It finally happened

Karfae69
The dogs we travel with are labeled as a "dangerous breed". We even had the liability on an insurance policy cancelled because of their breed.
Here is a picture of Quincy's genetic meanness showing up.

4X4Dodger said: "First I prefaced my remarks with "With all due respect" and pointed out that I DID NOT know your background...So your prickly response is curious."

My "prickly response" was based upon your implied notion that I was not an expert when you made this statement: "most true animal/dog experts agree that dogs, like many other mammals due indeed have and need friends." As I disagree, by default, I am not an "true expert." I take offense to that. I suspect that you cannot substantiate that statement with any verifiable science and as such, is your opinion.

I still maintain that if there is an established pack with more than one dog, and some humans nixed in, the pack members do NOT need any more "friends."

If I was too thinned skinned, then I apologize to you and my fellow members here.

We have diametrically opposed life experiences and opinions on parts of this subject. (In other areas we actually agree.)

I am not going to change your mind nor are you going to change mine, and that is perfectly O.K. Further debate on this subject is pointless.

Happy camping my fellow camper.

Dog Folks wrote:

4X4Dodger wrote:

Dog Folks wrote:
You can flame me if you like. My flame suit composed of a lifetime of being around dogs, both personally and professionally, is on.

I do not let my dogs make "friends" with any other strange dog on a leash. They do not need any "friends" or exposure to any animal where the heath status and vaccinations are unknown.

Further, if you allow two dogs to meet, nose to nose, within a short period of time one of them will often start to assert dominance, which often will lead to a dog fight. I am walking my dogs to relax, not to break up dog fights.

So, no hard feelings, I'm sure your dogs are great, but we do not need a "meet and greet."

With all due respect DogFolks, I am not sure what professional world you come from with dogs or animals but I suspect it might be the show circuit, most true animal/dog experts agree that dogs, like many other mammals due indeed have and need friends. Or if you prefer a relationship that gives them happiness and or pleasure.

Many dogs make friends across species (and I dont mean man here). And really all you have to do to realize the depth of joy being with other dogs brings is to go to most local dog parks and watch. Most of the dogs are having a great time with each other. The odd ones or more aggresive are usually ignored.

I think dogs pick up easily on their owners fears and unease when they are on a leash and react accordingly. The reason so many dogs are unfriendly is the way they were improperly socialized as puppies by their owners.

But dogs also have their own communication and politics, likes and dislikes and I have found it is always best if humans generally speaking stay out of it and let them work it out. Millions of generations of dogs have the genetic ability to work out hierarchy and learn to get along with out us humans.

I don't need to parade my qualifications here, but just let's just say they are well established, in the behavioral side of the dog world. Your inference that I am not a "true" dog expert is laughable. You know not what you speak of. Sorry.

I agree that with what you are trying to say. Simply: Dogs are pack animals, and will include humans as their pack. Two dogs, three human adults are enough for our pack. They don't need to expand it is size by brief meeting with other dogs. It takes much more than that for a dog to accept another into the pack.

Again, the chance for dominance behaviors to occur, including fighting, is high with nose to nose meetings. Dog parks are known to be disease ridden.

If you wish to submit your animal to this, go for it. My pack gets their "pleasure" from the pack itself, where the hierarchy is well established. My pack is very happy without such encounters and the risks associated with such encounters.

First I prefaced my remarks with "With all due respect" and pointed out that I DID NOT know your background...So your prickly response is curious.

However most Dog behaviourists are self taught working from basically home theories and the modified or renamed theories of others. Very few actually have a degree in animal behavoiur. And while some may be very good no one can say that there is anything like agreement by the Dog Experts on how to effectively train or deal with your dog. In fact the entire body of written advice/theory is awash with disagreement, debate and a lot of guessing. The one area that many of these folks DO agree on is that of relationships as I pointed out.

While I do not advocate letting your dog greet other dogs while on a leash I do realize that most of the dogs problems that I see are actually their owners problems.

As for dog parks being so disease infested think about this: I lived in Cambodia for 7 years. The average Cambodian street or neighborhood is far more a risk in many ways than any dog park in the USA. Both my dogs lived there and one is from there and they were healthy and happy. Dog immune systems are amazing things and designed to deal with most of the day to day challenges they face. The average US dog park is a far safer place for your dog than the day to day living areas most dogs deal with all over the world.

