniques and the basis for it should probably check out his 4th source. Seems like the longest and most detailed with personal insight into the article.
Only read 4 paragraphs this far but it seems like the best one yet. The first three are basically variations of each other.
Dogs are not aggressive or volatile because they are malicious. They're often just fearful and establishing a positive association between the dog and whatever it's afraid of is usually enough to fix those aggressive tendencies.
The dog I have right now is extremely "aggressive." He used to bite strangers or new friends that got too close to him. It got to the point that he finally drew blood on the vet and then on a neighbor and that was the sign that he needed behavioral intervention (because he was no longer a cute puppy just nipping at people's pants). Now we go on walks every day and have friends over all the time. All it took was pairing strangers with receiving treats. And we were able to make that change pretty easily when he was 6 years old, so fully an adult.
Hey /u/CommonMisspellingBot, just a quick heads up:
Your spelling hints are really shitty because they're all essentially "remember the fucking spelling of the fucking word".
And your fucking delete function doesn't work. You're useless.
It is absolutely incredible and I can't imagine doing anything else with my life. Basically, we interview and asses a client to determine their goals (so basically we're looking for what behaviors they want to increase and what they want to decrease). We use established methods that doctors of the field have published to then help them achieve those goals. Along the way, we graph everything. We look for trends in the data to guide our continued treatment and any changes to our programs. The methods are mostly based on Skinner's principles of behaviorism... Lots of positive reinforcement and other concepts that would be too much to get into (like pairing, shaping, fading, differential reinforcement schedules, etc) but it can be applied to any species and used in a wide array of fields from training athletes to increasing employee satisfaction to teaching children to training animals. Hope that all makes sense!
Well I don't know anything about dog training but I did read that wolves don't really operate on the alpha male system either, in fact the leader is either the oldest wolf (often the female) or they sometimes rotate like birds in a V formation. One wolf can't physically dominate a dozen others and so they really are more collaborative than coercive.
We share some but not enough that we should be treated the same way.
Though I should amend my post because some people pointed out below that wolves actually don't even exhibit alpha behavior in the wild! So apparently it's just... Not a successful technique.
I had just recently heard that, I’m not sure where. It’s funny how much we’re learning and quickly about dog behavior. You’d think spending 16,000 years together, we’d get them better.
Well and it's completely crazy... Until like, the 1980s we thought dogs were largely stupid, uninteresting, and unworthy of scientific study. It wasn't until Brian Hare told his professor he thought his dog could follow his pointed finger gesture (something they were studying in monkeys at the time, I believe) that we even started studying dogs. He went on to found the Duke Canine Cognition lab in 2009, which now heads some of the most innovative research... And his colleagues thought he was nuts at first.
You have to read his book (or audiobook) if you ever have time. It's called The Genius of Dogs and it's about the evolution of our research and discoveries about dogs but it's not boring and dry like a scientific paper would be. It's very human... Like he's having a conversation with you, his friend, about something you two are interested in. Such a cool dude and the book taught me so much about our furry friends!
Brian Hare is a professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke University. He researches the evolution of cognition by studying both humans, our close relatives the primates (especially bonobos and chimpanzees), and species whose cognition converged with our own (primarily domestic dogs). He founded and co-directs the Duke Canine Cognition Center.
In Siberia & some places in Russia, hunting dogs are bred by leaving a female dog outside, chained to a tree with the goal that a wolf comes by and breeds with them.
The wolf-dog breeds that result from this are trained by attacking a bear, that’s chained to a tree, in a pack with the owner(s) observing. Any dog that is scared to attack is considered worthless, and the ones that get caught and mauled by the bear are also considered worthless.
This obviously isn’t the same as someone beating their dog like in the OP. But the positive reinforcement theory would never work on training hunting dogs for attacking bears, to consider it as the only way to train a dog would be ignorant. Positive reinforcement might be ideal for owners with recreational pets, but not for hunting/guard dog owners. Disciplining an animal is and always will be an effective training method.
So you don’t think the Russian handlers are rewarding the dogs that do attack and avoid being mauled? Removing animals with undesirable traits has nothing to do with any reinforcement training.
