# Pack Commander



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

So, who or what runs the day to day operations in your house/kennel, you or the dog/s?

On another thread Don mentioned his role over the males in his kennel. I understand that and have had only one conversation with my male Bouvier, when he was about a year old. I couldn't have a nicer dog and general farm friend!!! For some, having headstrong or problem animals makes being in control a challenge. I often get OB calls from pet people asking how they can get in control of their 7 month old puppy...](*,)

Pack Commander, the role position is simple: lead, follow, or get out of the way!:mrgreen:


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Were you drunk when you came up with this?


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Nope Chris...the calls I get should be recorded just for future humor!!!


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

It's something you got naturally....or yo don't got, Howard. Years ago, all the Moluccan Cockatoos were wild caught imports. They are pretty big birds and can hurt you. I used to tame them for people knowing they will never be able to handle the bird because they were afraid of them. What became stikingly obvious to me is that the birds knew they were afraid of them....so I got my money first and showed them how to handle the bird and how good the bird was with me. Then I told them it was their turn. The bird would lunge and hiss at them and it was over. The people crumbled every time. Handling dogs isn't a lot different. They just seem to know who they can buffalo and who they can't.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

I keep talking about this Bantam rooster that loves to attack me...looking to turn him into a sandwhich or ship him off to a trainer.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I or we do!!

I've been told that one cannot keep two working dogs of the same sex in the house without problems.

I'm not saying with these 2 GSD males it's never been without problems, as opposed to the last two males but I / we laid down the rules in the house and the dogs have to live by them.

You make your bed and you lie on it!!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Gillian Schuler said:


> I or we do!!
> 
> I've been told that one cannot keep two working dogs of the same sex in the house without problems.
> 
> ...



I've always had multiple dogs run together. My two intact male GSDs are together 24/7 as were all the terriers I hunted. Dogs and bitches. The terrier people damn near called me a liar till they came to the house and saw it. Then all I got was how lucky I was and my luck was going to run out.
I still get "You just wait! It's just a matter of time. 
After 50+ yrs with multiple dogs I'm still waiting.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Bob Scott said:


> "You just wait! It's just a matter of time.


Geeze sounds like fun...the waiting! Everything here has an attitude. One takes a piss and two others try and remark it! Females stand and take a leak, the BC and BdF...I have to get a ticket and wait!!!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Howard Gaines III said:


> Geeze sounds like fun...the waiting! Everything here has an attitude. One takes a piss and two others try and remark it! Females stand and take a leak, the BC and BdF...I have to get a ticket and wait!!!



I quit worrying about it years ago. Fact is I don't recall ever worrying. :grin:
My two males constantly mark over one another. When I had the JRT at my house (son now has him) the little bassid was constantly getting soaked. He wouldn't even wait for the GSDs to move away. Just run right under them to mark their spot.
:-k......... :-o Maybe the little screw loose was into golden showers?! :lol:
Needless to say I have no grass in my small back yard and the flower beds look like their in prison cells just to keep the dogs off them.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

This is a good read and an interesting perspective....

Hunting Dogs- Shooting Sportsman – January/February 2011
GEORGE HICKOX
Challenging the ‘Alpha’ of the Pack

