Re: Dogs : Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:39 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

...

My own does not walk well on the lead as he pulls like hell because he always wants to be out in front -...

So does every dog. This means it thinks its job is to be pack leader. All you have to do is train it that you are the leader of the pack, and it will walk brilliantly at your side.

At a guess, 95% of people haven't trained their dogs not to be pack leader on a walk, and so all get pulled and tugged along and from side to side, while the dog is allowed to sniff and stop and scent-mark, instead of having its attention where it should be, totally on what the pack leader - you - is doing.

When your dog is off the lead, it's not necessarily displaying pack leadership, it's more likely just having fun, investigating and sniffing about. Letting the dog off the lead is usually a sign that it's playtime.

If you turn off and go another way, it will most likely follow you. Walking on the lead, though, is more working than fun. We can't go on hunts with the pack, so walking is the equivalent of hunting. It's work, and someone has to take the lead. That should always be you.

Re: Dogs : Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:15 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

So does every dog. This means it thinks its job is to be pack leader...

Is that true though?
e.g. A border collie herding sheep spends most of its time out in front but knows that it is quite definitely not the leader.
My guess (and that's all it is) is that a dog can be a happy and docile pack member and still see its job as sniffing and marking territory out in front of the leader.
The leader has allowed it to do the sniffing, so it does the sniffing, it's been allowed to pull the lead so it pulls the lead ... does that mean it thinks its the leader?

Re: Dogs : Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:56 am  

The pack leader theory is an old and outdated theory which has scientifically been proved wrong. http://www.apdt.com/petowners/choose/dominance.aspx

The pack leader theory is an old and outdated theory which has scientifically been proved wrong. http://www.apdt.com/petowners/choose/dominance.aspx

Re: Dogs : Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:10 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

If you turn off and go another way, it will most likely follow you. Walking on the lead, though, is more working than fun. We can't go on hunts with the pack, so walking is the equivalent of hunting. It's work, and someone has to take the lead. That should always be you.

To be perfectly honest he has other more important issues to deal with rather than who should be walking in front - getting him outside of the property on the lead with just me holding it is the biggest of those problems, he refuses point blank to walk beyond the gate if only one person is taking him to the extent where he goes into a terrified panic mode and will pull so hard backwards that he manages to slip out of his harness - those body harnesses that give you total control over your dog, the ones that they aren't supposed to be able to work out how to get out of, he's Houdini-like when in panic mode.

When he was an adolescent dog his previous owner quite obviously took him out for a walk one day, on his own, tied him to something and abandoned him - try and walk him on your own now and you may as well try and walk a 1 tonne concrete block.

Re: Dogs : Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:10 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

To be perfectly honest he has other more important issues to deal with rather than who should be walking in front - getting him outside of the property on the lead with just me holding it is the biggest of those problems, he refuses point blank to walk beyond the gate if only one person is taking him to the extent where he goes into a terrified panic mode and will pull so hard backwards that he manages to slip out of his harness - those body harnesses that give you total control over your dog, the ones that they aren't supposed to be able to work out how to get out of, he's Houdini-like when in panic mode.

When he was an adolescent dog his previous owner quite obviously took him out for a walk one day, on his own, tied him to something and abandoned him - try and walk him on your own now and you may as well try and walk a 1 tonne concrete block.

Just out of interest, have you worked with him to coax him out of this habit, like taking two of you to walk him, then letting the second person walk less and less distance with you to the point where he is comfortable with one walker or do two of you always have to walk him? I'm just curious as to how you get around it. Personally if I could always walk him with two I think I would to give him comfort if nothing else. Isn't sad how one incident for him can totally change a behaviour forever.

Re: Dogs : Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:16 pm  

Hull White Star wrote: The pack leader theory is an old and outdated theory which has scientifically been proved wrong. http://www.apdt.com/petowners/choose/dominance.aspx I think you are talking about something completely different. Firstly, you don't need to read any article whatsoever to know that in any predator group there is a dominant animal. That is how it is, whether wolves, dogs, lions, gorillas, deer, whatever. Secondly that there is a very clear, if fluid, pecking order, and that each animal knows its place. (And tbf natural behaviour includes testing the boundaries and making your way up in the pecking order if you can). However the article is not an article about pack leaders, but seems to make the point that the pecking order is maintained, for the most part, peacably and in largely non-violent ways. I'd agree with that, dog language is or can be very subtle, and in evolutionary terms, in any given predator group, it is obviously better if most disputes as to rank are resolved relatively peaceably, or at least with as little bloodshed and damage as possible. Because it is not in the interests of the pack, in the main, to damage each other as that weakens the effectiveness of the group. The article is really speaking against the idea that you train a dog by essentially aggression and violence and cow it into submission. But I entirely agree with that. That's not where I'm coming from at all. Quoting from your article: Even between dogs, however, (dominance) is not achieved through force or coercion but through one member of the relationship deferring to the other peacefully. I made the point in my earlier post that to establish yourself as "pack leader" you don't actually need to say a word. You base your dog's behaviour training on dog psychology not human psychology, and it works. In fact you can see it working, and it's an amazing sight. But basically simple, your dog will pick up on cues WHICH MAKE SENSE TO YOUR DOG. It's just knowing what those are.

