# Bonding



## leslie cassian

A couple of posts have mentioned bonding with a dog. I remember asking someone once why he didn’t have his dog with him and his answer was that he was still bonding with her. I thought that was odd, as I’ve never really thought that I have done anything special to bond with a dog, or gone about it in any systematic way. It just seems to happen through spending time with them. There’s been a couple of fosters through my house this year and they all seem to be ‘my’ dog within a short period of time, (though I live alone, so they have no choice in that). Am I missing something?

Do you do anything special to create a bond with a dog? How do you know when that has been achieved?


----------



## Jennifer Andress

What a good question! I hope more knowledgeable people respond, I'd love to hear what they have to say. 

I don't think that I do anything special to bond with dogs. Mostly I work with shelter mutts who are destined for pet homes, and my role is just to get them accustomed to living indoors in urban or suburban environments that are very different from the extremely rural places from which they originally came. Because they're only fosters, and I don't want them to attach too closely to me (learned the hard way that this only leads to difficult partings), there's a tension between letting them bond enough that they'll work with me and do well in training, and not bonding so much that they'll have any difficulty moving on to their adoptive homes at the end of the foster period.

It's very easy to bond with these dogs. They're always highly sociable, affiliative dogs (I'm sure someday I'll get one that isn't, but I haven't yet!) and they're coming through a period of tumult and uncertainty where they are _desperate_ to latch onto some kind of stability. Because they have a person-shaped hole in their lives and are looking for anyone who might possibly be able to fill it, I really don't have to do much of anything.

I don't know how to articulate how you know when it's been achieved. You just _know_. It's something in the way the dog looks at you, the quickness with which its ears move when you say its name, the closeness with which it shadows you throughout the house. It's in the eagerness and attentiveness at every training session. They'll play whatever game you want, as long as you want, not only because it gets them treats and praise, but because they enjoy working with you.


----------



## Joby Becker

leslie cassian said:


> A couple of posts have mentioned bonding with a dog. *I remember asking someone once why he didn’t have his dog with him* and his answer was that *he was still bonding with her*.


this seems like an oxymoron to me


----------



## Paul Cipparone

Here's a test for bonding , that's assuming you have one. If you have a schH or Ring field at your disposal, go onto the field with your dog. Have some one hold the dog on led for you as you walk away slowly BE SURE NOT TO LOOK BACK, proceed to the farthest blind & walk into it. After a few minutes have your friend let the leash go, does the dog go directly to you , or does it sniff around , become distracted & not rushing to find you. Another way to develope bond is to go to a forested area , tie the dog out, leave the dog , & only return when the dog barks ( calls for you ) the dog is now showing dependance on you , return & play with the dog.. You are on your way for bonding.


----------



## Max Orsi

Sorry Paul but that looks more like a "temperament" or training test.

The bond is about the quality of relation and trust you establish with your dog. Just like with a girlfriend or boyfriend.


----------



## rick smith

this is a great topic for me especially since i have had so many conversations about bonding with a variety of dog owners and handlers.

my definition is similar to what Max wrote, except for me it is two elements not one :
trust and respect

i do not agree a good bond is just something you "know" when you have it. 
- "if" you agree with my definition, it is definitely something that can be measured, specifically developed, and even repaired if it goes sour. but if you have another definition that you can describe in words, i'm open to that too...maybe mine is too simplified 

i think i can understand why Paul posted his examples, but to me that would just be a test of how much the dog depended on the handler, so those tests falls short of my definition
.... if you follow that train of thought, an extreme example of that kind of bond would be a velcro dog, and i don't think that is a sign of a good bond. so for me, dependency has little to do with a proper bond, even tho all dogs must depend on an owner for a lot of things

i also don't think that just "hanging out" and not trying to pressure the dog with intensive training is a good way to develop a bond, and that seems to be a common way people try and "bond"

i also think that developing a good bond with a foster dog will NOT in ANY way inhibit a dog that will (hopefully) later be adopted. actually i think that can be a very bad way to foster a dog and i have done quite a few fosters, and was active in a Navy base foster group for a couple years. one of the reasons i quit was because the fosters were doing NOTHING to help the dog and increase it's chances for adoption. simple little OB exercises and loading markers etc is not bond building to me because it has little to do with trust and respect. and i also think some people are just letting their ego get in the way and are afraid a foster dog will "bond too much" with them and make it harder to accept a permanent owner later. 
- one example that should be easy to see is with professional working dogs who may have to switch handlers. they OBVIOUSLY need a great bond with their handlers, probably a lot more than any pet dog, but they can still be reassigned to a new handler and perform just as well .... 
- why ? because dogs are so adaptable ...what makes them such a great partner

of course if it's your dog you can and should work even harder on keeping that bond tight. and yes, i think a good bond can go wrong and then need "repair" at a later date

i also think there are very specific things you can do to get a baseline for any dog and measure their level of human trust and respect, but like any test, it should be done carefully so the bond isn't broken before it starts developing
....many of these specifics are things everyone does, but might not be aware that they affect the bond because no one ever thinks too much about bonding and expects it to just "happen" over time. for someone who works with other people's dogs, these specifics do stand out when they are either done ...or not done 
- or when they don't realize how what they do affects their bond with their dog in terms of trust or respect

hope the thread will have long legs 
my .02....or maybe .50 //lol//


----------



## Max Orsi

It actually seems we are on the same page Rick!

You said trust and respect, I said nice relation and trust.

With Nice relation I intend of curse respect, but respect has to be gained by the trainer via being able to please and motivate the dog as much as the dog is pleasing and motivating the trainer.

As I said above is not different than the "bond" someone would expect from a GF, BF, Friend etc.

This could be a nice discussion...