Debates on the interplay of canine evolution and pack behavior with dog-training methods have raged forever. Articles describing the alpha dog and preaching that trainers play the alpha role have filled many pages. But a better understanding of canine behavior has evolved. Many of the old beliefs and guidelines of dog training and behavior modification have been questioned, and the validity of the handler playing the role of the alpha dog is under attack by canine behaviorists and researchers. So I’ll play devil’s advocate and challenge some of the foundational principles of dog training that are based on outdated beliefs about pack behavior in today’s hunting dogs.
Dogs learn like dogs. We as trainers should view dogs as social animals and not waste much time trying to be the alpha dog when it comes to teaching them. If our four-legged students really acted from the currently perceived—and now, I believe, erroneous—meaning of the alpha dog, who will fight to the death before relinquishing his dominance, then we would have zero success in achieving compliance to our cues and commands.
Handlers and trainers need to understand how dogs react, how they learn and what motivates them in order to make the most of their genetic abilities, no matter what the desired task. Whether training a dog for agility, search & rescue, odor detection or hunting, any training method that is biased with incorrect assumptions will never produce a dog that performs to its potential. In such cases one can only hope that the dog’s genetic ability compensates for the training.
In addition to working with bird dogs, I am a consultant for various branches of the military in developing reliable training programs for dogs employed in war. The end task is obviously quite different for a bite and detection dog versus a bird dog, but the training methods in all cases are based on canine behavior and how dogs learn. The old training philosophies of punishment-only simply do not allow dogs to progress reliably to higher levels of performance. Punishment and carrying a big stick go hand in hand with trainers who believe they must always be the alpha dog to keep their subordinate pack members in line.
The gray wolf is probably the most frequently cited example of the alpha role and the relationship of dog training to pack behavior. The belief—still held by some—is that the alpha wolf enforces dominance with other members of its pack through physical force and threats. This premise was promoted in early wolf studies and later was adopted by dog trainers. The book _How to Be Your Dog’s Best Friend_ introduced the concept to dog owners based on the principles practiced by an order of monks who promoted the technique for punishing unwanted canine behaviors. In his book _How to Speak Dog_, written in 2001, Stanley Coren writes: “You are the alpha dog. You must communicate that you are the pack leader and dominate.”
Wolf biologists and researchers have discredited the idea of an aggressively dominant alpha wolf. Many of them believe that the so-called alphas in the pack are simply the breeding-age animals. At the forefront of current wolf researchers, L. David Mech has studied wolves since 1958. He is a senior scientist with the Biological Resources Division of the US Geological Survey and an adjunct professor in the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology at the University of Minnesota. Mech is also the founder of the International Wolf Center. Mech disagrees with the much-promoted theories regarding the alpha wolf.
In a paper on the subject published in 2000, Mech wrote: “Calling a wolf an alpha is usually no more appropriate than referring to a human parent or a doe deer as an alpha. Any parent is dominant to its young offspring, so ‘alpha’ adds no information.” He added: “The one use we may still want to reserve for ‘alpha’ is in the relatively few large wolf packs comprised of multiple litters . . . . In such cases the older breeders are probably dominant to the younger breeders and perhaps can more appropriately be called the alphas.”
Training techniques assumed to be wolf-pack-related, such as scruff shaking, the alpha role and recommendations to be alpha to your dog continue to be used and recommended. The use of such techniques may have more to do with human psychology than with dog behavior. Dominance hierarchies and dominance disputes and testing are fundamental characteristics of all social groups. But perhaps only we humans learn to punish primarily to gain for ourselves the reward of being dominant.
As far back as 1944, researchers Stanley Young and Edward Goldman believed that inter-relationships within a wolf pack are predicated on the parents. The parents form the center of a closed family group residing in their own living area in a monogamous permanent union. This family includes the offspring until the young animals reach reproductive age. Therefore a family—that is, a pack—encompasses generally a breeding pair of wolves, the yearlings and maybe some two-year-old offspring.
Genetic analysis has shown that the gray wolf (_Canis lupus_) is the same species as the domestic dog (the subspecies _Canis lupus familiaris_). But while 12,000 years or more of domestication have altered the dog physically and socially, dog trainers continue to use the close genetic relationship—and their beliefs about gray wolf behavior—in their training methods. Mech’s research certainly questions the validity of any dog-training program based on playing the perceived role of the alpha wolf, and 12,000 years or more of evolving genetics have distanced the dog of today from its wolf roots. This is a double whammy.
Rather than try to be the alpha dog, if we would understand that from the dog’s perspective it is all about him, we would be more successful as trainers. If we would understand how the dog views the world and constantly responds based upon cause and effect, we would achieve a higher level of success. By ensuring that the dog understands that exhibiting a desired behavior causes good effects and, conversely, that exhibiting a bad behavior causes no good effects, the dog will repeat the desired behavior and drop the unwanted behavior.
Though I do not pretend to be the alpha dog in our training program, that does not mean I believe there should be no negative consequences when a dog exhibits an unwanted behavior. However, when administering a negative consequence following an undesirable behavior or response, I want to be unemotional in doing so. I want the dog to associate its specific unwanted behavior with the negative consequence. I do not view the administration of a negative consequence as punishment, but as a repetition of cause and effect to reinforce that if the dog offers the desired behavior, it is rewarded. Contrast is extremely important. The dog needs to learn that there is an alternative to the unwanted behavior, and when the correct behavior is exhibited the dog will be rewarded.
Pavlov proved that dogs learn by association. If the effect is always consistent, the dog will, with enough repetitions, do what benefits it. If the dog always receives a paycheck for exhibiting the desired behavior, it will be more likely to repeat that behavior. If the dog always receives a negative consequence when exhibiting an undesired behavior, it will be much more likely not to repeat that behavior. The dog makes the association that a specific behavior is the cause of the positive or the negative effect.
One of the serious byproducts of playing the role of alpha dog as a trainer is the inevitable outcome that the dog will be “good” only when feeling threatened with punishment. The dog will be good in the backyard, but as soon as it puts some distance between itself and the handler, it does what it wants, when it wants. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that the dog makes the association that it is the behavior that results in the positive or negative effect and does not make the association with the trainer. 
A good trainer looks to reward the dog for a desired behavior. Rewards are more meaningful than punishments. Never correct a dog if it is unsure of how to avoid the correction in the future. This means that the dog needs to know why it is being corrected. The same goes for rewards. The dog must know why it is being rewarded in order to learn to repeat the behavior.
Successful dog training is not about how the trainer perceives the consequences—positive or negative. It is about how the dog perceives the cause of the effect. Ensuring that the dog knows why it is being rewarded or corrected through consistent repetitions and applying the principles of learning through association are far better training philosophies than pretending to be the alpha dog.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Nice read Jody.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"A good trainer looks to reward the dog for a desired behavior. Rewards are more meaningful than punishments. Never correct a dog if it is unsure of how to avoid the correction in the future. This means that the dog needs to know why it is being corrected. The same goes for rewards. The dog must know why it is being rewarded in order to learn to repeat the behavior.
Successful dog training is not about how the trainer perceives the consequences—positive or negative. It is about how the dog perceives the cause of the effect. Ensuring that the dog knows why it is being rewarded or corrected through consistent repetitions and applying the principles of learning through association"