Hull White Star wrote: The pack leader theory is an old and outdated theory which has scientifically been proved wrong. http://www.apdt.com/petowners/choose/dominance.aspx I think you are talking about something completely different. Firstly, you don't need to read any article whatsoever to know that in any predator group there is a dominant animal. That is how it is, whether wolves, dogs, lions, gorillas, deer, whatever. Secondly that there is a very clear, if fluid, pecking order, and that each animal knows its place. (And tbf natural behaviour includes testing the boundaries and making your way up in the pecking order if you can). However the article is not an article about pack leaders, but seems to make the point that the pecking order is maintained, for the most part, peacably and in largely non-violent ways. I'd agree with that, dog language is or can be very subtle, and in evolutionary terms, in any given predator group, it is obviously better if most disputes as to rank are resolved relatively peaceably, or at least with as little bloodshed and damage as possible. Because it is not in the interests of the pack, in the main, to damage each other as that weakens the effectiveness of the group. The article is really speaking against the idea that you train a dog by essentially aggression and violence and cow it into submission. But I entirely agree with that. That's not where I'm coming from at all. Quoting from your article: Even between dogs, however, (dominance) is not achieved through force or coercion but through one member of the relationship deferring to the other peacefully. I made the point in my earlier post that to establish yourself as "pack leader" you don't actually need to say a word. You base your dog's behaviour training on dog psychology not human psychology, and it works. In fact you can see it working, and it's an amazing sight. But basically simple, your dog will pick up on cues WHICH MAKE SENSE TO YOUR DOG. It's just knowing what those are.

Re: Dogs : Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:31 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Is that true though?
e.g. A border collie herding sheep spends most of its time out in front but knows that it is quite definitely not the leader.

The border collie isn't in front. The shepherd is the "front" and the collie/s drive the sheep to him.

Border collies take advantage of the herding instinct which involves, essentially, some members of the pack running around the prey and encircling it, and driving it forwards to a convenient ambush point. It is behaviour that comes naturally, a border collie puppy from working stock will run around and behind the sheep even if it never saw one before. Of course, the pack leader (the shepherd) doesn't actually kill the prey, but as pack leader, that's up to him (or her). The border collie is just glad to have helped, doing what comes naturally. In a border collie this is circling and driving the sheep, and even feigning to nip at their heels, to maintain dominance over the "prey" and control it. Some dogs are too aggressive and have a bite at dissident sheep, too much natural aggression and they will face early retirement. The ones that have just the right mix will of course be bred from and so the behaviour is reinforced genetically.

El Barbudo wrote:

...it's been allowed to pull the lead so it pulls the lead ... does that mean it thinks its the leader?

Basically, yes. It thinks (because it hasn't been taught any different) that its job is to lead, and so it leads. Once it is taught that the responsibility of leadership has been taken away from it, it will be a much happier and calmer dog, because it no longer has the stress of leading the "pack" to worry about, it just has to "follow my leader".

Re: Dogs : Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:48 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I think you are talking about something completely different. Firstly, you don't need to read any article whatsoever to know that in any predator group there is a dominant animal. That is how it is, whether wolves, dogs, lions, gorillas, deer, whatever.

Secondly that there is a very clear, if fluid, pecking order, and that each animal knows its place. (And tbf natural behaviour includes testing the boundaries and making your way up in the pecking order if you can).

However the article is not an article about pack leaders, but seems to make the point that the pecking order is maintained, for the most part, peacably and in largely non-violent ways. I'd agree with that, dog language is or can be very subtle, and in evolutionary terms, in any given predator group, it is obviously better if most disputes as to rank are resolved relatively peaceably, or at least with as little bloodshed and damage as possible. Because it is not in the interests of the pack, in the main, to damage each other as that weakens the effectiveness of the group.

The article is really speaking against the idea that you train a dog by essentially aggression and violence and cow it into submission. But I entirely agree with that. That's not where I'm coming from at all. Quoting from your article:
I made the point in my earlier post that to establish yourself as "pack leader" you don't actually need to say a word. You base your dog's behaviour training on dog psychology not human psychology, and it works. In fact you can see it working, and it's an amazing sight. But basically simple, your dog will pick up on cues WHICH MAKE SENSE TO YOUR DOG. It's just knowing what those are.

Why do you need to be pack leader, you're not a dog and your dog knows that?

