[ar3151]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

Perhaps you should do more research. One of the supporters and early users of this technique were the Monks of New Skete. Strangely enough the Monks of New Skete no longer recommend this technique.


What do dogs know from the technique?


I do appreciate anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence does not give reason to advocate such techniques.


Elsa's not my baby, and I'm not sure what this question has to do with the topic. But if you're asking if Elsa is my only dog, yes, Elsa is the only dog I care for at the moment. And before you make any assumptions, I'm not foreign to multiple dog homes.

first im not like most of the people here, i dont make assumptions about other peoples animals or training technics. so please dont try to put me in that category, not once have i hinted of questioning you.

i have agreed to what 2-3 other people said, and as i expected im the only one that gets the whole "anecdotal evidence", but thats ok. from what it sounds like you have a personal issue with me? if that is the case lets openly talk about it. but always trying to point out someones flaws does not show strong character.

we both have researched and read things, but who really is here to say what is right and what is wrong? we can be open minded or closed, personally i like to hear and see both sides, i cant really say the same....




rosemaryninja - im glad to see your making progress, i wish you best of luck on getting the subject worked out.

[TooneyDogs]

Originally Posted by rosemaryninja

Sorry,
So basically, progress has been made, but she's still putting up a good effort. Am I going to have to watch her for 20 minutes after every training session or is she ever going to get the idea?

Yes. Part of the problem is that it has become a habit and that's why you need a diversion/new activity. See below.

-EDIT-
Oh yeah, and my dogs don't like chew toys. I don't know why. After two years they just stop chewing anything at all. They will only ever chew something if they can actually eat it.

Try a Kong filled with peanut butter, cheese cubes or a Buster Cube filled with Cheerios (not the best but, they work well).

[rosemaryninja]

I am gonna try to buy them a Kong tomorrow...

I'll just buy one, yeah? Since one will be working with me and one will be chewing...I don't think I will leave it out all the time for them to play with.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by ar3151

from what it sounds like you have a personal issue with me? if that is the case lets openly talk about it. but always trying to point out someones flaws does not show strong character.

I think you're misunderstanding *why* I pose these questions. I don't know you, I don't plan on knowing you, therefore, I have no personal opinions of you, or your flaws...if you have any. But if you're asking, I'm not perfect, but for you to question my character is a personal matter, it's out of place, and not open for debate.

*Why* I pose these questions because I am not biased with common thought. I pose these questions because I find certain *ideas* harmful to, the topic *we* are discussing, dogs. I pose these questions because mind viruses exist, and they are propagated on these forum, often without question. So I *will* question them. If you are as open minded to ideas as you believe, you'd appreciate that.

So before you accuse me of *wanting* to point out someone's flaws, perhaps you should understand *why* I question certain ideas. Alpha rolling btw, is an idea I always question, and even if you were my beloved mother, I'd point out your "flaw". And my mother wouldn't have raised her son to do anything less.

So, if you're capable of discussing these ideas, we won't be exposing our flaws...we'll be discussing ideas. I assume you're capable. Otherwise, I'm sure others can make their own conclusions.

[ar3151]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

I think you're misunderstanding *why* I pose these questions. I don't know you, I don't plan on knowing you, therefore, I have no personal opinions of you, or your flaws...if you have any. But if you're asking, I'm not perfect, but for you to question my character is a personal matter, it's out of place, and not open for debate.

*Why* I pose these questions because I am not biased with common thought. I pose these questions because I find certain *ideas* harmful to, the topic *we* are discussing, dogs. I pose these questions because mind viruses exist, and they are propagated on these forum, often without question. So I *will* question them. If you are as open minded to ideas as you believe, you'd appreciate that.

So before you accuse me of *wanting* to point out someone's flaws, perhaps you should understand *why* I question certain ideas. Alpha rolling btw, is an idea I always question, and even if you were my beloved mother, I'd point out your "flaw". And my mother wouldn't have raised her son to do anything less.