----------



## Joby Becker

leslie cassian said:


> A couple of posts have mentioned bonding with a dog. I remember asking someone once why he didn’t have his dog with him and his answer was that he was still bonding with her. I thought that was odd, as I’ve never really thought that I have done anything special to bond with a dog, or gone about it in any systematic way. It just seems to happen through spending time with them. There’s been a couple of fosters through my house this year and they all seem to be ‘my’ dog within a short period of time, (though I live alone, so they have no choice in that). Am I missing something?
> 
> Do you do anything special to create a bond with a dog? How do you know when that has been achieved?


just thought about this post a little bit more.

I might say something like that if I had just gotten the dog, as in had it for only a a day or two or three or whatever, then I might say I didnt have him with me because we were still bonding..meaning things need to be felt out, without having the dog out and about with me yet..


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler

I see what you're saying but to be honest I used that excuse when I didn't want to work with a particular person and I was asked why I wasn't working him. 
We were still bonding. ;-). Said with conviction of course. 

Laura


----------



## Jennifer Andress

rick smith said:


> i also think that developing a good bond with a foster dog will NOT in ANY way inhibit a dog that will (hopefully) later be adopted.


I think I did a bad job articulating what I was trying to get at with the fosters. 

It used to be that I'd treat the fosters pretty much the same way I treat my own personal dogs. I stopped doing this after one incident where the foster dog cried and pulled away from her adopters, trying to get back to me, when they were attempting to take her home.

I am sure that the dog in question could (and did) bond fully and happily with her adopters after a few days of living with them. But in that moment, her family was so shocked to see her behaving that way that it almost tanked the adoption.

So now I don't do that anymore. People are a lot happier when the dog immediately attaches to them and they don't feel like they're "making it sad" by taking it home.


----------



## rick smith

Jennifer
i hear you ... and one of the most common things owners will tell a trainer is that their dog likes the trainer better than the owner //rotflmao//
.... i quickly tell them that is a crock and get back to work ))))


----------



## leslie cassian

Because I started this, I'll add some more of my thoughts to it.

The guy who was 'still bonding' with his dog was not someone I knew well, but just had a brief conversation with him about his new DS (still rare around here). It was a dog friendly event and I had my foster puppy and my dogs there, so at the time, it struck me as odd, though there could have been any number of reasons why he chose not to bring his dog that day. 

To feel bonded to a dog seems to me to be as much about how I feel as about what I perceive to be going on with the dog. There are some dogs I like right away, others that grow on me, some I just don't like. How much they appear to like me doesn't necessarily correlate to how much I like them. 

rick - I was really hoping you would respond to this. Is there anything you would do specifically, or advise your clients to do, to create a good bond with a dog?


----------



## Gus Pineda

I just walk them and feed them, and pet them. Time does the rest. No particular bonding-activity.


----------



## Meg O'Donovan

Yes, Rick, give us the first few chapters of your future book, summarized in point form?
This is an interesting topic, and a challenge to get a grip on because it is hard to measure and replicate.


----------



## leslie cassian

Jennifer Andress said:


> What a good question! I hope more knowledgeable people respond, I'd love to hear what they have to say.
> 
> I don't think that I do anything special to bond with dogs. Mostly I work with shelter mutts who are destined for pet homes, and my role is just to get them accustomed to living indoors in urban or suburban environments that are very different from the extremely rural places from which they originally came. Because they're only fosters, and I don't want them to attach too closely to me (learned the hard way that this only leads to difficult partings), there's a tension between letting them bond enough that they'll work with me and do well in training, and not bonding so much that they'll have any difficulty moving on to their adoptive homes at the end of the foster period.
> 
> It's very easy to bond with these dogs. They're always highly sociable, affiliative dogs (I'm sure someday I'll get one that isn't, but I haven't yet!) and they're coming through a period of tumult and uncertainty where they are _desperate_ to latch onto some kind of stability. Because they have a person-shaped hole in their lives and are looking for anyone who might possibly be able to fill it, I really don't have to do much of anything.
> 
> I don't know how to articulate how you know when it's been achieved. You just _know_. It's something in the way the dog looks at you, the quickness with which its ears move when you say its name, the closeness with which it shadows you throughout the house. It's in the eagerness and attentiveness at every training session. They'll play whatever game you want, as long as you want, not only because it gets them treats and praise, but because they enjoy working with you.


+1

I've only had a couple of fosters and while I am happy to see them move on, I cannot help feeling attached to and invested in them. It does not take long at all for them to start looking to me for attention and direction after they get here. When they go there is always a part of me that goes with them.


----------



## Meg O'Donovan

Just realized I didn't address Leslie's question:
Do you do anything special to create a bond with a dog? How do you know when that has been achieved?

I spent a lot of time in the bush with the dog, offleash as soon as possible, and in new places (ones I knew but she didn't) as much as possible, to keep the environment unpredictable and have the dog a bit uncertain about it, at least at the start. While on those walks, I tried for lots of exposure to new stimuli (running creeks, swimming across lakes, crossing steep shale slopes where footing is not steady, places where there is scat from bigger wild animals, big waves crashing on a beach). I also did/do on-leash obedience in places like across the road from a gun-range when the big bore guys are practising, or on docks that are pitching up & down due to waves. So I guess, in a phrase my approach would be bonding though environmental challenges. 

The approach probably depends on the individual dog. My dog likes physical adventures and learning new things. 

I take the dog everywhere I possibly can, even when it would be easier not to. She got used to being with me, and watching my responses/body language, and I watching hers. I felt like we had a bond when I got a pretty solid gut feeling of her responses/behavior and can predict them most of the time. So to me it seems like bonding is really knowing each other. The bonding doesn't mean my dog will always do exactly what I'd like, but it does increase the likelihood of that.
Attached are some photos from our bonding months. A good time was had by all. BTW the same bonding approach (environmental challenges) works well with kids too.