The fact is we are just spoiled. And we project our fear of germs and disease onto our pets when in fact their immune systems would be better served if they had MORE exposure to the things they need to deal with.

Dturn: That is well said. Physical force is a short cut for lazy, ignorant impatient dog trainers to get results and often leads a dog to fear, rather than respect humans.

From a dog trainers point of view:

Dominance IS:
-An assertive, confident attitude.
-Leadership. Leaders initiate the interactions; dogs follow.
-Controlling the resources (this one is easy, since you are the one with opposable thumbs).
-Calm consistency.
-A relationship where the dog instinctively turns to you, to meet his wants and needs.
This results in a companion who has confidence in your decisions and respects your wishes. He feels secure about his place in the family, and is not burdened with the weight of leading a "pack".

Dominance IS NOT:
-Hitting the dog.
-Forcibly pinning the dog to the ground regularly, just to "show him who's boss".
-Yelling at the dog.
-Punishment.
-Random acts of terrorism, which will lead to an unstable, fearful, and insecure dog.

I suspect the word "dominance" has a different meaning to each person.

When training, I AM the leader, but not through negative reinforcement or ever hitting or yelling at a dog. Every dog I have ever trained, (over 500) has been trained with positive reinforcement, whether it be a toy, a food snack, or just a high pitched voice saying "good boy" and showing the dog you are pleased.

The secret to easy dog training is to find what reinforcement works best for the individual dog, and then using it with consistency.

Now training the owners is a whole another subject, I heard that a 2X4 works well to get their attention.:)

Dturn, that's how I've understood it.

I've heard the recommendations to "pee in the dog's kennel", "shove the dog's nose to the ground", "flip the dog over", etc. as ways to deal with a dominant dog because that "is what wolves do in the wild".

Reality is, dogs aren't wolves and we aren't dogs, so doing what 2 wolves do is meaningless and potentially dangerous.

Because of these attitudes than tend to occur when the words "alpha" and "dominant" are used, the terms are being abandoned.

I remember someone telling me never to let a dog walk up or down the stairs before you because they will think they are alpha...

Personally, I don't think my dogs have any opinion as to whether i'm alpha or not - they just know that doing as I tell them is expected.

I think much of the controversy regarding "alpha" and "dominance" comes because of semantics and the tendency for some to oversimplify canine behavior. Most veterinary behaviorists tend to dislike the older terminology and methods - basically not believing in dominance, strict punishment and control.

Most believe that dogs have evolved enough that their social structure and patterns identify less and less with wolves and have basically their own patterns.

Essentially, the veterinary behaviorists see a more successful method (with less stress to the dog and risk to both dog and owner) using methods that don't include physical domination and punishment when the dog is not compliant.

This isn't an area of expertise for me, but I tried to summarize my understanding of what I've been hearing about from the veterinary side.

Thanks Pawz4me, looking forward to the links.

I am "old school" when it comes to training. (Modified Kohler method)

But you can teach an old dog new tricks. Pun intended. :)

Dog Folks wrote:

Pawz4me wrote:
I tend to agree with Dodger on this issue. But my dogs--from the Rottie we had years ago to the current Shih Tzu--have all been well trained and socialized to the point that I felt they were as "bomb proof" as a dog could be. I have no concerns about greeting other dogs. My thinking is also influenced by my lack of belief in the alpha/dominance theory. That has been thoroughly and completely debunked by the real experts.

I know an awful lot about dogs, and more than most people, BUT certainly do not know it all.

I would love to see, and appreciate, a link that is scientifically established, and properly vetted that "debunks" alpha/dominance theory in dogs. (Forums where people state their opinions don't count)

I will happily provide them, but it will be tomorrow or Sunday. We're traveling today and my bookmarked links are on my laptop at home.

From what I have read and heard, what has changed is that the word "dominant" is no longer used because it tends to make people think they have to overpower and dominate the dog to have control over it. Instead, they use other terms like "self-confident" to describe the dog.

Biting the ear of a dominant dog is not effective. Setting consistent rules and keeping a steady attitude is effective.

"I would love to see, and appreciate, a link that is scientifically established, and properly vetted that "debunks" alpha/dominance theory in dogs."


I would be interested in reading that link,(and the credentials of the author).