So, if you're capable of discussing these ideas, we won't be exposing our flaws...we'll be discussing ideas. I assume you're capable. Otherwise, I'm sure others can make their own conclusions.

i am open minded, i listen and talk. im not going around telling people they have "anecdotal evidence". when in fact you might want to do some reading up on your own literature when speaking about "anecdotal evidence"

This is information taken from the source you listed "The Monks of New Skete" under the Title "Becoming the Alpha"

And for anyone else that doesnt think that "Alpha" exists.

"Dogs, having descended from wolves, are pack animals who, right from the beginning of their lives, are sensitized to social hierarchies. This will be a constant throughout the dog's life: All dogs need leadership. At first, pack leadership (the figure of the alpha) is exclusively revealed in the mother. However, early on in the development of the litter a pecking order among the pups develops, and each littermate fits into a particular role in the pack. This is partially how the individual personality of each pup begins to manifest itself. We can learn from the mother how important it is to be a firm, yet benevolent Alpha. The mother commands the absolute respect of the pups, yet at the same time their love as well. When a pup goes to its new home, it becomes a member of a new pack, and will begin to act like a pack member, testing its limits, trying to determine where it fits in. It is absolutely essential for the owner(s) to assume the role of alpha in their pup's life. Understanding early socialization is an important element in assuming the alpha role. Democracy is a forbidden word as it applies to the dog/human relationship. While many owners have negative associations with concepts of leadership drawn from their human experiences, they have to understand that dogs require a leader and that this must be their role. Owners know far better than their dogs what is in the dogs' best interest"

and if i am wrong then these "The Monks of New Skete" must be wrong too.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by ar3151

and if i am wrong then these "The Monks of New Skete" must be wrong too.

Is it wrong to compare wolves to dogs? I'm sure there's much that can be learned by observing wolves, but to deduce chimpanzee behavior would be a good model in describing human behavior, I do say is wrong. And to propagate ideas formed by substandard models is silly, if not harmful, and the reason dogs suffer from our treatment. I'd ask if you could see that, but I'm not certain you *can* let go of your anecdotal evidence.

I'm familiar with the Monks...apparently you're not, and I can't say that's a bad thing. I mentioned the Monks for the specific reason that they *use to* promote alpha rolling (you agree with alpha rolling), but now the Monks don't. Why? Perhaps if you researched a bit harder you would have discovered the answer to this question, and too the flaws with wolf theory.

And yes, I don't believe "Alpha", in it's true sense, as a descriptor within a wolf pack hierarchy, is how one should approach the relationship they have with their dog. But that's a topic, if you're truly open to discuss, that would be better suited in a new thread.

[ar3151]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

Is it wrong to compare wolves to dogs? I'm sure there's much that can be learned by observing wolves, but to deduce chimpanzee behavior would be a good model in describing human behavior, I do say is wrong. And to propagate ideas formed by substandard models is silly, if not harmful, and the reason dogs suffer from our treatment. I'd ask if you could see that, but I'm not certain you *can* let go of your anecdotal evidence.

I'm familiar with the Monks...apparently you're not, and I can't say that's a bad thing. I mentioned the Monks for the specific reason that they *use to* promote alpha rolling (you agree with alpha rolling), but now the Monks don't. Why? Perhaps if you researched a bit harder you would have discovered the answer to this question, and too the flaws with wolf theory.

And yes, I don't believe "Alpha", in it's true sense, as a descriptor within a wolf pack hierarchy, is how one should approach the relationship they have with their dog. But that's a topic, if you're truly open to discuss, that would be better suited in a new thread.

who said anything about propagting ideas to harm dogs? thats just absured to even think. funny i never said anything about harm, but you bring it up.

you cant always compare other things that are not in the topic, ie: chimpanzee', blind people....etc. no reason to bring things that arent directly related.

apparently i am familiar with the Monks, thank you. obviously you arent as familiar, or you just have a little anecdotal evidence yourself. go to the link http://www.dogsbestfriend.com/ and see where they say "becoming the Aplha". i dont know where you come up with knowing them so well, but if they *use to* do it, then why do they specify that on the website? you are right, i might not know if they approve rolling, but i will continue to research instead of thinking i know it all

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by ar3151

who said anything about propagting ideas to harm dogs? thats just absured to even think. funny i never said anything about harm, but you bring it up.

i agree with the pinning, i did alot of reading and dogs understand that trick, non threatening of course.