----------



## Max Orsi

this is the question about how good your bond is

is the dog workin for the reward (object) or is it working to play with you?

are you just an accessory to put the ball in motion or is the dog paying with you?

does the dog get to keep his reward (object) as part of the reward?

what happen when you take the reward (object) back?

Nice topic, much overlooked

Happy training


----------



## Bob Scott

Although I use the term bonding just as I use terms like Drive, prey, fight, etc in order to communicate with today's dog owners. I never gave any of these terms much though until the became main stream. 
Bottom line is I have fun spend time with my dogs. I expect them to do what I say. My methods have changed simply because I've always been curious about how and why something works. I've adjusted those methods to suit me and whatever dog I may have in the present. 
Just because I've had success with past methods doesn't mean I have to stay with them but it also doesn't mean I wouldn't use previous methods if I thought they were needed. 
Bonding is nothing more then kicking back and enjoying time with a new pup or dog. Try not to over think it! :wink:


----------



## James Downey

First, I think there are Genetic limitations to everything. That is: Some dogs are inherently more selfish, and/or independent and some more devouted and pack driven.. I have a Female that loves me to death. She's the greatest friend I have ever known. I get along with her better than anything on Earth. But on the IPO field. She's working for the ball. She could careless about playing with me. She's all about the paycheck. Now I know some speak of this as if it's some kind lack of talent in the trainer if you have dog that is purely about getting what they want in the games. I don't think is this true. Because I have another dog, that cares very little for the toy itself. He wants to interact with me. And I do not believe that's because I have some new special power. It's just who the dogs are. Now can a relationship that is purely business be promoted through training...sure. So with my female I have respected the fact she's about getting her ball and not interacting with me. And it has paid off in the rest of our relationship. 

As for the OPs question is there anything I do to promote bonding. You betcha. The first thing I do, Is I don't put puppies under the microscope and start worrying about every little aspect of their behavior in terms of how it's going to help me win. I think that's a mistake I see a lot of people do with puppies and dogs. They have the dog for 24 hours and they are already placing expectations on it. They are playing games and doing training, not to train. But to see what they have in a dog. What they don't realize is that the dog is not stupid and the dog will start to realize they are doing a job interview for a new boss, that has very high expectations, and not really working on relationship. The next thing I find helpful is going for off leash walks. With a puppy, they have pack instincts...people often associate pack theory with dominace and submission. But what about just teaching the dog the importance of the pack. I think the walks off leash can help with this. First it teaches a dog to follow me. The next thing I do is try to find moments when they are not paying attention or find obstacles for them to negotiate. I do not talk much while this going on. when the puppy finds that I am leaving or they don't know where I went. I wait for them to concerned about it... Then If they don't where I am, I give them a hint by making some kind of noise, not verbal but rustling some leaves or breaking a stick. and if its an obstacle then I might verbally encourage them....and when they come to me...I have a wonderful reunion with them. They soon learn to keep tabs at where I am at. This makes me important to them. 

I like most people play games....but I don't worry about retrieve, or full mouth grips...I worry about if the pup is having fun, if they are being successful.

Now once I see the dog start to care about me a little. I introduce some boundries to the games, to getting in the crate, and other little things. And I will make them respect the boundries...of course it's age appropriate, a puppy I might just scold them verbally...a dog a little harsher punishment might be needed. But I have found that boundries themselves build relationship. 

And here's one I don't see a lot of... Sometimes when we go to training, we do what the dog wants to do sometimes. Sometimes it is endless game of ball and that's it. just game of tug, and me pushing them, and wrestling with them...whatever trips their trigger. I see a lot of people ask for constant perfect ob, they never let the dog have a field day. Every session they ask for behaviors, and provide rewards for doing so, and punishment for not....EVERY TIME THEY TRAIN...for years on end. 

And this is one thing I have found on coaching people to train. I cannot teach people how to have a relationship with a dog. I have shown people what I do. And some do it, and get similar results. I thought to myself...I am a good coach. I was wrong. Those people are just inherently able to have a relationship with a dog. Whether they do what I do or not. They would get a good relationship. How do I know this? because other people I have coached, I have shown them the exact same things...and they could not do it for the life of them. They love their dogs, but they for some reason cannot relate to a dog very well. And I have seen people...dog after dog they get the same kind of dog....a dog that is flat, unresponsive, a brat, indifferent, or combination of those things. 

But I think this is why the OP is having a hard time seeing what they do to build relationship because it probably is natural for them. So it just comes. I am not so lucky, I have to be a little mechanical and pay attention. I have some chops in building relationship but not enough natural chops to not employ some more mechanical methods of achieving the relationship I want.

A friend at work got a Great Swiss mountain dog. I went out with him once, and showed him them basics of clicker training, my little walk thing, and the importance of games. Just one session, he had the dog doing amazing obedience for a guy with no other dog training education, and a dog that was just normal dog. nothing special in terms of drive or anything. He just can relate to a dog. And I think whether I showed him what to do or not, he would have produced a happy, willing partner. 

Another example is a family member of mine got a dog, I showed them the same things. the dog is a mess for them. But their spouse takes the dog, I show him the same things....and the dog is completely different. 

So I also think there maybe some genetic limitations in the handler in how much they can relate to a dog, just as much as their are genetic limitations on how much the dog can relate to a human. 

And I will end this. No one is perfect at any of this. And I think that reminding myself of that is important. I think it's important because one thing I think that kills relationship faster than anything is when a trainer makes the dog responsible for the handlers imperfection.