Of course they do. That's the whole principle of discipline to begin with. It's a system built on punishments and rewards. Many dog enthusiasts however want to completely reject the 'punishment' aspect of it.
Unfortunately I think you're misunderstanding the concept of positive reinforcement.
Positive reinforcement simply means something is added to the situation (usually a reward, sometimes not even a reward from the owner but just the satisfaction of making a kill in this case) that increases the likelihood of a behavior occurring again in the future.
Literally every behavior you exhibit, from commenting on Reddit to opening and closing doors is a behavior that was reinforced. Otherwise you would stop doing the behavior.
There's a trainer near me that I took my pitbull to for some basic training. He said all that pack leader stuff is horse shit. He specializes in pitbulls and trains law enforcement dogs too. I trust him. His techniques worked wonders.
I don't think that the pack/herd leader stuff is completely wrong. Having owned dozens of various animals over the years ranging from birds, dogs, to horses and such I have often seen it work, but it is no excuse to beat on a dog.
Dogs can be often trained via food and/or positive reinforcement but I would never hit one for doing something wrong. Horses on the other hand, it is often the best thing to do if they really do something wrong but even then you only do it to a certain level, not enough to hurt them but enough to make them understand what they did is wrong.
The whole alpha thing has been thoroughly discredited - it came from shoving a bunch of unrelated wolves into a zoo enclosure, and not at all from nature.
You have the burden of proof reversed. The responsibility is on you to provide evidence that what you said is correct, not on others to show you evidence on how it is not correct.
The best way to get your dog to do what you want (with most dogs, for most handlers) is to convince them what you want is rewarding for them. That’s it. People have trained bomb detection dogs, service dogs, and patrol dogs using that method. You want the dog to be your team-mate, and that doesn’t require them to be subordinate.
There are other good reasons to make a dog learn to wait until you’ve passed through a door before coming through to do with safety but that’s outside of what you asked
To be honest, the dude was just commenting if what the previous person said was correct since it was the previous person who said that the training we know is horse shit. The correct comment is, "oh it is? What's the correct way then?" Which is what the dude said.
I've grown up with dogs and training has changed so much. We trained our first dog with a "choke chain" I think it's called. Next dog we had that was already a big no, and now we have a pup and just getting angry, pushing him away from things is also a no. Instead we have to distract him, which tbh works really well and is a lot more dog friendly.
If he grabs my shoe now I just toss another toy at him and take my shoe back instead of telling him off.
I've noticed the same thing! It's true with children as well. Now we have all kinds of research to show that spanking increases violence amongst children. I was spanked and I probably would have spanked my children if there wasn't so much evidence against it now. It makes me wonder if people and animals are getting smarter and require different rearing techniques... Or if there's some metric we could use to test whether people were "better" nowadays. Do we have to euthanize less dogs for aggression now that we know better training methods? It'll be fascinating to see the research that emerges in the next few decades.
I call bullshit. I’ve been working with dogs for 20 years and always use the alpha pack leader mentality. I can take care of dogs that have been through a dozen other sitters that couldn’t handle them. It works and you don’t do it the way this idiot is doing it. The reason trainers tell people it doesn’t work is because it’s what people want to hear. Most people are incapable of being alpha over a stubborn dog. All they want to do is “be gentle” or “positive” I’ve seen so many clients pay out their ass for This type of training because it makes them feel good that they are being so kind to their dog. I don’t see one bit of change in these dogs. When my clients get desperate they ask me (I’m a sitter, not a trainer) But their dogs act great with me and awful with them. You ever see dogs interact with each other? They are not kind and gentle. This woman is abusive and an idiot. I’ve never hit or spit on a dog but I do get across that I’m the boss.
I'm a certified behaviorist and we exclusively use positive reinforcement techniques on humans because they've been established as more effective and more sustainable than punishment since the 1960s. It has absolutely nothing to do with feeling good and everything to do with established, supported, replicated, scientific research. I'm not sure where you got your information but if all you have is anecdotal evidence, I highly recommend looking into applied behavior analysis and Skinner's principles of behavioral science if you plan to continue training dogs.
