The American Dog

[CanadaJohn]

The bolded is the problem. The reasons actually aren't unknown, to the professionals who study dog behavior. It has to do with instinctive drives that all dogs have, that can be triggered under the right circumstances.

A puppy is not "tabula rasa", a blank slate upon which to write, when you get him. He already has built-in behavioral and survival instincts. What we call "domestication" or training is actually manipulating and controlling and directing those drives... but they're still there, and they're still subject to them regardless of how the owner raises and trains the dog.

One of the first things said by the professional dog trainer that conducts classes for our company was "Any dog may bite." Any dog.


Owners often don't realize this, because their OWN dogs view them as Pack Alpha, parental figure and one step short of the right hand of God.


Something veteran utility workers hate to hear is a homeowner say "oh don't worry my dog doesn't bite." :roll:

My answer is "He doesn't bite YOU, and he doesn't bite people he KNOWS.... but if he has teeth he may bite someone."

This is absolutely true. I've had homeowners tell me their dog doesn't bite AFTER the dog has already tried to tear my leg off... and sometimes nothing you can say will change their mind. They assume you "must have done something to him."



In a sense that is true: I unintentionally set off his defensive or prey drives by being a stranger in territory he considers "his". Sometimes it is something as simple as that the dog is accustomed to seeing strangers walk up to the front door, but not to enter the side fence and come in the back yard first, and that sets off their defensive drives. This is why I approach all dogs carefully, and try to befriend them before giving them a chance to bite me. When possible, we're supposed to get the owners to put them up before doing any work on site, but this isn't always feasible.

Dog defensive drives are often made WORSE by the owner's presence, or being held back.


About fourteen years ago, someone gave me a puppy; a half-Pitt, half-boxer. I didn't know, at the time, that Pitt crossbreeds are a bad idea.

Now, he was a wonderful dog... for me and my son. He loved us both and was very tolerant of my four-year old son. He was supposed to be my son's dog, and I made NO EFFORT to make him defensive or mean or anything like that. In fact, for the first two years of his life he was so mild-mannered that I figured him for a complete wuss.

Then one day my brother in law came by, and clapped my son on the back... and the dog went nuts trying to attack him. I was barely able to get it off of him. I thought this was just an aberration, that the dog thought BIL was attacking my son, but months went by and the dog began showing extreme aggression to everyone who came by who wasn't me or Son#1. I had to keep him confined to the yard carefully, as he soon made it clear he was VERY dangerous around anyone other than his "pack".

Again... we did nothing to make him this way, and had no idea (prior to the BIL incident) that he was even CAPABLE of behaving like this.

By the time Mack (the pitt-mix dog) was 4, he went absolutely ape anytime anyone other than me and my son came anywhere near the yard, beyond anything I've seen out of 99% of dogs. I actually considered putting him down for fear he'd get loose one day and hurt someone.

That's just one example; I've literally got dozens and dozens of them, where dog owners THOUGHT their dog was harmless, and in fact he was not.

Dogs are not people; they have their instinctive drives and when someone gets on the wrong side of that they may get hurt... and it isn't always the owner's doing.

I could go into a number of reason why your examples simple show insufficient acclimatization of the dog and those coming into contact with the dog but it won't solve anything. I will agree, however, that some breeds are far more likely to be aggressive in the manner you note and for that reason anyone who owns such a breed has to be even more vigilant and responsible in the handling and care/custody of the dog.

To put it another way, animals should not be held responsible for their actions in a domestic setting - that responsibility rests solely, in my view, on the shoulders of the animal's owner. Unfortunately, depending on your perspective, animals are far more expendable in our society than some humans are.

 

[azgreg]

You're only in danger from my Pit if you're a Cheeto.

 

[Thorgasm]

The bolded is the problem. The reasons actually aren't unknown, to the professionals who study dog behavior. It has to do with instinctive drives that all dogs have, that can be triggered under the right circumstances.