----------



## rick smith

specifics ....

first, anything i do has to be related directly to the temperament of the dog in front of me.....all dogs are different
- but overall, i would say i'm very "confrontational" rather than "stand off ish", but i don't know if that is something that can be explained in words

one example is handling (i'm not talking leash work here)
- when i meet up with someone i will be working with i always ask them to give me a little demo of how they would check their dog. starting with a daily "pat down" and than moving on to a more complete going over that would include the dog on its back belly up with the owner trying to "look" and feel for fleas around the groin area, etc etc ...that will show me the dog's tolerance levels

my assumption : the more you can handle a dog the better the trust factor will become.
works for any type of drive and temperament.
based on the owner's baseline of what the dog can handle, i will start raising the bar

- i will always give any dog a thorough handling when i meet it (nose to tail), and see where the trust starts to break down
1. if the dog is reluctant to let me open it's jaws wide and handle it's mouth and get my fingers in to pull up jowells (sp?) and check the back molars ... the more i will do it. 
- no dog really enjoys someone putting their hands on upper/lower muzzle and stretching their mouth wide open. or trying to keep it wide open  but i think this is a great little trust builder drill in itself and there is always a huge variance in what a dog will allow
- imo it also helps dogs who will be using their grip a lot or be forced to out, etc

not sure if this is what you mean, but for me body handling is one way to measure and build a bond, trust wise


----------



## rick smith

re: trust and respect
re; the "bond" ... after people have had a dog awhile they take it for granted and if i would ask them if their dog trusts and respects them the answer would be a no brainer...if i ask how much, the Q is harder for them to answer 

i guess my philosophy revolves about NOT taking it for granted and constantly trying to improve it

another thing i use ... watch the dog jump over hurdles and see their height limit height they can clear WITHOUT using front paws as they go over. then have the owner take the dog to a new place. find an obstacle they can clear but can't see what's immediately on the other side. have the owner walk up, sit the dog and give them a "hup" and see if the dog will jump it with no hesitation
- some will jump it right away, some will pause at the top, and some will hesitate or balk until the owner goes to the other side and coaxes them


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

rick smith said:


> specifics ....
> 
> first, anything i do has to be related directly to the temperament of the dog in front of me.....all dogs are different
> - but overall, i would say i'm very "confrontational" rather than "stand off ish", but i don't know if that is something that can be explained in words
> 
> one example is handling (i'm not talking leash work here)
> - when i meet up with someone i will be working with i always ask them to give me a little demo of how they would check their dog. starting with a daily "pat down" and than moving on to a more complete going over that would include the dog on its back belly up with the owner trying to "look" and feel for fleas around the groin area, etc etc ...that will show me the dog's tolerance levels
> 
> my assumption : the more you can handle a dog the better the trust factor will become.
> works for any type of drive and temperament.
> based on the owner's baseline of what the dog can handle, i will start raising the bar
> 
> - i will always give any dog a thorough handling when i meet it (nose to tail), and see where the trust starts to break down
> 1. if the dog is reluctant to let me open it's jaws wide and handle it's mouth and get my fingers in to pull up jowells (sp?) and check the back molars ... the more i will do it.
> - no dog really enjoys someone putting their hands on upper/lower muzzle and stretching their mouth wide open. or trying to keep it wide open  but i think this is a great little trust builder drill in itself and there is always a huge variance in what a dog will allow
> - imo it also helps dogs who will be using their grip a lot or be forced to out, etc
> 
> not sure if this is what you mean, but for me body handling is one way to measure and build a bond, trust wise


Interesting. How does forced handling build a bond. I have a 2 year old that I just got--soft dog, very easily intimidated. The last thing I would think as beneficial to this dog is invasive handling. 

T


----------



## brad robert

James Downey said:


> First, I think there are Genetic limitations to everything. That is: Some dogs are inherently more selfish, and/or independent and some more devouted and pack driven.. I have a Female that loves me to death. She's the greatest friend I have ever known. I get along with her better than anything on Earth. But on the IPO field. She's working for the ball. She could careless about playing with me. She's all about the paycheck. Now I know some speak of this as if it's some kind lack of talent in the trainer if you have dog that is purely about getting what they want in the games. I don't think is this true. Because I have another dog, that cares very little for the toy itself. He wants to interact with me. And I do not believe that's because I have some new special power. It's just who the dogs are. Now can a relationship that is purely business be promoted through training...sure. So with my female I have respected the fact she's about getting her ball and not interacting with me. And it has paid off in the rest of our relationship.
> 
> As for the OPs question is there anything I do to promote bonding. You betcha. The first thing I do, Is I don't put puppies under the microscope and start worrying about every little aspect of their behavior in terms of how it's going to help me win. I think that's a mistake I see a lot of people do with puppies and dogs. They have the dog for 24 hours and they are already placing expectations on it. They are playing games and doing training, not to train. But to see what they have in a dog. What they don't realize is that the dog is not stupid and the dog will start to realize they are doing a job interview for a new boss, that has very high expectations, and not really working on relationship. The next thing I find helpful is going for off leash walks. With a puppy, they have pack instincts...people often associate pack theory with dominace and submission. But what about just teaching the dog the importance of the pack. I think the walks off leash can help with this. First it teaches a dog to follow me. The next thing I do is try to find moments when they are not paying attention or find obstacles for them to negotiate. I do not talk much while this going on. when the puppy finds that I am leaving or they don't know where I went. I wait for them to concerned about it... Then If they don't where I am, I give them a hint by making some kind of noise, not verbal but rustling some leaves or breaking a stick. and if its an obstacle then I might verbally encourage them....and when they come to me...I have a wonderful reunion with them. They soon learn to keep tabs at where I am at. This makes me important to them.
> 
> I like most people play games....but I don't worry about retrieve, or full mouth grips...I worry about if the pup is having fun, if they are being successful.
> 
> Now once I see the dog start to care about me a little. I introduce some boundries to the games, to getting in the crate, and other little things. And I will make them respect the boundries...of course it's age appropriate, a puppy I might just scold them verbally...a dog a little harsher punishment might be needed. But I have found that boundries themselves build relationship.
> 
> And here's one I don't see a lot of... Sometimes when we go to training, we do what the dog wants to do sometimes. Sometimes it is endless game of ball and that's it. just game of tug, and me pushing them, and wrestling with them...whatever trips their trigger. I see a lot of people ask for constant perfect ob, they never let the dog have a field day. Every session they ask for behaviors, and provide rewards for doing so, and punishment for not....EVERY TIME THEY TRAIN...for years on end.
> 
> And this is one thing I have found on coaching people to train. I cannot teach people how to have a relationship with a dog. I have shown people what I do. And some do it, and get similar results. I thought to myself...I am a good coach. I was wrong. Those people are just inherently able to have a relationship with a dog. Whether they do what I do or not. They would get a good relationship. How do I know this? because other people I have coached, I have shown them the exact same things...and they could not do it for the life of them. They love their dogs, but they for some reason cannot relate to a dog very well. And I have seen people...dog after dog they get the same kind of dog....a dog that is flat, unresponsive, a brat, indifferent, or combination of those things.
> 
> But I think this is why the OP is having a hard time seeing what they do to build relationship because it probably is natural for them. So it just comes. I am not so lucky, I have to be a little mechanical and pay attention. I have some chops in building relationship but not enough natural chops to not employ some more mechanical methods of achieving the relationship I want.
> 
> A friend at work got a Great Swiss mountain dog. I went out with him once, and showed him them basics of clicker training, my little walk thing, and the importance of games. Just one session, he had the dog doing amazing obedience for a guy with no other dog training education, and a dog that was just normal dog. nothing special in terms of drive or anything. He just can relate to a dog. And I think whether I showed him what to do or not, he would have produced a happy, willing partner.
> 
> Another example is a family member of mine got a dog, I showed them the same things. the dog is a mess for them. But their spouse takes the dog, I show him the same things....and the dog is completely different.
> 
> So I also think there maybe some genetic limitations in the handler in how much they can relate to a dog, just as much as their are genetic limitations on how much the dog can relate to a human.
> 
> And I will end this. No one is perfect at any of this. And I think that reminding myself of that is important. I think it's important because one thing I think that kills relationship faster than anything is when a trainer makes the dog responsible for the handlers imperfection.


=D>


----------



## rick smith

re: "How does forced handling build a bond"

i'm not doing that .... i'm talking about continually raising the bar and challenging the dog, just like in any type of training
- a proper eval will tell you where you can start
- of course an owner should be able to be a lot more invasive than i can be when i first start working with their dog, but at least it shows what the dog is capable of and not capable of...gives both of us a starting point on where improvement can start


----------



## rick smith

since i'm ranting on the trust and respect thing ....

are they really different terms ?
can you have one without the other ?
do you all think one is more important than the other and do you think one should take a priority over the other when you are working with the dog ?

...i've been in a few heated discussions over this


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Gus Pineda said:


> I just walk them and feed them, and pet them. Time does the rest. No particular bonding-activity.


Need one do more?


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Bob Scott said:


> Although I use the term bonding just as I use terms like Drive, prey, fight, etc in order to communicate with today's dog owners. I never gave any of these terms much though until the became main stream.
> Bottom line is I have fun spend time with my dogs. I expect them to do what I say. My methods have changed simply because I've always been curious about how and why something works. I've adjusted those methods to suit me and whatever dog I may have in the present.
> Just because I've had success with past methods doesn't mean I have to stay with them but it also doesn't mean I wouldn't use previous methods if I thought they were needed.
> Bonding is nothing more then kicking back and enjoying time with a new pup or dog. Try not to over think it! :wink:


Here again, just enjoy them. 

However, even cruel handlers gain respect from their dogs.

I agree Bob, everything is over thought. Makes me wonder how people have time to train. Some of the questions on here would never have entered my mind a while back. Why buy a dog in any case if you didn't like dogs and were unwilling to show some sort of affection for it?


----------



## Max Orsi

Bob and Jim both have some good points and jim explains exactly what I was talking about.

In my replies I was describing the bonding of a working dog, the type of bond that can get your team performing (working) at the highest level (dependent on genetics of the dog and ability of the trainer)

If just spending time with the dog and enjoying activities together was sufficient, all pets would make perfect working dogs, but we all know that is not the case.

I also never said to be unwilling to show the dog affection Gillian.

Happy training

Max


----------



## rick smith

ok, i think i'm starting to get it 

- why even waste time talking dogs on a forum ?

very little educational value compared to the arguments over definitions, how there are exceptions to every rule, no one ever changes their mind and lots of threads usually end up with "a good dog is a good dog" or "it's all genetics" anyway

...and for sure the dogs aren't reading and learning anything 

i think i see a change in my priorities in the near future //lol//
.... more music vids and sleep and a lot less keyboard time. TIA for the wake up call !!


----------



## Max Orsi

rick smith said:


> ok, i think i'm starting to get it
> 
> - why even waste time talking dogs on a forum ?
> 
> very little educational value compared to the arguments over definitions, how there are exceptions to every rule, no one ever changes their mind and lots of threads usually end up with "a good dog is a good dog" or "it's all genetics" anyway
> 
> ...and for sure the dogs aren't reading and learning anything
> 
> i think i see a change in my priorities in the near future //lol//
> .... more music vids and sleep and a lot less keyboard time. TIA for the wake up call !!


That is a little unfair Rick.

I thought the discussion was going well and yes people changes is mind, I am guilty of doing that myself, but I need to see the results before I accept a theory.