Those are your words correct?

Here's a logic string you're obviously not familiar with, but I am...

Owner watches an episode of the Dog Whisperer.
Owner's dog jumps on couch.
Owner alpha rolls dog.
Dog bites Owner. Fear.
Dog becomes and "outside" dog.
Dog becomes a barker. Dog wants to be inside with Owner.
Owner "corrects" dog's barking and dog aggresses towards Owner.
Dog is taken to the pound for being "aggressive".

This dog has 5 days to prove he's anything but aggressive. If not, he's euthanized. Is that harm enough? Do you want any part in this logic string? If you deny this logic strings exists, you're too far removed from reality to continue this discussion.

you cant always compare other things that are not in the topic, ie: chimpanzee', blind people....etc. no reason to bring things that arent directly related.

Exactly my point. You shouldn't compare wolves to dogs. Did you not see that's what the Monks do?

Have a good day ar3151.

[ar3151]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

Those are your words correct?

Here's a logic string you're obviously not familiar with, but I am...

Owner watches an episode of the Dog Whisperer.
Owner's dog jumps on couch.
Owner alpha rolls dog.
Dog bites Owner. Fear.
Dog becomes and "outside" dog.
Dog becomes a barker. Dog wants to be inside with Owner.
Owner "corrects" dog's barking and dog aggresses towards Owner.
Dog is taken to the pound for being "aggressive".

This dog has 5 days to prove he's anything but aggressive. If not, he's euthanized. Is that harm enough? Do you want any part in this logic string? If you deny this logic strings exists, you're too far removed from reality to continue this discussion.

ok well that owner obviously was really stupid for watching a TV show and trying to act it.

next he is a professional, that makes a sound and sticks a dog in the chest or neck around with his fingers. so let me guess you want to degrade him for this so called "harming".

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

Exactly my point. You shouldn't compare wolves to dogs. Did you not see that's what the Monks do?

Have a good day ar3151.

dogs share common ancestry with wolves, so in a since i can compare. did you not see where the monks said they descended from wolves?

or on a more scientific basis:

Dogs:
Scientific classification

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Carnivora

Family: Canidae

Genus: Canis

Wolf:

Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Carnivora

Family: Canidae

Genus: Canis

Relation to the dog
Much debate has centered on the relationship between the wolf and the domestic dog, though most authorities see the wolf as the dog's direct ancestor. Because the canids have evolved recently and different canids interbreed readily, untangling the relationships has been difficult. But molecular systematics now indicate very strongly that domestic dogs and wolves are closely related, and the domestic dog is now normally classified as a subspecies of the wolf: Canis lupus familiaris. The main differences between wolves and domestic dogs are that wolves have, on average, 20% larger brains, better immune systems, a better sense of smell, and are generally larger than domestic dogs.

North American domestic dogs are believed to have originated from Old World wolves and no known dog breed is indigenous to America. The first people to colonize North America 12,000 to 14,000 years ago brought their dogs with them from Asia, and apparently did not separately domesticate the wolves they found in New World.*

*source - http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Conservati...her2003108.cfm



it seems you always look for the "worst case scenario". not everything is a slippery slope.

good day it is!

[TooneyDogs]

Originally Posted by ar3151

This is information taken from the source you listed "The Monks of New Skete" under the Title "Becoming the Alpha"

and if i am wrong then these "The Monks of New Skete" must be wrong too.

They were wrong. They regretted and retracted that concept in their 2nd book.

Alpha's do not rule by force, even in nature. When 2 lesser pack members get into a squabble he does not charge in and start ripping them apart. He calmly, confidently steps between them...end of dispute....he doesn't Alpha roll. He may earn his position by winning a fight but, he only keeps it by nurturing the health, safety and well-being of the entire pack..leading the pack wisely. You've already won the role of Alpha...you were born with it.... and it is extemely rare that a dog will ever challenge you for that position even once during your lifetime.