A puppy is not "tabula rasa", a blank slate upon which to write, when you get him. He already has built-in behavioral and survival instincts. What we call "domestication" or training is actually manipulating and controlling and directing those drives... but they're still there, and they're still subject to them regardless of how the owner raises and trains the dog.

One of the first things said by the professional dog trainer that conducts classes for our company was "Any dog may bite." Any dog.


Owners often don't realize this, because their OWN dogs view them as Pack Alpha, parental figure and one step short of the right hand of God.


Something veteran utility workers hate to hear is a homeowner say "oh don't worry my dog doesn't bite." :roll:

My answer is "He doesn't bite YOU, and he doesn't bite people he KNOWS.... but if he has teeth he may bite someone."

This is absolutely true. I've had homeowners tell me their dog doesn't bite AFTER the dog has already tried to tear my leg off... and sometimes nothing you can say will change their mind. They assume you "must have done something to him."



In a sense that is true: I unintentionally set off his defensive or prey drives by being a stranger in territory he considers "his". Sometimes it is something as simple as that the dog is accustomed to seeing strangers walk up to the front door, but not to enter the side fence and come in the back yard first, and that sets off their defensive drives. This is why I approach all dogs carefully, and try to befriend them before giving them a chance to bite me. When possible, we're supposed to get the owners to put them up before doing any work on site, but this isn't always feasible.

Dog defensive drives are often made WORSE by the owner's presence, or being held back.


About fourteen years ago, someone gave me a puppy; a half-Pitt, half-boxer. I didn't know, at the time, that Pitt crossbreeds are a bad idea.

Now, he was a wonderful dog... for me and my son. He loved us both and was very tolerant of my four-year old son. He was supposed to be my son's dog, and I made NO EFFORT to make him defensive or mean or anything like that. In fact, for the first two years of his life he was so mild-mannered that I figured him for a complete wuss.

Then one day my brother in law came by, and clapped my son on the back... and the dog went nuts trying to attack him. I was barely able to get it off of him. I thought this was just an aberration, that the dog thought BIL was attacking my son, but months went by and the dog began showing extreme aggression to everyone who came by who wasn't me or Son#1. I had to keep him confined to the yard carefully, as he soon made it clear he was VERY dangerous around anyone other than his "pack".

Again... we did nothing to make him this way, and had no idea (prior to the BIL incident) that he was even CAPABLE of behaving like this.

By the time Mack (the pitt-mix dog) was 4, he went absolutely ape anytime anyone other than me and my son came anywhere near the yard, beyond anything I've seen out of 99% of dogs. I actually considered putting him down for fear he'd get loose one day and hurt someone.

That's just one example; I've literally got dozens and dozens of them, where dog owners THOUGHT their dog was harmless, and in fact he was not.

Dogs are not people; they have their instinctive drives and when someone gets on the wrong side of that they may get hurt... and it isn't always the owner's doing.

You didn't actively do anything to cause the dog to be possessive of you and your son. But you were not the pack leader. If you were, the dog would not have felt the need to be possessive of you. You have to claim your guests in that situation. That doesn't make you bad, but it was a missed opportunity the first time and then became ritual for the dog.

 

[Goshin]

You didn't actively do anything to cause the dog to be possessive of you and your son. But you were not the pack leader. If you were, the dog would not have felt the need to be possessive of you. You have to claim your guests in that situation. That doesn't make you bad, but it was a missed opportunity the first time and then became ritual for the dog.

No, I was most definitely the pack leader. The dog followed my lead in everything for the first 1.5-2 years.

He abruptly started acting hostile to anyone other than me and my son, and escalated as time went by, and nothing I did had any effect on his behavior towards non-packmates. He even became hostile towards people he'd previously met and been friendly with. I did nothing to cause this and tried very hard to discourage it.

Frankly I'm not sure what went wrong, other than when he got his full adult-male-dog hormones his defensive drives went ballistic off the chart.

I've been told by people who know Pitts, that this sometimes happen when Pitts are crossbred with other dogs known for aggression... like boxers.