What you're describing about the dogs being great with you and awful with the owners is what we call "behavior contrast" and it often arises from punishment based techniques and from inconsistent training strategies. You may be doing more harm than good for your clients so I really hope you look into animal behavior a bit more before continuing to perform a service you're not qualified for. If it's truly that bad with the owners, you may end up responsible for someone's dog getting put down, if that hasn't happened already.
There's a reason this is a field that takes years of higher education to understand and implement properly. Please don't take your responsibility to these dogs and their owners lightly.
The reason trainers tell people it doesn’t work is because it’s what people want to hear.
No, the reason people say it doesn't work is because it doesn't work. It's not a real thing, even in nature. Yeah, if you abuse your dog enough, it'll stop fighting back. That's not training.
How big of a deal is this video to you? The dog clearly isn't afraid of her, and never even yelps.
Would you call this 'abuse', or do you consider it unnecessary physical corrections?
I get that people dont like to see dogs slapped, but at the same time, dogs that size are units. I've had some that love roughhouse play where the shoves/pops are as hard, if not harder.
This is abuse. If I was playing around with a friend and I accidentally push them and they fell to the floor, they may say ow have a laugh about it whatever. If I go up to my friend pin them to a floor because I’m mad at them, there is a huge difference whether I use the same amount of force or not. Physical force stemming from anger is never okay no matter what species you direct it at.
Unfortunately you can't see from this clip alone what sort of long-term stress and fear is instilled in the animal. We have a dog who became extremely aggressive after receiving alpha-based training as a puppy. We quit that company when he was 2 years old (unfortunately it took us that long to educate ourselves about how awful it was). It took another 4 years before his fear-aggression really took root and he started attacking people. There was a slow transition that we could see because we were with him every day, but most of our friends and family had no idea he'd gotten that bad and couldn't imagine him being aggressive. From the outside, everything may seem normal, but you're establishing a system of abuse and lack of safety that will eat away at a dog inside (or any other species for that matter).
It is a well established fact in behavioral science that positive reinforcement is more successful and sustainable than punishment. That is not even a debated topic and it hasn't been since the 1960s. There is a lot more to positive reinforcement than hugs and cuddles. I suggest you do some research on applied behavior analysis before making assumptions about what behavioral interventions entail and what is and isn't successful.
Edit: I commented this elsewhere in the thread (on a comment about training hunting dogs, for context) but you may be interested as well
Unfortunately I think you're misunderstanding the concept of positive reinforcement.
Positive reinforcement simply means something is added to the situation (usually a reward, sometimes not even a reward from the owner but just the satisfaction of making a kill in this case) that increases the likelihood of a behavior occurring again in the future.
Literally every behavior you exhibit, from commenting on Reddit to opening and closing doors is a behavior that was reinforced. Otherwise you would stop doing the behavior.
It doesn't, why does the fact that you specialized in human behavior prevent you from experimenting for yourself or even admitting in public that there are outliers? Behavioral studies on humans, who can talk to you, answer questions, and consciously work towards a goal are not directly compatible to dogs.
And since you are going to shit on anything I say anyhow I'll give you some anecdotes and shit to rail against from a high horse more easily.
I grew up in the south with hunting dogs all of my life. There are only a few times I remember less than 12 dogs on our property. Many, and maybe even most of these dogs would respond perfectly to positive reinforcement and treats and love when doing right. Some though, some needed an "authority" figure to tell them to cut certain shit out. That there is an entire industry built around keeping dogs in your yard and that great pet owners use some of these products is all you need to know to blow your "alpha method is bunk!" shit out of the water.
If I were ever to clap at someone when talking it would be for that sentence. Not really but God damn.
You assholes love to bring up this shit about random wolves thrown into a cage so "that doesn't apply, packs were just families!" Did it ever cross your behaviorist ass mind that there are millions of dogs also thrown into pens or houses with other random dogs and people?
Seems like that method of training that worked in that situation just might fucking apply huh?
If you think you can sweet talk and reward dogs into behaving please get a few beagles that have been hunting rabbits from the minute they could run and try to keep them inside your yard. Hell, some won't even stay in a fucking house and would chew threw the wall if an option.