Definitions are indeed a problem, that's why one should take the time to explain it clearly 

Let's keep it going 

Happy training

Max


----------



## Sarah Platts

Max Orsi said:


> In my replies I was describing the bonding of a working dog, the type of bond that can get your team performing (working) at the highest level (dependent on genetics of the dog and ability of the trainer)
> 
> If just spending time with the dog and enjoying activities together was sufficient, all pets would make perfect working dogs, but we all know that is not the case.
> 
> Max


I think it wrong to exclude pet dogs if all you are speaking of is "bonding". Many pet dogs developed a close working relationship and intuitive behavior even if they aren't scounting for bombs or jumping burdles.

One of my sar dogs was a pass-down down. 3 handlers in as many years. Oh, the dog was great with me, passed his certs in record time, did everything I asked of him but he didn't establish a bond with me until almost 3 years to the day had passed. And then one day, he just changed. Not physically, or improved performance but there was a click and just something *extra* that wasn't before. I guess it took that long because he wasn't going to form that relationship to me if I was just going to be passing him on to someone else. Yeah, some say I'm amorphasizing the dog but it was night and day when it happened. I knew it had happened but interestingly enough, others noticed it and mentioned it to me too. So clearly something happened. 

For me, bonding isn't about the dog doing something just because I said so. Yes, it's a level of trust that I'm asking the dog to do something it's either not done before or entirely comfortable about. But it's not just a working relationship. It's not about obedience. It's about 2 living organisms joining and working together on an almost visceral level. It's both of us working together knowing what the other wants before they know it themselves and because of that the levels of success achieved are higher. I guess its just a harmony thats beautiful to watch, difficult to achieve, but you know it when you either see it or when it gets given to you.


----------



## Max Orsi

Sarah I am not saying you are doing it wrong, but by your own definition if a dog is doing it "just" because you said so, it can't have a nice relationship.

When I go to work, I do things because I have been told too and I have to, I don't have a good relationship with my boss.

When I do things I like and I want to do with people who likes them too, I have a better relationship with the people I "work" with

How about you?

Happy training


----------



## Matt Vandart

I think whether the dogs character fits with your's is a major factor of the level of bonding with a dog you can attain.
I think trust and respect are separate myself.


----------



## Max Orsi

Sorry Sarah, after reading your post again, I realized I had not understood it the first time.

I agree with what you said.

I did not say, in any of my post, that the type of bond the pets receive is bad, just that alone is not sufficient to establish a good working relation.

Happy training

Max


----------



## Max Orsi

Matt Vandart said:


> I think whether the dogs character fits with your's is a major factor of the level of bonding with a dog you can attain.
> I think trust and respect are separate myself.


That is a separate issue Matt.

you can build a nice working relationship even if you don't like the character of the dog.

Happy training


----------



## Dee Harrison

National geographic wild has a program titled 'unlikely animal friends'. It is about the relationships between different species. One program I saw showed a blind horse and a goat - the goat led the blind horse around (they were not tethered together); a goose and a huge tortoise - the goose was extremely overprotective of the tortoise; a great dane and a wild deer, etc. All of the relationships were of different species that were in some instances predator and prey, but, on some level they bonded and were inseperable. They all demonstrated trust, respect and a sense of belonging to each other... none of it was intentional or forced.


----------



## Max Orsi

Dee Harrison said:


> National geographic wild has a program titled 'unlikely animal friends'. It is about the relationships between different species. One program I saw showed a blind horse and a goat - the goat led the blind horse around (they were not tethered together); a goose and a huge tortoise - the goose was extremely overprotective of the tortoise; a great dane and a wild deer, etc. All of the relationships were of different species that were in some instances predator and prey, but, on some level they bonded and were inseperable. They all demonstrated trust, respect and a sense of belonging to each other... none of it was intentional or forced.


You are right Dee, I have seen the same show.

I assumed, since this discussion was posted in the "General working dog discussion" and the first post was about not working the dog because still bonding, that we were discussing specifically about establishing a "working bond"

Have you seen the show about people bonding and being sexually attracted by objects?

Happy training


----------



## Catherine Gervin

Max Orsi said:


> You are right Dee, I have seen the same show.
> 
> I assumed, since this discussion was posted in the "General working dog discussion" and the first post was about not working the dog because still bonding, that we were discussing specifically about establishing a "working bond"
> 
> Have you seen the show about people bonding and being sexually attracted by objects?
> 
> Happy training


 in Japan there are young men who have developed a relationship with a pillow--they are illustrated and often look like Sailor Moon rather than Asian--and they take it out to dinner in restaurants and they change the cases to change the girls' outfits and each guy has given their poly cotton blend girlfriend a name and a personality and there were nods to very satisfying sexual relationships between human and cartoon-bedding. it's not exactly frowned upon in their society...maybe just a collective sigh of relief that such fellows will not be trying to marry live daughters? anyhow that is not a bond, not really, in my opinion in as much as a delusion and a sad sad stab at abating lonliness. it isn't hurting anyone but it is not real other than a friction burn and some discomforting imagination. i think a bond has to be a reciprocity. the owner might just be over the moon for their dog and the dog might be nonplussed but they have some caliber of bond because they interact and relate and work together. however much both my Dad and Cameron's father in "Ferris Beuller's Day Off" love their cars, they still have machines and machines cannot even summon up indifference, let alone return the feeling.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Max Orsi said:


> That is a separate issue Matt.
> 
> you can build a nice working relationship even if you don't like the character of the dog.
> 
> Happy training


I disagree.
It's not about like it's about natural character.
Some dogs need a calm person some need a more in your face person. You can't fake it with enough sincerity to ever achieve the optimal bond.
Yes a working relationship can be formed but in this case the dog should find a matching handler and vice versa IMO no point in forcing the issue.