 

[sangha]

No, I was most definitely the pack leader. The dog followed my lead in everything for the first 1.5-2 years.

He abruptly started acting hostile to anyone other than me and my son, and escalated as time went by, and nothing I did had any effect on his behavior towards non-packmates. He even became hostile towards people he'd previously met and been friendly with. I did nothing to cause this and tried very hard to discourage it.

Frankly I'm not sure what went wrong, other than when he got his full adult-male-dog hormones his defensive drives went ballistic off the chart.

I've been told by people who know Pitts, that this sometimes happen when Pitts are crossbred with other dogs known for aggression... like boxers.

It's not because you weren't a "pack leader". It's simply because the dog did not learn how to behave in that situation, so it relied on its' instincts.

Such behaviors can be trained out of a dog, but it's best to start when the dog is a pup. These behaviors have a way of becoming more intense over time, as you have seen, because they are self-reinforcing. The dog goes on the attack in order to chase the threat away, and guess what? The threat gets chased away!! Mission accomplished!

So it's no wonder the dog becomes more and more reliant on the behavior. After all, from its' point of view, it works

 

[Thorgasm]

No, I was most definitely the pack leader. The dog followed my lead in everything for the first 1.5-2 years.

He abruptly started acting hostile to anyone other than me and my son, and escalated as time went by, and nothing I did had any effect on his behavior towards non-packmates. He even became hostile towards people he'd previously met and been friendly with. I did nothing to cause this and tried very hard to discourage it.

Frankly I'm not sure what went wrong, other than when he got his full adult-male-dog hormones his defensive drives went ballistic off the chart.

I've been told by people who know Pitts, that this sometimes happen when Pitts are crossbred with other dogs known for aggression... like boxers.

Maybe you were the pack leader the first two years, but after that I guarantee that you weren't 100%. If you were, he would have listened to you. You probably should have socialized him better and worked to give positive associations when guests were around you.

I'm not demonizing you. I am sure you loved your dog. I am sure you were a good owner. You may not have created that behavior, but you failed to address it properly. I am sure you would have if you knew how. You just didn't have the information. I am telling you it is possible though.

 

[Goshin]

It's not because you weren't a "pack leader". It's simply because the dog did not learn how to behave in that situation, so it relied on its' instincts.

Such behaviors can be trained out of a dog, but it's best to start when the dog is a pup. These behaviors have a way of becoming more intense over time, as you have seen, because they are self-reinforcing. The dog goes on the attack in order to chase the threat away, and guess what? The threat gets chased away!! Mission accomplished!

So it's no wonder the dog becomes more and more reliant on the behavior. After all, from its' point of view, it works

That's probably correct, more or less. I may not have socialized the dog with enough people early on, and his behavior didn't indicate any sort of aggression problem until the incident I mentioned. Once it started, nothing I did to dissuade him had any effect.


When it was just me, my son and the dog, all was butterflies and unicorns (lol) and catching frizbees and playing fetch. He was gentle and playful and fairly obedient. The instant anyone else entered the picture, Mack went berserk and was completely impervious to any commands I gave or any attempt to get him to chill out.

If I'd realized earlier on what I was going to be dealing with, the problem could probably been averted with early training... by the time the issue became critical, nothing I did seemed to have any effect.


Live and learn, I suppose.

 

[Goshin]

Maybe you were the pack leader the first two years, but after that I guarantee that you weren't 100%. If you were, he would have listened to you. You probably should have socialized him better and worked to give positive associations when guests were around you.

I'm not demonizing you. I am sure you loved your dog. I am sure you were a good owner. You may not have created that behavior, but you failed to address it properly. I am sure you would have if you knew how. You just didn't have the information. I am telling you it is possible though.

Perhaps. :shrug: I was not as wise in the ways of dogs then, and where we live we didn't see many visitors back then.

Well Mack has gone on to Doggie Heaven (well I hope anyway lol), and we have a friendly little Pekinese now. I'm not planning on getting anymore Pitt mixes or anything else likely to turn out to be a furry independent-minded weapon system.