Reads very similar to the 1960's USAF Military Working Dog Manual. The words change, but the meaning was the same in the 70's version. Maybe I'm not as out of date as I think, ha ha

DFrost


----------



## Adi Ibrahimbegovic (Nov 21, 2008)

nothing against you or your copy and paste skills, but this guy is (re) discovering hot water or replacing Columbus in discovering America.



Jody Butler said:


> This is a good read and an interesting perspective....
> 
> Hunting Dogs- Shooting Sportsman – January/February 2011
> GEORGE HICKOX
> ...


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

I have 2 19 month old entire high drive working males (one is a rescue) and 4 sterilised females (again one is a rescue). The equally matched males eyeball each other and have a bit of push and shove from time to time and the females have their own hierarchy happening but I have never had major problems, they all get on really well and can be penned in close quarters together without incident. I dont expect problems and I spend a lot of time training and working my dogs. I reinforce good behaviour and dont expect bad behaviour so I dont seem to get it. Maybe I have just been lucky with my dogs. I think the key for me is the amount of time I spend working with them and reinforcing what I want and being quite clear what I dont. I dont really think of myself as overly dominant at all, not my thing really.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

David Frost said:


> "A good trainer looks to reward the dog for a desired behavior. Rewards are more meaningful than punishments. Never correct a dog if it is unsure of how to avoid the correction in the future. This means that the dog needs to know why it is being corrected. The same goes for rewards. The dog must know why it is being rewarded in order to learn to repeat the behavior.
> DFrost


Agree, it's all about timing and MEANING.
The article was well worth reading, IF you take the time, it doesn't mean you need to agree with it.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

dammit, never was a PACK COMMANDER.