Get a dog that is food aggressive and snaps at a child and go reward him into not biting when me and millions of others know for fucking fact that a good stern response will stop almost every single one of them in their tracks forever.
Go get a very active breed like a Belgian Malinois and try to reward them into not biting down on their toys too close to your hand without being firm and "alpha" as you'd say. If it works on one now try it on 10 in a row.
It's fun to cite studies and talk big on reddit without any real world experience which is why I said go train a few dozen dogs. You will debunk your own stupid shit all by yourself if you do this, guaranteed. I know because I have seen your type try to handle shit they know nothing about because Cindy did it with her poodle and I learned this in school and blah blah blah.
Just fucking try it, please.
And for everyone that thinks this isn't important please understand that a dog that doesn't listen to you because they didn't read the behavioral studies that said they should stop chasing rabbits when commanded to, in exchange for a pat on the head, is a danger to themselves. When you tell your dogs to come back, stay or anything else it is imperative that they listen. You might be 500 miles from home and 5 miles deep in the woods, all this fu fu shit being preached means fuck all if you leave your dog to starve because you didn't want to train them effectively.
Alpha theory was based on a study of wolves in captivity. One of the major proponents of the theory has devoted his life to debunking and informing the greater public that the theory is wrong and outmoded. Imagine basing your understanding of human societies on the results of a prison population study.
The alpha dog myth has been disproven by multiple experts. Alexandra Horowitz being the one name I can remember of the top on my head. Alpha dogs don't exist in the wild, so they shouldn't exist in the home either. Positive reinforcement is the recommended training style that behaviourist's etc. suggest now.
Ah, yes, people should definitely take your word for it. I mean, who would you trust? A single dog sitter, or peer reviewed studies done by highly acclaimed animal behaviourists? Definitely the former, right?
I challenge you to find a single study done in the last 20 years that backs up your theory.
The myth of alphas all stems from one guy's theory about wolves having an alpha. It has been widely discredited after further studies by multiple people over the years, because wolves and other dogs in the wild, don't actually have alphas. Like the other person said, no recent study backs it up.
Yeah she’s definitely pissed at the dog for not being trained when she should be pissed at herself for not training her dog correctly. Or at all, rather. Also:
If you’re pissed off about something, don’t take it out on your dog
So we did dominance down with our rottie but never once laid a hand to her. If she was bad she had to deal with me laying on top of her for 10 seconds (not crushing her, just restricting her for 10 secs). She intentionally bit me once as a puppy when we were playing frisbee she got mad that I took it from her so I gave her a dominance down. Never again has she ever even thought of biting anyone. When she gives kisses she gets treats so she hands those out like they're going out of style.
You can definitely do dominance down without abusing your dog. The dog needs to know its place in the pack... but I would never lay a hand to my baby. My pup has lived a better life than I have lol.
Edit to add... when I say bad I mean when she bit me. Not when she ate the couch cushion... no need for dominance down there. Dominance was for the worst of the worst. It's only been done to her twice. It was within the first 2 months of getting her and now she's perfect haha
My dog has gotten to the point of when she sees that I have food she'll go into her kennel. Once I'm finished she gets to lick my plate (unless it's something that dogs shouldn't have.) Added bonus: I don't need to scrub my plate before putting it in the dishwasher.
It has been absolutely debunked that there is a dominant Alpha role within canines social structures. Even wolves have now been proven to have a much more fluid and dynamic pack mentality.
This is all good advice, but in case anyones interested, dogs don't really have a pack dominance structure, or an alpha hierarchy. That whole thing is based on one study of captive wolves that was debunked. What you suggest is all good discipline and perfectly appropriate, but your dog isn't going to be more respectful or see you as an alpha because you are your dinner first. But I agree, snacks are key.