----------



## Sarah Platts

Max Orsi said:


> Sorry Sarah, after reading your post again, I realized I had not understood it the first time.
> 
> I agree with what you said.
> 
> I did not say, in any of my post, that the type of bond the pets receive is bad, just that alone is not sufficient to establish a good working relation.
> 
> Max


 
I somewhat agree and disagree. I think that, at times, pet dogs can and do work just as hard in their arena and those we deem 'working' dogs. I think its just a question of semantics. And if you really enjoy what you are doing is it work? Or just an extreme measure of fun? I've always heard that if you enjoy what you're doing - it's not work - but if you don't enjoy what you do or the company of the people you are with then it is. So I believe pet dogs can have just as poor or good a working relationship with their owners as any other dog.

But back to the original topic. I think you can have a good working relationship but not necessarily have a bond to that person (or animal). I think you can bond to someone (or animal) even if you don't work with them. But it's the rare gift when you can have both.


----------



## Max Orsi

I have developed a good relationship and the same results in OB exercises with dog I did not like.

I don't expect the dog to choose the type of character his handler should have, the handler should always be more intelligent (in reference to training and developing a bond) than the dog, to have the dog bond to him.
No force needed

I guess we will have to agree to disagree 
happy training


----------



## Matt Vandart

I am afraid you are quite missing my point.

I am not talking about liking the character of the dog I am talking about a good match of character.


----------



## Max Orsi

Sarah Platts said:


> I somewhat agree and disagree. I think that, at times, pet dogs can and do work just as hard in their arena and those we deem 'working' dogs. I think its just a question of semantics. And if you really enjoy what you are doing is it work? Or just an extreme measure of fun? I've always heard that if you enjoy what you're doing - it's not work - but if you don't enjoy what you do or the company of the people you are with then it is. So I believe pet dogs can have just as poor or good a working relationship with their owners as any other dog.
> 
> But back to the original topic. I think you can have a good working relationship but not necessarily have a bond to that person (or animal). I think you can bond to someone (or animal) even if you don't work with them. But it's the rare gift when you can have both.


Define your "sometimes pet dog" that can do the work, please.

Here is my definition of pet dog:

A dog who has, like all dogs, even abused ones, a pack bond or loving bond with the owner/family but is not required to perform specific tasks under control and direction of the handler in unfamiliar setting with variable distractions of leash and of EC.

By definition if as you said a pet is trained to work in the arena you choose, is no longer a pet.

Can you have your friends/clients pets go to work in the arena you choose without changing the type of relationship they have?

Happy training


----------



## Max Orsi

Matt Vandart said:


> I am afraid you are quite missing my point.
> 
> I am not talking about liking the character of the dog I am talking about a good match of character.


I got your point!!!

My point being that even if our characters (handler/dog) don't "match" I can still develop a good working bond.

Happy training


----------



## Max Orsi

Max Orsi said:


> this is the question about how good your bond is
> 
> is the dog workin for the reward (object) or is it working to play with you?
> 
> are you just an accessory to put the ball in motion or is the dog paying with you?
> 
> does the dog get to keep his reward (object) as part of the reward?
> 
> what happen when you take the reward (object) back?
> 
> Nice topic, much overlooked
> 
> Happy training


By the way, the above are the basic question to know if you have what I consider a goo working Bond/relation with your dog.

No mention about character or temperament or mach of personalities.

Nice discussion...

happy training


----------



## Matt Vandart

That's awesome dude, I'll change my whole 'bond' paradigm now.......


----------



## Max Orsi

Matt Vandart said:


> That's awesome dude, I'll change my whole 'bond' paradigm now.......


???????

Excuse my ignorance, I did not get the meaning of your reply.

I was more interested on how you bond with your working dog.

Happy training


----------



## Matt Vandart

cool.
Out of interest, what is the answers to your questions?


----------



## Catherine Gervin

Max Orsi said:


> Define your "sometimes pet dog" that can do the work, please.
> 
> Here is my definition of pet dog:
> 
> A dog who has, like all dogs, even abused ones, a pack bond or loving bond with the owner/family but is not required to perform specific tasks under control and direction of the handler in unfamiliar setting with variable distractions of leash and of EC.
> 
> By definition if as you said a pet is trained to work in the arena you choose, is no longer a pet.
> 
> Can you have your friends/clients pets go to work in the arena you choose without changing the type of relationship they have?
> 
> Happy training


what about ranch dogs who move livestock--or don't, such as horses--but provide freelance security and kill pest animals and pal around indiscriminantly w/ whomever happens to be there but belong to the farm or barn or proprietor? they are pets, especially when considered against race horses or show horses, etc, but they do odd jobs on the place and that is why they are kept, every bit as much as for their company...so doesn't that make them Working dogs? i guess i always thought they were...some of them live outside and stay with the herd and whatnot...no?


----------



## Max Orsi

Catherine Gervin said:


> what about ranch dogs who move livestock--or don't, such as horses--but provide freelance security and kill pest animals and pal around indiscriminantly w/ whomever happens to be there but belong to the farm or barn or proprietor? they are pets, especially when considered against race horses or show horses, etc, but they do odd jobs on the place and that is why they are kept, every bit as much as for their company...so doesn't that make them Working dogs? i guess i always thought they were...some of them live outside and stay with the herd and whatnot...no?


As I said above, reference first post, I was talking about handler/dog working relationship/bond.

If the dog works alone, without direction from the handler, the bond, subject of this discussion, does not apply.

To answer your question, I would not consider the dog you described pets.

Happy training


----------



## Max Orsi

Matt Vandart said:


> cool.
> Out of interest, what is the answers to your questions?


The answer to my question are for you to give.

To keep the discussion going, I have given you my definition and to some extent, what I look for.

I am not trying to sell you a book or service, so I would like to hear how you bond/establish good working relation with your working dog/s, so maybe I can learn something new or at least exchange Ideas.