 

[sangha]

That's probably correct, more or less. I may not have socialized the dog with enough people early on, and his behavior didn't indicate any sort of aggression problem until the incident I mentioned. Once it started, nothing I did to dissuade him had any effect.


When it was just me, my son and the dog, all was butterflies and unicorns (lol) and catching frizbees and playing fetch. He was gentle and playful and fairly obedient. The instant anyone else entered the picture, Mack went berserk and was completely impervious to any commands I gave or any attempt to get him to chill out.

If I'd realized earlier on what I was going to be dealing with, the problem could probably been averted with early training... by the time the issue became critical, nothing I did seemed to have any effect.


Live and learn, I suppose.

Yes, live and learn. Early socialization is important, as you have learned. Should you ever consider getting a new puppy, read this book

Before and After Getting Your Puppy: The Positive Approach to Raising a Happy, Healthy, and Well-Behaved Dog: Dr. Ian Dunbar: 9781577314554: Amazon.com: Books

He goes into early socialization in great detail

 

[Goshin]

Yes, live and learn. Early socialization is important, as you have learned. Should you ever consider getting a new puppy, read this book

Before and After Getting Your Puppy: The Positive Approach to Raising a Happy, Healthy, and Well-Behaved Dog: Dr. Ian Dunbar: 9781577314554: Amazon.com: Books

He goes into early socialization in great detail

Yup. Well we were living down on the old farm, down in the woods, and this was not long after my divorce. I was a bit of a hermit for a couple years and we rarely had any visitors other than close family, and them not all that often. I don't think Mack saw more than three or four different people his first year of life, and those few not so often, and at the time I didn't realize it was going to be a problem.

 

[Thorgasm]

It's not because you weren't a "pack leader". It's simply because the dog did not learn how to behave in that situation, so it relied on its' instincts.

Such behaviors can be trained out of a dog, but it's best to start when the dog is a pup. These behaviors have a way of becoming more intense over time, as you have seen, because they are self-reinforcing. The dog goes on the attack in order to chase the threat away, and guess what? The threat gets chased away!! Mission accomplished!

So it's no wonder the dog becomes more and more reliant on the behavior. After all, from its' point of view, it works

The thing is, a pack leader is going to catch the problem before the dog is at a level 10. Once a dog is at a level 10, no one can do anything about it. It literally only takes one second to go from 0 to 10 as far as intensity goes. The laymen can't see the signs and react before it is too late. That's what makes Cesar Millan so good. He can read a dog very well and has excellent timing. No one should expect to match his skills. It takes a lifetime of experience to garner his skills. People really suck at understanding dog language. This is why socialization is so important.

 

[Thorgasm]

Yup. Well we were living down on the old farm, down in the woods, and this was not long after my divorce. I was a bit of a hermit for a couple years and we rarely had any visitors other than close family, and them not all that often. I don't think Mack saw more than three or four different people his first year of life, and those few not so often, and at the time I didn't realize it was going to be a problem.

Like you said, live and learn. At least no one ever got hurt. On the bright side, you could rest assured that dog was not going to let anyone or anything hurt you.

A dog is the only animal that loves you more than itself.

 

[Jack Hays]

I posted this in another thread but I think it deserves its own because its such a great article about the misconceptions of pitbulls in the media and about adopting dogs in general. It will take about 5-10 minutes to read but I suggest you take the time to do so because its an excellent article, it sure opened my eyes.

The State of The American Dog - Esquire

- 3 thousand pitbulls are put to death each day.
- pitbulls are not a breed, but a characteristic.
- tiny dogs such as dachshunds, jack russells and chihuahuas have bitten more people than pitbulls.