I always thought of it as a working relationship, with mutual respect from both parties.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Sara Waters said:


> I have 2 19 month old entire high drive working males (one is a rescue) and 4 sterilised females (again one is a rescue). The equally matched males eyeball each other and have a bit of push and shove from time to time and the females have their own hierarchy happening but I have never had major problems, they all get on really well and can be penned in close quarters together without incident. I dont expect problems and I spend a lot of time training and working my dogs. I reinforce good behaviour and dont expect bad behaviour so I dont seem to get it. Maybe I have just been lucky with my dogs. I think the key for me is the amount of time I spend working with them and reinforcing what I want and being quite clear what I dont. I dont really think of myself as overly dominant at all, not my thing really.


..

Drive has little to do with dominance which is indicated by the "pushing matches". Neither dog really wants to tackle the other so they settle for the pushing match and this satisfies their needs. Put two confident, truly dominant dogs in front of each other and there is no profiling or pushing matches. Thus the references of "top dog". If you have two top level dominate dogs, your being there doesn't change the dynamics, but you are their to either stop it before it happens or break it up when it does. You still can't leave the dogs together unsupervised like you can with two dogs of different status.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> dammit, never was a PACK COMMANDER.
> 
> I always thought of it as a working relationship, with mutual respect from both parties.


It isn't about being a pack commander. It is about being a good leader that is both firm when needed and always fair. Dogs are no different than people, if your not a good FAIR leader, they are not going to "want" to follow. If they don't want to follow and please you, you will never get them to their full potential. IMHO


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> ..
> 
> Drive has little to do with dominance which is indicated by the "pushing matches". Neither dog really wants to tackle the other so they settle for the pushing match and this satisfies their needs. Put two confident, truly dominant dogs in front of each other and there is no profiling or pushing matches. Thus the references of "top dog". If you have two top level dominate dogs, your being there doesn't change the dynamics, but you are their to either stop it before it happens or break it up when it does. You still can't leave the dogs together unsupervised like you can with two dogs of different status.


No wasnt suggesting drive had anything to do with dominance, all my dogs are high drive, meaning to me that they are extremely motivated to work energetically. I havent had 2 males before so am unfamiliar with the dynamics, I dont know who is top dog but usually a word from me settles them and I can leave them together and I do know that neither will submit to the other they just seem to have a truce, possibly because they are so evenly matched in physical size, strength, age, energy, temperament and teenage testosterone. Oh god I hope I dont have to deal with warring males in the future or their testicles are coming off LOL. 

The girls have a strict hierarchy that they observe.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> It isn't about being a pack commander. It is about being a good leader that is both firm when needed and always fair. Dogs are no different than people, if your not a good FAIR leader, they are not going to "want" to follow. If they don't want to follow and please you, you will never get them to their full potential. IMHO


I agree with the first part,,,firm and fair...the other, not so much,

I don't think a dog does something because it wants to please its owner. I think it is more common for dogs to do things that they get "rewards" for doing, or for dogs to NOT do things that is not rewarding to them, and possbile other negative things. 

I think dogs are opportunists in their dealing with us, they "follow" us, to get good things for themselves, or avoid bad things.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Howard Gaines III said:


> Agree, it's all about timing and MEANING.
> The article was well worth reading, IF you take the time, it doesn't mean you need to agree with it.


The quote you attributed my name to was part of the article. I was just pointing out that, while I don't disagree, the "wording" has been around a lot of years. 

DFrost


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Leaders lead and followers follow, this is the order of life. The "safety" in numbers or the pack is how many make it in the wild. Two dominate of EITHER sex is bad, I've got it here. Two females that have been into it, challenge, and try to rank each other.

I'm the commander and I call the shots. My dogs don't get the multiple choices others may give. 

OB is, I say and you do. The difference is my dog WANT to please and work from that mindset. Working from a fear based form only makes the drives and desires of the dog worthless. Since humans are responsible for the safety and wellbeing of the animals, they are in fact "commanders" or CEOs of the kennel.