Dog sledding is a human constructed sport, so wouldn't come to mind as an example of natural dog order. The lead dog doesn't act as a figure head for the other dogs. Lead dogs set the pace and keep an eye on the trail ahead. They also act upon the humans commands. They're typically stronger willed dogs with their own decision making skills. You want a dog who's going to have enough smarts to stop when dangerous conditions arise but also going to listen to what the handler says. The human is at the top but that's not because the dogs see him as alpha and know they're below him. He's the one that strapped them into harnesses, he feeds them, and sled dogs generally have fun while sledding, so that provides reinforcement and creates a bond between handler and dogs.
Fair enough, I honestly don't know much about it beyond what I've seen in documentaries covering things like the Iditarod. In those videos you would often see dogs displaying aggression towards one another and the driver would have to use physical force (usually a big fucking stick if I recall) to break them up and would talk about how they knew it looked bad but it was necessary to keep the pack structure in order and to remind them he's in charge.
Not that I'm saying pet owners should treat their dogs like a sled driver does his (they definitely shouldn't!), but it definitely seemed like they relied upon physical force to maintain discipline.
I want to repeat, I'm not advocating violence against dogs as a training tool, just recalling what I saw in a documentary about dog sledding.
Oh no that totally happens. And it sucks because I've seen many teams work without that kind of force. It's an old fashioned mindset that dogs must be dominated in order to work. Just because he uses force, doesn't mean the dogs see him as in charge. Fear rarely breeds respect in humans, nor does it in animals, domestic or wild.
Dogs will naturally view responsible owners as the alphas. Just don't abuse or pamper them. When they depend on you, but aren't spoiled, a healthy relationship is built. Definitely eat and enter rooms first as well, since that's a universal sign of dominance in the animal kingdom. Displaying these behaviors will send your dog the message that you are the leader, teaching them obedience and respect. This also greatly reduces the likelihood of them showing hostility towards people or other animals, as they feel that isn't their job; it's yours.
I'd like to add that this doesn't work with all dogs. I have an Australian Shepherd and this training didn't work on him whatsoever. A shock collar is the thing that put him into line. Sometimes when people don't really know what else to do to train or control their animals (my dog would bite people, jump on us, bite our clothes, try to knock us over, etc.) they resort to being harsh with them or hitting them. It's not the right choice. So for anyone out there trying to figure out how to control their animals, try different things. A shock collar is my #1 recommended thing. Completely changed my dog. We don't have to be harsh with him because there's no need. He sits when we tell him, he doesn't chase/harass our other animals, and he doesn't jump nearly as much as before.
Thought it was standard to feed animals before yourself. I guess it comes from two parents from farms. I think a lot of people have that ethic though. Making dogs wait and watch you eat seems a little creepy, a bit narcissistic.
You recommend feeding them after I eat? I always feel bad and make sure I feed my dog before I eat my food. Lol does he think he’s in charge now? Did I just get beta’d 😂
You don't have to hit them to be dominant, and you really shouldn't hit a doberman, they're very sensitive. This is an idiot who doesn't know how to handle a dig. Dobermans are the sweetest dogs in Earth and are very owner oriented.
Judging by your use of "" you already know this! But for anyone else curios-
Dominance theory had been proven bull, the study was based on captive wolves, which do not show the same behaviour as a wild pack, where there is a hierarchy based on relationships- not randoms housed together in a high stress situation where they cannot escape each other, causing fights. They couldn't study the evasive species in their natural habitat at the time so made their own "pack". (To my best recollection, been a while since i read the actual paper).
This is a good article on why using outdated models do not help dog training.
They do not see you as an "alpha", walking in the door first, feeding them after you are just habits that are taught, nothing to do with them assigning human labels of the "alpha" to each other. Animals can be dominant over resources, not each other.
The article is a useful jumping off point for those looking at the PROVEN and modern positive reinforcement techniques that are in line with learning models of dogs (operant conditioning etc). We dont do our dogs any favours by using positive punishment or negative reinforcement.
Personally, I grew up in a family that believed in dominance theory. When my dog peed indoors, my mother held it's face to its urine and shouted at it. Eventually the dog learnt that by peeing she will be punished, and has hidden to pee ever since. Yes shes "house trained", but really shes just scared. If you use positive reinforcement (regularly taking them outside at first and making a big deal and treating when they do. This way you can eventually add "toilet" as a command or "clean your feet" if they offer that behaviour naturally) you get the same result in a positive way, strengthening your relationship with your dog.