I'm in favor of all dogs but I think the author is a tad overwrought.eace

 

[sangha]

The thing is, a pack leader is going to catch the problem before the dog is at a level 10. Once a dog is at a level 10, no one can do anything about it. It literally only takes one second to go from 0 to 10 as far as intensity goes. The laymen can't see the signs and react before it is too late. That's what makes Cesar Millan so good. He can read a dog very well and has excellent timing. No one should expect to match his skills. It takes a lifetime of experience to garner his skills. People really suck at understanding dog language. This is why socialization is so important.

I'm not too keen on the whole "pack leader" thing. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I think it just complicates the issue.

For me, it's about learning. Teach your dog how to behave in various situations, and the dog knows how to behave in various situations. Saying "you have to be a pack leader" doesn't add anything of value, IMO. It doesn't say anything specific about what you have to do or should do. And if you tell someone what they need to do, then all they have to do is do it. Saying "be a pack leader" doesn't add to (or take away) from what needs to be done.

 

[Thorgasm]

I'm not too keen on the whole "pack leader" thing. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I think it just complicates the issue.

For me, it's about learning. Teach your dog how to behave in various situations, and the dog knows how to behave in various situations. Saying "you have to be a pack leader" doesn't add anything of value, IMO. It doesn't say anything specific about what you have to do or should do. And if you tell someone what they need to do, then all they have to do is do it. Saying "be a pack leader" doesn't add to (or take away) from what needs to be done.

Sure, "Be a pack leader" is a platitude. There are many aspects to being a pack leader. Dogs are pack animals, and respond to a leader. It's hardwired. Every pack has a leader. There is more than one way to achieve that position.

 

[sangha]

Sure, "Be a pack leader" is a platitude. There are many aspects to being a pack leader. Dogs are pack animals, and respond to a leader. It's hardwired. Every pack has a leader. There is more than one way to achieve that position.

As I said, it's not wrong, but I see it as a teaching issue and teaching is a leadership role. Teaching dogs also involves giving out rewards and punishments, which is also a leadership role. I guess, for me, it's a matter of applying Ockham's Law. If it's not needed, don't use it and if you know how to teach a dog, and know when to give out rewards and punishment, the whole "Be a pack leader" becomes extraneous. If you do those things, you *are* the pack leader even if you never give the idea of being a pack leader a moments thought.

If it's not needed, why even think about it?

In addition, a lot of the beliefs about dogs "pack behavior" is based on flawed research performed many decades ago. More recent studies have shown that the role of pack leader is very overrated.

Why everything you know about wolf packs is wrong

http://www.alldogsgym.com/dominance...sics/general/social-hierarchy-a-pack-behavior

http://www.animalsandsociety.com/assets/library/205_s15327604jaws07047.pdf

 

[Thorgasm]

As I said, it's not wrong, but I see it as a teaching issue and teaching is a leadership role. Teaching dogs also involves giving out rewards and punishments, which is also a leadership role. I guess, for me, it's a matter of applying Ockham's Law. If it's not needed, don't use it and if you know how to teach a dog, and know when to give out rewards and punishment, the whole "Be a pack leader" becomes extraneous. If you do those things, you *are* the pack leader even if you never give the idea of being a pack leader a moments thought.

If it's not needed, why even think about it?

In addition, a lot of the beliefs about dogs "pack behavior" is based on flawed research performed many decades ago. More recent studies have shown that the role of pack leader is very overrated.

Why everything you know about wolf packs is wrong

http://www.alldogsgym.com/dominance...sics/general/social-hierarchy-a-pack-behavior

http://www.animalsandsociety.com/assets/library/205_s15327604jaws07047.pdf

Wolves and dogs aren't the same. Dogs descend from wolves, but there are differences behaviorally.

Your sources don't deny social hierarchies. They claim that younger wolves don't fight their parents for dominance, in the wild. One of you links speculates that dogs and wolves have hierarchies because they are captive. Well, we are discussing captive dogs. There are social group dynamics in every group of social animals.

 

[PoS]

I'm in favor of all dogs but I think the author is a tad overwrought.eace

Perhaps.Most of the article is written as an anecdote.

 

[sangha]

Wolves and dogs aren't the same. Dogs descend from wolves, but there are differences behaviorally.

