Thanks for all of the advice.

Some really useful stuff that will help us to bring up the dog correctly.

All your links show is that it's not necessary to 'dominate' a dog in order to train it correctly. There's no need to use force or aggression. Just because dogs don't 'plan' how they might move up the hierarchy in their families, doesn't mean to say the dog doesn't need to know its place. A dog needs to know that it obeys ALL of the humans in your household.

From the rlKennel Clubrl website"Help your puppy find its place in the hierarchy

Puppies need to learn their place in the human pack. Strong-willed puppies need to learn that they cannot have their own way all the time and what you want must come first."[/i

From rlTrain Your Puppyrlsetting the hierarchy within the home."

You and the Kennel Club have your opinion and I and many others have ours. A dog knows that we are not dogs therefore there is no reason to establish a "hierarchy" within the home imo. If you believe a dog wants to "control your home" you believe your dog is being dominant over you and imo and in the opinion of the links I have provided that is not the case. If you watch my two in my home you would say my staffy cross is more "dominant" over my lurcher. If you watch my two whilst out in the country on a walk my lurcher is more "dominant" sniffing out rabbit holes and leading the scenting whilst my staffy "follows". My dogs do what they do because a) I have taught them, b) they want to and c) they respect me, not because they want to "control my home".

Just to add one more thing - I've seen/owned two dogs who believed that they dominated our home, one was a GSD cross bitch who did what she wanted, where she wanted, showed aggression randomly and for no apparent reason, soiled in the house randomly and for no apparent reason when otherwise she was house trained - we had her put to sleep after 12 months because she was simply uncontrollable and I suspect was mentally damaged.

The other was a Shih Tzu male puppy that we were fostering until a permanent home could be found, when I read up on the breed it said that one of the characteristics was a dog which punches above its weight and likes to follow its own will and the one we had certainly did that, it was seriously a very dominant dog for something that you'd tread on and not notice, I've always had big dogs and apart from the one mad one never met a dog like that Shih Tzu, it just didn't want to socialise with us at all and made life hell for our old golden retriever who by then was 13 years old and starting to suffer from cancer - fortunately the little (zuh) found a woman who was familiar with the breed and she admitted that they could be very dominant if allowed and were far from being an old ladies dog as most people view them.

You have read a few web links, not understood them properly, and formed an opinion based on that. Your links say that dominance-based training methods are unhelpful and unnecessary, and that a positive, reward-based method is preferable. I haven't once disagreed with any of that. But what the links don't say is that a dog doesn't need to 'know its place'. A dog needs to know that the humans in its home are to be obeyed.



What difference does it make whether it thinks we are dogs or not? A dog will only obey a person that it feels subservient to. This is true of any animal in any family unit, including humans. If the dog believes it is superior to any of the humans in its home, it may choose not to obey them. I'm sure I don't have to explain the potential consequences of this.



No. The links you provided state that a dog doesn't [iplan[/i to rise up the hierarchy by displaying dominant behaviour. It's not calculated in that way. But if the dog doesn't have clear boundaries, and doesn't know who is in charge, then it may become disobedient and display dominant behaviour. Chicken and egg, see? Unless, of course, you're asserting that no dog ever displays such behaviour?



Eh? Where have I said that your dogs want to control your home? And what you have written above kind of illustrates the point I am making. You have taught them, they want to please you (as their leader) and they respect you (as their leader). They know their place. If you hadn't taught them that you are the boss they wouldn't do as you say, because they would have no reason to. It's really not difficult to understand.

Not really. I subscribe to dog magazines, take part in dog forums, read updated books, volunteer dog advice for a charity, liase with an ABDP behaviourist on a regular basis and watch and learn from my own dogs. My opinion has been formed on scientific facts that there is no basis for a dog hierarchy in the home, dogs know we are not dogs therefore we do not need to behave like one (eating before them as a supposed alpha male dog would etc).

FFS. I have never said that dogs do not know that humans are not dogs. I have never said we should behave like dogs. I have never said we should eat before them. What I have said is that a dog needs to know its place in the home. It needs to know that the humans in its home must be obeyed. A dog that does not know it needs to obey its human masters is an unruly dog. There is a distinct difference between 'dominating' a dog and letting it know who is in charge.

And the point I'm making is there is now a different way of thinking and methods to (in your words) "letting the dog know who is in charge".

Your point is absolute nonsense. The dog needs to know who is in charge, or it simply won't obey. Are you seriously suggesting that a dog follows a command because it feels like it? It does so because it sees you as its 'master' or 'leader' and because it seeks the positive response that comes from pleasing you.

And as for methods, I've made clear on several occasions that I don't support 'dominance' or aggression based training techniques, and that I do support positive, rewards-based techniques. Unless you have massive deficiencies in your ability to read and comprehend simple English, I'm struggling to see what you're finding so difficult to understand.

FFS you've both got a dog/dogs. You each have differing views on how a dog should be trained and developed. Can't you just agree not to look after each others' dogs and move on?

No I'm suggesting a dog follows a command because in P+ it knows its going to get rewarded for that behviour. Explain this then; my behviourist came down to my house the other week and within 5 minutes she had taught them a new clicker move. Did my dogs follow that command because they think she is their new "master" who must be obeyed or did they follow that command because they will be getting a reward??

Anyway, Coddys right, I will continue to read and educate myself on the updated methods and you continue in your belief. One thing we agree on, p+ is the way to go

ps As long as he doesn't have a great dane or a mastiff I would gladly look after Rock Gods dog (s) if the need arise

No, we don't. I have never once disagreed with her assertion that positive training is best.

Fucksake. Your dog obeys commands because they see themselves as being subservient to (certain) humans. Your 'behaviourist' will be included in this because they know how to deal with dogs and because, presumably, they have taken commands from her before. Yes, they know they're going to be rewarded, but (and try to read this very slowly so that you understand) the very process of saying 'do what I say and I'll give you a tit bit' is very much a part of establishing/reinforcing the fact that you hold the authority.



You seem to be incapable of reading anything, much less understanding it. For the final time, I have never once disputed the methods.

And I have not said that you dispute positive reward base methods have I, in in fact I have agreed and acknowledged that we both use these methods. You seem to be missing my point that there are new beliefs out there that disagree with your method of "being the boss" and why dogs behave in certain ways. No where in my posts have I disputed you are against +R.

We are going around in circles here. We both believe in positive reward based methods, agreed? We both disagree on why dogs behave in a certain way for humans, agreed? I have put my point across on why I disagree with your "showing whos boss", you have put your point across on why you think you need to "show them who's boss", agreed? I respect your opinion and why you think that way (I used to until I read many different articles by many different trainers), but I like to think a different way. Many others believe your way, many others believe my way. Do we need to carry this on?