[ar3151]

Originally Posted by TooneyDogs

They were wrong. They regretted and retracted that concept in their 2nd book.

Alpha's do not rule by force, even in nature. When 2 lesser pack members get into a squabble he does not charge in and start ripping them apart. He calmly, confidently steps between them...end of dispute....he doesn't Alpha roll. He may earn his position by winning a fight but, he only keeps it by nurturing the health, safety and well-being of the entire pack..leading the pack wisely. You've already won the role of Alpha...you were born with it.... and it is extemely rare that a dog will ever challenge you for that position even once during your lifetime.

see thank you for taking the time to talk and explain, what you said makes sense. i will for sure keep reading for the sake of good knowledge.

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

Is it wrong to compare wolves to dogs? I'm sure there's much that can be learned by observing wolves, but to deduce chimpanzee behavior would be a good model in describing human behavior, I do say is wrong. And to propagate ideas formed by substandard models is silly, if not harmful, and the reason dogs suffer from our treatment. I'd ask if you could see that, but I'm not certain you *can* let go of your anecdotal evidence.

I'm familiar with the Monks...apparently you're not, and I can't say that's a bad thing. I mentioned the Monks for the specific reason that they *use to* promote alpha rolling (you agree with alpha rolling), but now the Monks don't. Why? Perhaps if you researched a bit harder you would have discovered the answer to this question, and too the flaws with wolf theory.

And yes, I don't believe "Alpha", in it's true sense, as a descriptor within a wolf pack hierarchy, is how one should approach the relationship they have with their dog. But that's a topic, if you're truly open to discuss, that would be better suited in a new thread.

Since we cleared up the Alpha role and relation to wolves, time to move on.

Since you did quote Ceaser Milan "the dog whisperer". here is one from himself. explaining his role and technics.

"I give [dogs] a firm correction, a firm grab in the neck, which is what dogs do to each other. They pin each other, and they hold on to each other until one of them surrenders. Dogs do this to each other. I do not do it with anger or frustration. I come with a calm, assertive approach to create a calm, submissive state of mind. Submissive to me does not mean cowed, it means accepting of fair human leadership, and that the unwanted behavior is not tolerated. A mother dog will reprimand a puppy physically, and she does it firmly but it is not abusive. I am the same—firm and fair—not abusive in any way."

http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...esars_way.html

if that doesnt work or is bad for the dog, then why does he use it?

day is getting better!

[Alpha]

There's always more than one way to achieve something with our dogs.

Sometimes the choice you make should be with safety in mind, and other times it should be made with a "What would *I* want someone to do to me?" mind.

I think alpha rolling (Which Tooney explained in fact is more of a dance between dogs where the submissive dogs VOLUNTARILY rolls themselves) is one of those things that should be avoided with SAFETY in mind.

Most people don't know enough about dog behaviours to do such a thing. Most people don't know enough about how THEIR OWN BODY LANGUAGE provokes behaviours from our dogs to do such a thing.

And MOST (just most) of the time, there is a better way of coming to the same result aka one that does not include force.

Some people (myself included at times) will choose force over "the happier, rainbow way out", for whatever reasons, but I don't think it should be the first method that anyone should advise someone to do on an internet forum. Discussing the methods is a different thing, reccomending something that could be possibly dangerous if not performed correctly is another.

A positive method performed incorrectly may not get results, but it probably won't end in a dog biting owner tragedy like Curb mentioned.

The whole Alpha thing (my name is more comparable to good leadership, I like to say I'm the leader by default in our house because of resource control) is sometimes misunderstood. I see it used a lot with things like dominance, and the general idea meaning physical force when it's just not the case.

Alpha, to me, means I'm the "leader". I'm only the leader because I'm in control of everything my dog NEEDS to live. The things my dogs WANT. It's a very non-physical way of being head of your funny, half furry half not pack.

The thing that usually provokes a "EUREKA!" moment for people if you want to go to the "in the wild" side, is "alphas" are not physical. At all.