Your sources don't deny social hierarchies. They claim that younger wolves don't fight their parents for dominance, in the wild. One of you links speculates that dogs and wolves have hierarchies because they are captive. Well, we are discussing captive dogs. There are social group dynamics in every group of social animals.

Correct, they don't deny social hierarchies in wolves or dogs. Neither do I. What I do take issue with is some of the beliefs associated with the idea of "leader of the pack". Take Cesar's advice that you shouldn't let your dog go through a doorway before you. It has nothing to do with how dogs treat their leader. In the wild, dogs don't wait until their pack leader goes through a door before they do for one simple reason

In the wild, there are no doors.

 

[Thorgasm]

Correct, they don't deny social hierarchies in wolves or dogs. Neither do I. What I do take issue with is some of the beliefs associated with the idea of "leader of the pack". Take Cesar's advice that you shouldn't let your dog go through a doorway before you. It has nothing to do with how dogs treat their leader. In the wild, dogs don't wait until their pack leader goes through a door before they do for one simple reason

In the wild, there are no doors.

The leader makes the decision to go through the door.

 

[sangha]

The leader makes the decision to go through the door.

Yes and no.

No because in both the wild and in captivity, the pack leader doesn't do that. And the thought just occurred to me that one of the things that I don't like about the pack leader thing is that it communicates the idea that it's all about being dominant. However, "dominant" isn't a characteristic of a dog or a person (though I admit that I do use the term to describe dogs myself). The word is used to describe the relationship between two organisms in a single solitary event.

For example, if there's a toy on the ground and two dogs goes to get it and one of the dogs growls at the other causing it to back off, then the first dog dominated that dog in that interaction. However, the next time that ball is laying around and those two dogs want it, it may be the 2nd dog that growls and gets the ball. It's a function of how badly the dogs want the ball at that moment in time and not a function of some inherent level of dominance each dog has.

An even better example of this is when two dogs play. It is common for dogs at play to switch back and forth between being dominant and submissive. One dog will chase the other dog, jump on the other, force it to the ground and bite it (playfully) around the neck. Then suddenly, the dog on the ground will jump to its' feet and start chasing the other, then jump on it, etc.... This happens even if one of the dogs is the pack leader or one that is generally considered to be more dominant than the other.

And in other situations, even the pack leader will display submissive behaviors to other dogs in the pack but they are usual too subtle for most people to notice (ex looking away, looking at the ground, sniffing, etc) It depends on the situation and what it calls for. The book Calming Signals by Turgid Rugaas that I mentioned earlier discusses this, as does some other books that expanded on the work that she did.

But it's also yes in the sense that the leader does set the rules. And I'm sure that Goshin had rules. I don't know what they were (don't go on the furniture, don't eat in the garbage pail, when to go for walks, etc) but I'm pretty sure he had some, so he was a pack leader. The problem was that, when it came to strangers, Goshin didn't have rules. Or more accurately, he had rules but he didn't know how to communicate those rules to the dog and how to enforce those rules. IOW, it was an issue of Goshin not knowing (ie a learning issue)

That's why I like it when Cesar says that most of what he does is geared towards training the owner, and not the dog

 

[Thorgasm]

Yes and no.

No because in both the wild and in captivity, the pack leader doesn't do that. And the thought just occurred to me that one of the things that I don't like about the pack leader thing is that it communicates the idea that it's all about being dominant. However, "dominant" isn't a characteristic of a dog or a person (though I admit that I do use the term to describe dogs myself). The word is used to describe the relationship between two organisms in a single solitary event.

For example, if there's a toy on the ground and two dogs goes to get it and one of the dogs growls at the other causing it to back off, then the first dog dominated that dog in that interaction. However, the next time that ball is laying around and those two dogs want it, it may be the 2nd dog that growls and gets the ball. It's a function of how badly the dogs want the ball at that moment in time and not a function of some inherent level of dominance each dog has.