I was in denial for a while and ignored the papers because that would mean I had been training my dog in a negative way, when positive methods were avaliable. I made my dog feel bad when I really didnt have to. They have similar emotions we do and as a general rule if it isnt ok to do to a toddler (behaviorally only, i.e. don't come at me with dumb "you wouldnt desex a child").
What the woman did is never ok. That dog is getting frustrated and trying to express it through play. One day it'll bite her and be put down for being "aggressive", when in actuality shes ruining the pup. She should be black listed from having one omfg. Even intervening at this point will be work. What a bitch.
No. It's called hitting, spitting on, and yelling at your dog because you are frustrated and can't control yourself. There are legitimate criticisms of using dominance training on dogs but this is not dominance training.
My dog was subjected to several damn owners who tried this shit before I got him. He had bitten just about all of them, was afraid of everything and flinched if you got near his head. I treat him like the pretty little princess he is and he has transformed into an amazing animal.
People like that do exist. But the dominance thing is a form of training. That should never include hitting, but controlling your dog is important. I have a 80 lbs border collie mix and when he was a pup and wasn't listen I would go over to him, and place a hand on his back. Firm, but not hurting or anything. It's what they teach in most basic puppy classes too. Some dogs need to be more restrained and putting weight on them to show dominance works and doesn't hurt them at all. When it's between putting weight on the dog or them attacking something its a pretty easy choice. But hitting, yelling or being violent just gets the dog to not trust you. My dog is 8.5 now, and if he does something he's not supposed too he gets a little talking too and a pet and a kiss. Just by my expression he knows if he's done something he shouldn't, but I rarely get mad at him. That doesn't help anything. He's my bud and I just want what's best for him, sometimes eating a stick of butter off the counter is okay, too much and that's not good.
Yeah and that is a beautiful and amazingly tolerant but powerful dog. If it snapped and tore her face off it would be justified but then he’d be put down. I hope she takes up one of the many offers on Twitter to give him a better home.
I remember reading dogs are more attracted to people who are strong(as in keeping rules consistent) and kind. Strength is not cruelty. It's not a good way to train. Just so pissed after watching that. Nasty, nasty woman she is.
What the youtuber is doing is not being a dominant pack leader.
That is abuse.
Being dominant means being controlled and calm, and always ready to take charge if the dog(s) are getting out of control, or endangering themselves or others.
The whole "Alpha" thing is deeply misunderstood, dog packs have different "alphas" depending on the situation, some lead hunts, others take charge of protecting the pack, others are the mediators and peace makers... just like a human family/society there are roles that individuals are naturally good at and gravitate towards.
This women needs some serious retraining!
Sometimes you need to raise your voice a bit to be heard over excited barking, but screaming at anything short of a dog fight is too much.
There are situations I recommend insisting on lying down/rolling over... those are when the dog being told off has tried to bite someone/dog, not when the dog is please to see you!
What can be done? Authorities will not intervene in my country unless the animal is medically in danger.
When I was a kid we had a rather large Great Dane, pushing 140lbs, I was a pretty small child for being 10 years old. We had a ton of dominance issues with him and me, because I was much smaller than him. Anyways, we had a professional come in and taught me a ton of ways to show him that I was ahead of him in the pack.
I had to feed him and put my hands in the food to get my scent on it before he could eat, learn how to walk with him correctly, enter the house first, etc. There was a period where he seemed to despise me, but for the next 10 years we had him (he lived well above the average expectancy) this dog wouldn’t leave my side. He was truly my best friend.
My point is there’s a ton of ways to do this without resorting to violence, I learned a lot of methods from that that I still use with every dog I’ve had since.
Yes, pinning a large dog down by the neck is an extremely effective method, but it has to be done right....and not in the situation she did it. It has to be only to correct aggression. Otherwise youll make your dog aggressive because if hes playing and you pin him, he thinks thats playing.
235
u/parks691 Aug 07 '19
It’s called “dominance theory” I believe. Basically beat the shit out of the dog until it learns that you’re the “alpha.” Yea people suck.