Re: Dogs : Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:55 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: I think you are talking about something completely different. Firstly, you don't need to read any article whatsoever to know that in any predator group there is a dominant animal. That is how it is, whether wolves, dogs, lions, gorillas, deer, whatever. Secondly that there is a very clear, if fluid, pecking order, and that each animal knows its place. (And tbf natural behaviour includes testing the boundaries and making your way up in the pecking order if you can). However the article is not an article about pack leaders, but seems to make the point that the pecking order is maintained, for the most part, peacably and in largely non-violent ways. I'd agree with that, dog language is or can be very subtle, and in evolutionary terms, in any given predator group, it is obviously better if most disputes as to rank are resolved relatively peaceably, or at least with as little bloodshed and damage as possible. Because it is not in the interests of the pack, in the main, to damage each other as that weakens the effectiveness of the group. The article is really speaking against the idea that you train a dog by essentially aggression and violence and cow it into submission. But I entirely agree with that. That's not where I'm coming from at all. Quoting from your article: I made the point in my earlier post that to establish yourself as "pack leader" you don't actually need to say a word. You base your dog's behaviour training on dog psychology not human psychology, and it works. In fact you can see it working, and it's an amazing sight. But basically simple, your dog will pick up on cues WHICH MAKE SENSE TO YOUR DOG. It's just knowing what those are. Try reading this article a little more carefully, it explains the myth of "pack leader". http://www.leecharleskelley.com/thetop1 ... eader.html "Q: What are your thoughts on human to dog hierarchy?" "A: There is strictly no such thing - people are predominantly parent figures to their dogs, not pack leaders in hierchical arrangements and there is a wealth of science from evolutionary biologists to substantiate that view. Social order is seasonally evident in wolves and other wild canids to ensure the success of reproduction, not for any ongoing political reasons."-- Interview with Dr. Peter Neville.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: I think you are talking about something completely different. Firstly, you don't need to read any article whatsoever to know that in any predator group there is a dominant animal. That is how it is, whether wolves, dogs, lions, gorillas, deer, whatever. Secondly that there is a very clear, if fluid, pecking order, and that each animal knows its place. (And tbf natural behaviour includes testing the boundaries and making your way up in the pecking order if you can). However the article is not an article about pack leaders, but seems to make the point that the pecking order is maintained, for the most part, peacably and in largely non-violent ways. I'd agree with that, dog language is or can be very subtle, and in evolutionary terms, in any given predator group, it is obviously better if most disputes as to rank are resolved relatively peaceably, or at least with as little bloodshed and damage as possible. Because it is not in the interests of the pack, in the main, to damage each other as that weakens the effectiveness of the group. The article is really speaking against the idea that you train a dog by essentially aggression and violence and cow it into submission. But I entirely agree with that. That's not where I'm coming from at all. Quoting from your article: I made the point in my earlier post that to establish yourself as "pack leader" you don't actually need to say a word. You base your dog's behaviour training on dog psychology not human psychology, and it works. In fact you can see it working, and it's an amazing sight. But basically simple, your dog will pick up on cues WHICH MAKE SENSE TO YOUR DOG. It's just knowing what those are. Try reading this article a little more carefully, it explains the myth of "pack leader". http://www.leecharleskelley.com/thetop1 ... eader.html "Q: What are your thoughts on human to dog hierarchy?" "A: There is strictly no such thing - people are predominantly parent figures to their dogs, not pack leaders in hierchical arrangements and there is a wealth of science from evolutionary biologists to substantiate that view. Social order is seasonally evident in wolves and other wild canids to ensure the success of reproduction, not for any ongoing political reasons."-- Interview with Dr. Peter Neville.

Re: Dogs : Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:23 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

Why do you need to be pack leader, you're not a dog and your dog knows that?

Is that a serious question? Well, assuming it is, I would reply that if the dog understands that I and the wife are the decision makers, then the dogs can relax and simply look to us for decisions, instead of stressing over thinking they have to do everything themselves.

The comment about not being a dog is a bit strange. It doesn't matter, though. So far as the dogs are concerned we are all a pack, it is all they understand. Live together = pack.

there is a wealth of science from evolutionary biologists

There are happy, contented de-stressed well-behaved dogs, and there are those that aren't. I have the former.

And while it's true that only one animal leads the pack when they hunt, that animal is not the pack leader: it's the prey.

Remarkable. A prey that in thousands of years has not actually been eaten, then?

There's no question that dogs and wolves will gravitate toward anyone who exudes confidence, who gives clear signals on what you want from them, particularly if those signals and behaviors are in-synch with their instincts for group cooperation. But they clearly don't gravitate toward someone who's intent on dominating them or pushing them around. In fact, they don't like that at all.

Yes, I tend to agree, but why would a dog tend to gravitate to someone "who exudes confidence"?

"There is considerable confusion in the literature concerning wolves between the concepts of dominance and leadership;

Indeed. Not least, I think, in your perception of my posts and the issues I am discussing. I am - and intend to be - the dogs LEADER. I do not seek to establish DOMINANCE OVER THEM. They understand that I am in charge and they are very happy with that. They do not behave as they do out of fear of me, or fear of reprisals, but because they like it that way and are content for it to be that way.