Call it anything you want, the bottom line is simple, the K-9 cop won't go to the dog first and ask about current shots and licenses...they go the way of the human/pack commander! #-o


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I agree Howard. I cringe everytime I hear people say a person has to be the"alpha dog". They even may mean it as the commander, unfortunately, too many interpret it as being what it says..."the alpha dog"....until that person tries it with a dog stronger than himself. I have always found the true dominates a pleasure to work with compared to the lesser dogs that have the baggage. This is what always rubs me the wrong way when "trainers" tell novices how much they will learn from working with lesser quality dogs because working with a good strong dog bears no resemblance to working with lesser dogs.....unless you always plan on having lesser dogs.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> This is what always rubs me the wrong way when "trainers" tell novices how much they will learn from working with lesser quality dogs because working with a good strong dog bears no resemblance to working with lesser dogs.....unless you always plan on having lesser dogs.


I absolutely disagree with this. I don't understand how you can make a pronunciation like that when you are in a far different situation. You don't train for sport or protection. If you enjoy training dogs (and not just competing) then you do learn just as much from weaker dogs. Training a dog that shuts down fairly easily takes a much different approach.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Ben Colbert said:


> I absolutely disagree with this. I don't understand how you can make a pronunciation like that when you are in a far different situation. You don't train for sport or protection. If you enjoy training dogs (and not just competing) then you do learn just as much from weaker dogs. Training a dog that shuts down fairly easily takes a much different approach.


Ben, I don't have to train for sport or protection to know most of what you learn training weak dogs bears no resemblance to training good strong dogs. To put is more clearly, you can spend years training weak dogs that shut down easily and you will, of course, learn a lot about training such dogs. After the years of learning what you can, you still won't have a clue how to train a strong willed dog that just figures, "up yours". If you plan on being a professinal dog trainer that trains pet dogs for people for money, that is one thing, if you are into bitework or many other working venues that require stronger dogs, training weak dogs are a waste of time , IMO.

Besides, who would waste time trainng a dog that shuts down at the drop of a hat?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Ben Colbert said:


> I absolutely disagree with this. I don't understand how you can make a pronunciation like that when you are in a far different situation. You don't train for sport or protection. If you enjoy training dogs (and not just competing) then you do learn just as much from weaker dogs. Training a dog that shuts down fairly easily takes a much different approach.



I agree with Ben here. There are different goals, and different dogs to reach those goals. Learning to train a wider variety of dogs makes you a better trainer. Take a traditional shepherd guy that is used to working dogs all in prey, and throw a defensive bulldog at him. He (or she) may not be able to get much out of them and pronounce the dog a shitter. Send the same dog to someone that is used to working dogs in defense (threat), and you may have an entirely different result. The dog can be strong in defense and have a strong civil response, but very little prey drive visible. Looks like a shitter when you throw a tug past it's head.

Dogs can be strong and handler sensitive. Knowing how to read dogs is the big deal. That is learned through working more dogs of a variety.

Don, let's get those strong 'dales doing bite work!!!


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> If you plan on being a professinal dog trainer that trains pet dogs for people for money, that is one thing, if you are into bitework or many other working venues that require stronger dogs, training weak dogs are a waste of time , IMO.
> 
> Besides, who would waste time trainng a dog that shuts down at the drop of a hat?



See thats the thing Don. I enjoy protection sports far more than any other aspect of dog training. I love training a strong driven dog but I love training soft dogs also. I'm not in it for national, I'm in it for training.

For example in the group I'm training with currently we have a strong GSD that's fun to train. We also have a more pet quality rottweiler. This dog may never get high in trial but that doesn't mean the owner won't enjoy training it. Should I tell the owner to do something else jut because it's not a nationals quality dog?

In addition I learned a lot about timing and marker training with my current dog. He's so sensitive that my corrections (and rewards) must be timed perfectly or he'll shut down. This carry's over to the rest of my training and that great timing certainly helps me train strong dogs too.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> I agree with Ben here. There are different goals, and different dogs to reach those goals. Learning to train a wider variety of dogs makes you a better trainer. Take a traditional shepherd guy that is used to working dogs all in prey, and throw a defensive bulldog at him. He (or she) may not be able to get much out of them and pronounce the dog a shitter. Send the same dog to someone that is used to working dogs in defense (threat), and you may have an entirely different result. The dog can be strong in defense and have a strong civil response, but very little prey drive visible. Looks like a shitter when you throw a tug past it's head.
> 
> Dogs can be strong and handler sensitive. Knowing how to read dogs is the big deal. That is learned through working more dogs of a variety.
> 
> Don, let's get those strong 'dales doing bite work!!!