They do nothing physical to get to the top. And the few that do, are outed quickly by the pack, for the BETTER of the pack. An article I read on the topic states: No one, even in the dog world, likes a dictatorship Alpha's are the resource controllers. They are aloof, non-physical and confident.

By doing something as physical as Alpha rolling, you are in fact LOWERING yourself in the pecking order. Which can be very confusing to dogs.

Very generally:
Alphas - not physical
Middle of the pack - fights over anything and everything
Bottom - doesn't fight because they know it will get them nowhere.

So when you yell, get angry, stomp your feet and physically punish your dog, instead of sending the message that you are the leader, your in fact saying, "Hey, we're both on the same level, let's duke it out to see who gets this toy or the cookie etc etc"

The dog isn't fighting you because they want to be on top. They're displaying what some would say is "dominance" because YOU'VE opened the door for them to believe that's what YOU want to DO. Feral dogs would act that way, your trying so hard to be part of the pack, you've achieved that, just not the status you were hoping for.

Sorry, waaay off topic,

I'm glad to hear things are coming along.

[ar3151]

i respect everything you just said. thank you

i apologize for getting off on a tantrum, but i do not like someone telling me im wrong, when i have proven science to back it up. if i am wrong fine, thats cool. but everytime i post darn near i was getting called out. so if people want to use this "anecdotal evidence" crap.

people think i abuse my dogs, hell my dogs are more spoiled than me, but they cant see that, they see how i did a couple of training methods i prefer and they think im abusing. when i say "i used this techni" people reply all offended like im trying to tell people to beat the crap out of their dog.

if you are scared to be one with your dog then that person has no business owning a dog. dogs can sense fear which is probably why they would snap.

alot of people that have training problems, still have them because they chose to train a certain way. i dont need someone always on my heels saying what im doing is bad, its up to the owner to decide. also from what i read those people who choose the "ignoring method" are still having problems. i personally havent seen many threads saying "i have used physical discipline and it doesnt work!" not saying those threads dont exist, but i dont see them that common. i wonder why? and other people have let me know in pm's that they do the same as i do.

most people didnt read where i said no me and my dogs roll as a pack, we play and such. so i agree with the i am one of the pack, not hey im the alpha and get home from work and beat the crap cause i am the alpha, thats just BS.

well im off the rant for now. thanks for taking the time to talk and not judge or telling me im wrong.

[Alpha]

Hey everyone has their tantrum days

It's so easy to say that the method doesn't work, the ignoring method.

Of course if your not seeing results, your going to blame the method. When in fact it's not the method that doesn't work, it does, I use it. It's that it's not being executed PROPERLY.

The word "proper" comes into play in a lot of things with dogs. Properly using aversives likes prongs or e-collars, it's the defense of many of the people who use those tools (and rightfully so) so why can't it come into play on the other end of the spectrum?

When a more positive method doesn't work, why in fact is it always assumed that it's the method that isn't right? Why can't it be that it's not being executed properly?

A large role in ignoring, just isn't ignoring. Confusing huh? ROFL! Its' the general "vibe" of the situation that still keeps the dog engaged with you. You just don't ignore them so they walk away and go play with a toy. It's a way of ignoring, that keeps their focus on you, and brings them into that "calmer state of mind". It's a certain way of using your body language to convey a message. It's a specific way of movement that shows your firm and confident.

It's much more than just ignoring.

i personally havent seen many threads saying "i have used physical discipline and it doesnt work!"

I'm not picking at you, just had to add this

I think when people use physical discipline (I mean, harsh physical discipline, with IMO, would be alpha rolling), if there isn't a negative effect right away, a lot of the time, there are negative effects that come out in other areas of "life" in general.

Example)

Someone alpha rolls their dog for growling over a bone.

The dog never growls again. Fantastic! It worked right? Or do people (who probably don't really know what they're doing) just not see the connection between when they rolled their dog and the behaviours that popped up after, like; submissive urination, cringing when you go to roughly pat their neck, slower recalls etc etc, until that one day, they near the dog, it's uncomfortable, and instead of growling, it goes straight to the bite.