An even better example of this is when two dogs play. It is common for dogs at play to switch back and forth between being dominant and submissive. One dog will chase the other dog, jump on the other, force it to the ground and bite it (playfully) around the neck. Then suddenly, the dog on the ground will jump to its' feet and start chasing the other, then jump on it, etc.... This happens even if one of the dogs is the pack leader or one that is generally considered to be more dominant than the other.

And in other situations, even the pack leader will display submissive behaviors to other dogs in the pack but they are usual too subtle for most people to notice (ex looking away, looking at the ground, sniffing, etc) It depends on the situation and what it calls for. The book Calming Signals by Turgid Rugaas that I mentioned earlier discusses this, as does some other books that expanded on the work that she did.

But it's also yes in the sense that the leader does set the rules. And I'm sure that Goshin had rules. I don't know what they were (don't go on the furniture, don't eat in the garbage pail, when to go for walks, etc) but I'm pretty sure he had some, so he was a pack leader. The problem was that, when it came to strangers, Goshin didn't have rules. Or more accurately, he had rules but he didn't know how to communicate those rules to the dog and how to enforce those rules. IOW, it was an issue of Goshin not knowing (ie a learning issue)

That's why I like it when Cesar says that most of what he does is geared towards training the owner, and not the dog

It is true that different situations dogs show different levels of dominance/submission. This is especially true when dogs are playing. They do go back and forth. It shows that they trust each other. Some dogs are even different with their owners depending on if they are inside or outdoors. Dominance isn't static and universal.

Dogs live in the moment. Like all animals, energy level is very important in communication. That's why smaller animals can run off bears. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of fight in the dog. Smaller dogs can be dominant over larger dogs just because they have the dominant attitude. In fact, that's what gets lots of small dogs in trouble with larger dogs. The large dog gets blamed when the small dog instigated the conflict. They will play dominance games when they first meet. You have to control it and not let it get out of hand.

 

[sangha]

It is true that different situations dogs show different levels of dominance/submission. This is especially true when dogs are playing. They do go back and forth. It shows that they trust each other. Some dogs are even different with their owners depending on if they are inside or outdoors. Dominance isn't static and universal.

Dogs live in the moment. Like all animals, energy level is very important in communication. That's why smaller animals can run off bears. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of fight in the dog. Smaller dogs can be dominant over larger dogs just because they have the dominant attitude. In fact, that's what gets lots of small dogs in trouble with larger dogs. The large dog gets blamed when the small dog instigated the conflict. They will play dominance games when they first meet. You have to control it and not let it get out of hand.

Yes, that's a good way to put it. I just want to point something out about the "dominant attitude"

It's the result of learning. The dog with the "dominant attitude" is the dog whose experiences have taught that behaving in a dominant manner will get it what it wants. The dog with the submissive attitude is a dog whose experiences have taught it that that behaving in a submissive manner will get it what it wants.

It's all about the learning, IMO. (Not literally true. Instinct, environment, etc also play their roles)

 

[Thorgasm]

Yes, that's a good way to put it. I just want to point something out about the "dominant attitude"

It's the result of learning. The dog with the "dominant attitude" is the dog whose experiences have taught that behaving in a dominant manner will get it what it wants. The dog with the submissive attitude is a dog whose experiences have taught it that that behaving in a submissive manner will get it what it wants.

It's all about the learning, IMO. (Not literally true. Instinct, environment, etc also play their roles)

This is true. Dogs learn what works and repeat that behavior. Still, if no one is controlling a situation, a dog will due to a void in leadership.

 

[sangha]

This is true. Dogs learn what works and repeat that behavior. Still, if no one is controlling a situation, a dog will due to a void in leadership.

Yes, that is true. As I've said all along, the whole "leadership" thing is not wrong. It is true. However, it doesn't really lead to solutions as directly as thinking about the issue in terms of learning and thinking of it as a leadership issue seems to have led many people to think that they need to dominate their dog, as opposed to teaching their dog.

IOW, it's not right vs wrong; It's good vs gooder