I am working on gettng the dales into it Dave. LOL I never cared for working dogs in defense. If that's what it takes, it just isn't my kind of dog because, they way I use them, there would be no defense, they would just pull up stakes and go back to the truck. I like a confident dog that enjoys his work. If you gotm to waterboard them to get the results. I just can't see the results of that as being reliable.

Personally, a lot of people misread good bull dogs. They ar not game players and can react totally different to "real" situations. Dales have much the same outlook.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

> In addition I learned a lot about timing and marker training with my current dog. He's so sensitive that my corrections (and rewards) must be timed perfectly or he'll shut down. This carry's over to the rest of my training and that great timing certainly helps me train strong dogs too.


Gimme a break Ben, your gonna have to work dogs that don't care about your rewards or what you really want before you can say that. They are out there too. You may recall what Jennifer had to say about Jager. Treats, tugs and stuff didn't cut it and she couldn't correct him hard enough with a prong collar for him do what he decided he didn't want to do.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Gimme a break Ben, your gonna have to work dogs that don't care about your rewards or what you really want before you can say that.


Here's the problem Don. We're speaking two different languages. My idea of a strong dog is not one who doesn't care about rewards. I can think of a few dogs here on this board that I consider to be very strong and additionally seem to care about rewards.

But even if thats the case you can yank a dog around on a prong all day and won't accomplish anything without good timing.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I am working on gettng the dales into it Dave. LOL I never cared for working dogs in defense. If that's what it takes, it just isn't my kind of dog because, they way I use them, there would be no defense, they would just pull up stakes and go back to the truck. I like a confident dog that enjoys his work. If you gotm to waterboard them to get the results. I just can't see the results of that as being reliable.
> 
> Personally, a lot of people misread good bull dogs. They ar not game players and can react totally different to "real" situations. Dales have much the same outlook.



Don.

My boxer is defensive. Not much prey there. He bit and was confident about it initially, when he was threatened. You could pass a tug by him all day, and he just didn't get it. He is now conditioned to load up on my cue. Downing him and a pat on his side. He'll fire up on a passive guy. Sitting, standing, laying down. It's conditioning. I have brought out what prey there is in him by going into prey after he is biting in defense. He will now retrieve copper and hunts better than Ivo. Customs wants me to breed him. None of that would have been possible if A. he didn't have some prey there to begin with, and B. I wasn't talented enough to get him to come up in defense and channel into prey. 

Defense is how a dog reacts to threat. It isn't such a bad thing if they react well. Back to the truck is one option (flight) the other option (fight) is what you are looking for, isn't it?


----------



## Adi Ibrahimbegovic (Nov 21, 2008)

I don't think he meant it to the extremes you are talking about e.g. shitter vs. very strong dog. What about good dogs,that just need some direction or encouragement or promoting stronger prey or defense etc... still a good dog, just need some fine tuning.

I, like you, appreciate strong dogsand of course they are the end goal, but a lot of dogs have what it takes, you just have to dig a bit deeper or go more to the left etc...

of course, everything has its limits, and if given the choice, I'd chose to deal with stronger dogsall the time, but even with dogs with some problems there are some unpolished gems there every now and then that can blossom into a good polished diamond.