It's just the other end of the spectrum, in a way.. I guess kinda. A lot of the time "dominant" percieved behaviours are caused by something else, lack of leadership for example. Well, physical discipline can be the cause of other behaviours, where some wouldn't make that connection. Just assume it's a whole new problem, when in fact, it's completely relative to the harsh physical correction.

[battlemonkey]

Well, I"m glad everybody has gotten that out of their system and I'm glad we're on the same page!

We know we're all here for one reason and one reason only: for better understanding, help, knowledge, assistance and friendships for us and our four-legged babies! (if that made any sense, I hope...lol)

[TooneyDogs]

Originally Posted by ar3151

Since you did quote Ceaser Milan "the dog whisperer". here is one from himself. explaining his role and technics.

"I give [dogs] a firm correction, a firm grab in the neck, which is what dogs do to each other.

The technique works. I think what everyone is trying to say is there are many ways to apply almost any technique. From gentle to harsh and everything in between. In this particular case a touch to the neck with just the fingertips can often be just as effective depending on the dog.
The middle of the road is Milan...grab the neck. The harshest application is a scruff shake with both hands. And if you want to get really tough, you lift the dog off the floor by the neck and helicopter him. Good trainers/handlers will always use the least harmful method of any technique before moving up to the next level or they might change methods depending on the initial response.

[Ixala]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

*Why* I pose these questions because I am not biased with common thought. I pose these questions because I find certain *ideas* harmful to, the topic *we* are discussing, dogs. I pose these questions because mind viruses exist, and they are propagated on these forum, often without question. So I *will* question them. If you are as open minded to ideas as you believe, you'd appreciate that.

What's a "mind virus"?

[battlemonkey]

I also agree that Cesar's technique works, the one of the "hand bite". I have started using that on my dog since I've started watching him on TV, and she listens to me alot more now. We still have some issues, but for the most part, I'm now becoming more pack leader, and less of a mother spoiling her child.

Dogs need balance in their lives, dogs need to have leaders and the only ones that can do that are their owners.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Ixala

What's a "mind virus"?

Ideas the develop without empirical evidence, believed to be reality, never questioned, and propogated as truths. Dominance theory is an example of a mind virus. Dominance theory is based on the premise that if you can just exert adequate dominance over the dog, everything else will fall into place. The unfortunate consequence in believing such a premise is, incredible amounts of abuse are going to be perpetuated against the dog if an adequate amount of dominance isn't found. Viruses can be deadly, and so can the abuse of dominance theory.

I contend that anyone who believes in the dominance model, would get a better result with less wear and tear on their dog, if they had a more thourough understanding of learning theory. Mind viruses like dominance theory are useless when compared to the results that can be obtained using learning theory.

Unfortunately some people are averse to learning or to being scientific. So they accept constructs based on popularity alone. I find this shameful and parsimonious to the animals we celebrate.

[rosemaryninja]

Sure, pinning dogs may work, but I think most dogs don't need it. Alpha rolls should only, in my opinion, be done in very extreme cases, and only by professionals. You could very easily get a bunch of stitches in the face if you tried to roll an aggressive dog without knowing how to do it properly. Most people watch The Dog Whisperer once, and then try to roll their dog that's been a little hyperactive around guests. Not necessary, in my opinion, when much less physical methods could have been used. That's why I disagree with Alpha rolling, because it is so often abused.

Not to bring things back on-topic (haha) but - I think I found something that works. Today I went out, trained for 10 minutes, then walked both the dogs for about half an hour. After half an hour, I sent Honey back home, and then walked Spunky for about 15-20 minutes more. She was pretty knackered out when we got home (they walk about 30 minutes in the morning too) and did not try to hump Honey once!

Well, okay, once. After I brought Spunky back from her extra walk, I supervised them for a little while; nothing happened. Once I left the room I heard the barks that meant Spunky was at it. I went back in, gave Spunky a "No!" - which managed to stop her - and then I sent her to her corner in a sit-stay. Left the room, everything was fine, after about 15 minutes of calmness I went in with a few pieces of kibble, made them "sit" (relatively simple task) and fed both at the same time.

Not a peep from them since, so I think everything is going okay.