Don Turnipseed said:


> Ben, I don't have to train for sport or protection to know most of what you learn training weak dogs bears no resemblance to training good strong dogs. To put is more clearly, you can spend years training weak dogs that shut down easily and you will, of course, learn a lot about training such dogs. After the years of learning what you can, you still won't have a clue how to train a strong willed dog that just figures, "up yours". If you plan on being a professinal dog trainer that trains pet dogs for people for money, that is one thing, if you are into bitework or many other working venues that require stronger dogs, training weak dogs are a waste of time , IMO.
> 
> Besides, who would waste time trainng a dog that shuts down at the drop of a hat?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Adi Ibrahimbegovic said:


> I don't think he meant it to the extremes you are talking about e.g. shitter vs. very strong dog. What about good dogs,that just need some direction or encouragement or promoting stronger prey or defense etc... still a good dog, just need some fine tuning.
> 
> I, like you, appreciate strong dogsand of course they are the end goal, but a lot of dogs have what it takes, you just have to dig a bit deeper or go more to the left etc...
> 
> of course, everything has its limits, and if given the choice, I'd chose to deal with stronger dogsall the time, but even with dogs with some problems there are some unpolished gems there every now and then that can blossom into a good polished diamond.


Very good point Adi. Dogs do come in all strengths and, many times, we get caught up in extremes. I get to pick my own dogs and I pick what I like. It is a lot different if you pick a dog cold out of 10 pups you are not familiar with.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

You can learn LOTS from a weak dog...like how to NOT enjoy working with one! I don't want one that is handler hard...like a co-worker who knows only one way of doing things. I don't give the dog may choices, because the "directive" was only one way...ie: bring. The dog gives you the finger and you end up getting the bumper or bird...WRONG ANSWER! Leaders are fair, firm, and functional. :-o


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Very good point Adi. Dogs do come in all strengths and, many times, we get caught up in extremes. I get to pick my own dogs and I pick what I like. It is a lot different if you pick a dog cold out of 10 pups you are not familiar with.


That for me is the ideal breeder. I see the dog maybe 2-3 times at the most until I pick it and I am reliable on the breeder to tell me which pup would be most suitable for me and what I intend to do with him.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Howard,

Whatever you say, I can say I would be very unhappy with a weak dog - if it were mine. That is to say, I probably wouldn't have chosen it.

Against general thinking, I have seen litters that have been more or less homogene. The strong have been more or less strong - the weak have been more or less weak.

The elder GSD was more or less chosen for me - I just went to look at the litter and the breeder said I could have the dog pup as the other person "fell in love" with his mother and bought her for a price he couldn't refuse.

This GSD is very possessive but in training I've learnt to deal with it. He guards home and garden too thoroughly for my liking but, is controllable outside the homestead. He's pushy, possessive and bulky (45 kilos) but I love the big nutter!

I can't see my ever viewing a "weak" litter!!!


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Gillian, if you have noticed, I went back to the GSD. I have had several over the years and good ones are hard to find. Weak dogs or puppies are a pain in the A$$...more issues than Lipton has teabags!

I'm not about to play to their disabilities and "learn" from it. It takes the same time, energy, and money to raise a good dog as it does one with major issues. In the end, what do you get from it?! :-$


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Howard Gaines III said:


> Gillian, if you have noticed, I went back to the GSD. I have had several over the years and good ones are hard to find. Weak dogs or puppies are a pain in the A$$...more issues than Lipton has teabags!
> 
> I'm not about to play to their disabilities and "learn" from it. It takes the same time, energy, and money to raise a good dog as it does one with major issues. *In the end, what do you get from it?*! :-$


a tingle in your panties...


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

When I tried the Koehler method last year, I was sold on it because of the nature of my dogs. They didn't care about treats. Sure, they liked them if you wanted to give them but it still didn't get anything out of them they didn't want to give. Correction, they just blow that off as well. The first thing I noticed with Koehler is the handler doesn't give the dog any commands to blow off. The handler doesn't put him in a heel. It is done so the dog can learn the way dogs naturally learn so there is no conflict between a strong dog and the handler. It is a great method for this type of dog. No treats, just praise and the strong dogs love doing it.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> When I tried the Koehler method last year, I was sold on it because of the nature of my dogs. They didn't care about treats. Sure, they liked them if you wanted to give them but it still didn't get anything out of them they didn't want to give. Correction, they just blow that off as well. The first thing I noticed with Koehler is the handler doesn't give the dog any commands to blow off. The handler doesn't put him in a heel. It is done so the dog can learn the way dogs naturally learn so there is no conflict between a strong dog and the handler. It is a great method for this type of dog. No treats, just praise and the strong dogs love doing it.



Don ...hook that strong dog up to low ecollar stim and marker training...
(every fukking dog has some reward he likes)

and it will blow your (deleted) mind


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Don't own an Ecollar Joby. Sure wished I had one to stop the barking at times but never found it necessary for training what I need which is almost always off lead.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Don't own an Ecollar Joby. Sure wished I had one to stop the barking at times but never found it necessary for training what I need which is almost always off lead.


i understand Don..

a bark collar would be
better for you...

the training that YOU need is not the training that I am talking about...that is moving into a trainers mindset....not necessarily 100% necessary or 100% funtional for you and your dogs...


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I did borrow a couple ecollars once. Higgins would blow me off at will when I called him. I slapped both tritronics on him at the same time because one only made him move his had and back funny while he stared me in the eye. I turned them both up and got the same thing. He was a great dog and I didn't want to ruin him so I took both collars off of him. Damnedest thing, he wouldn't come with two collars but I never had another problem with him from the time I took them off. If I told him to come...he was there like clockwork.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I did borrow a couple ecollars once. Higgins would blow me off at will when I called him. I slapped both tritronics on him at the same time because one only made him move his had and back funny while he stared me in the eye. I turned them both up and got the same thing. He was a great dog and I didn't want to ruin him so I took both collars off of him. Damnedest thing, he wouldn't come with two collars but I never had another problem with him from the time I took them off. If I told him to come...he was there like clockwork.


that is inspirational,,, that goes totally against any kind of "traditional" training...which I realize is NOT a requirement for you or your dogs..

which is FINE with me..


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Yeah, dog knew exactly what I wanted but he wasn't going to do it through force. He taught me alot, that dog.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Yeah, dog knew exactly what I wanted but he wasn't going to do it through force. He taught me alot, that dog.


what did he teach you? he knew what you wanted...but he would not do it through force...so when did he do it? was it for a reward?


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Yeah, dog knew exactly what I wanted but he wasn't going to do it through force. He taught me alot, that dog.


Best dog I ever had didnt need force or rewards. She did it because she wanted to, she would try anything I asked her to try and her eyes shone like diamonds. Only thing she taught me was every other dog was hard work in comparison. I had to learn how to train a normal dog, they werent like her, she was a freak.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

How about dogs that work better away from the handler?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

It wasn't that these dogs didn't need force...it is more that you weren't going to get it done with force. My first dale had me pulling my hair out and would not come. On a long line she would turn to see where the end of the line was. She would come if I had it in my hand. She would come if it was on the ground next to my foot. If the line was a couple of feet from my foot, she was gone for days. You coukld actually see the wheels turning in here head. I finally hung a 10" piece of PVC from a chain from her collar so it would wrap around her legs and prevent running because nothing was fenced. She came walking out of the house, spraddle legged, and laid down with the PVC across her front legs. I had to laugh because I had outsmarted the dog. Then she picked the PVC up in her mouth and was gone for 3 days. This was years ago and up to that point, I saw dogs as not reasoning and being a lot dumber than some people. I don't believe that any more and handling them has become much easier.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Howard Gaines III said:


> How about dogs that work better away from the handler?



Says a ton about the handler. At the same time I used that to advantage when I was teaching nubys basic obedience. 
On the first training night I would take the most obnoxious dog in the class and have it sitting within mins.
Easy enough because the "average" pet at ob class is there because it's a spoiled, out of control dick with it's handler. The dog would have no idea what to expect from me and towed the line because most didn't try and test me after the first min or so. 
Kinda like my grandkids listening to me better then to their parents. :twisted:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> Says a ton about the handler. At the same time I used that to advantage when I was teaching nubys basic obedience.
> On the first training night I would take the most obnoxious dog in the class and have it sitting within mins.
> Easy enough because the "average" pet at ob class is there because it's a spoiled, out of control dick with it's handler. The dog would have no idea what to expect from me and towed the line because most didn't try and test me after the first min or so.
> Kinda like my grandkids listening to me better then to their parents. :twisted:


I like this one...

"this dog is dumb as a brick, won't listen for shit..."


----------