Happy training


----------



## Matt Vandart

I doubt it, lol, you seem very much more clued up than I, but I will have a go, need to switch computers first.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Personally I take the view that the best way to bond with a dog is to just hang out with it, it's what other dogs do and their bonds can be uberstrong.

It would be very interesting if some military people chimed in here as surely the bond between them must be very strong yet the handler will go home from active duty and the dog gets a new handler and the bonding process begins again?

I think a pet dog can easily build as strong a bond as a working dog, there are plenty of cases of pet dogs saving kids or attacking assailants even when they have perfectly good means of escape.

Although my original post had nothing to do with these questions:



> is the dog workin for the reward (object) or is it working to play with you?
> 
> are you just an accessory to put the ball in motion or is the dog paying with you?
> 
> does the dog get to keep his reward (object) as part of the reward?
> 
> what happen when you take the reward (object) back?


They are pretty good questions on the subject I would say and would also say that you may be implying the dog with a good 'bond' is gonna be the one that is playing with you etc not the object.
Personally I think, at the risk of yet another thread becoming a battle of semantics, that those questions describe 'engagement' rather than bond.

You can even bring up the old favourite dead horse of 'Drive' here.

For example (not referring to my dogs here):

is the dog working for the reward (object) or is it working to play with you?
_the dog is working for the object, he is 'driving' the handler for it._

are you just an accessory to put the ball in motion or is the dog paying with you?
_the dog is not playing with the handler, he is 'driving' the handler for the reward._

does the dog get to keep his reward (object) as part of the reward?
_the dog is bringing the ball back to the handler because he is 'driving' the handler to animate it again._

what happen when you take the reward (object) back? 
_the dog again begins 'driving' the handler to get his reward again_

Can you train a good working behaviour into a dog with this?

I would say you can and most probably people have gained titles on their dogs this way.
This type of dog/training could produce a dog that can switch handlers very easily.
So how to build the bond?
By feeding your dog, by grooming your dog, by petting, by walking your dog, sharing your food with it (?) taking it everywhere with you (?) Sleeping with your dog in your tent in the middle of some shitehole country you have come to bring democracy too? sitting in a cruiser with it for long periods then entering into high emotion high stimulus events in which you succeed as a team (?)by doing all the everyday things, satisfying the dogs needs basically, socially and practically.

I touched on 'succeeding as a team' above. I think this is very important with the bonding process.
I will talk about one of my dogs of which some are familiar with here, Sali my malinois. Me and her have been having some er 'issues' lol.
Looked for advice and got loads of good stuff, some of it had an effect, some had no effect, and some made it worse.
How have I solved the situation? 
It was clearly a 'bond' or connection situation as pointed out quite correctly by none other than a few people involved in this thread.
She has very pronounced hunting instinct/behaviour whatever you wanna call it maybe to the point of OCD.
This made her difficult to deal with straight out of the box.
Well the answer is I did it by accident.
I found that Sali is a much calmer dog when she is playing the search game. So i did that, loads and loads.
By playing this game, where I told her there was something to find and we succeeded in finding it we built up a strong trust situation. Every time I told her there was something to find in a field she found something and got her game of tug or ball of which I am very much part of the game.
The bond is being built with her through this 'team success'
This could equally apply to working as team to do OB or Protection.

So then I have to ask myself 'why is there a problem with the bond between me and this Mal isn the first place?'
Seeing as I have no problem with my dobermans or any of my previous dogs ref: 'bond issues' what was the inconsistency? 

Part of the answer, I feel lies in that she is a kennel dog and my dobes are house dogs, another part is she is a mal with a completely different character to what I am used to handling.
With my dobes I can bark orders at them (please excuse the pun) I can correct them harshly I can pressure them, whatever I do is fine, no problem, I could probably get them to jump off a cliff. They do as I say 
no questions. 
So why not the Mal?
Because I am used to an experienced with dealing with the doberman character. I know how far I can push them without ****ing up, the trust being damaged, and thus 'the bond' not so with the mal.
Sorry for such an essay, it sorta just came out, lol


----------



## Matt Vandart

Sorry some of that post disappeared.
To continue (groan) as a result of me treating her like a dobe or EBT ( similar characters IMO ) she didn't trust me to make decisions so made them herself, basically she didn't believe in me.
Note: this is a very subjective post but I think 'bonding' is a very subjective subject (lol) I am not saying kennel dogs can't have a good bond with their owners just that in my case with my dog because of my character and hers it was not working out, basically her major drive, to hunt, was just building up and up in the kennel, even though she seemed switched off.
I have also learned to be much more patient with her and calm in my praise something that was exacerbating the problem and totally out of character for me.


----------



## leslie cassian

Working dog, sport dog or pet dog - how is bonding different?

I've had all - pets, a working security PPD, and my current sport dogs (sorta retired) and the foster dog. 

I know that when I worked as a security guard, my dog was special to me and I believed that he had my back as much as I had his. But even with my pet dogs, I'm still looking out for them, and I believe they too are doing their best for me (sometimes, anyway).

I adopted a dog out of barn I boarded my horse at. He belonged to someone, but was mostly just a barn dog, greeting the boarders, hanging out and begging for cookies. When the barn management asked me to take him home while his owner was away, he became my dog the moment I invited him to get in my car and come home with me. I took him because he was a good dog and likeable, and because the dog I had at the time really seemed to like him, too. She was pretty bitchy with most other dogs, but she _played_ with him. It seemed that they had a bond with each other as well. 

I still took him back to the barn and he did what he always did - schmooze for cookies, eat the barn cats' food, hang out, but he was now unquestionably my dog, and I was not ever going to leave without him again. 

So is that bonding, when a dog decides he's your dog?? 

I've heard of it with Dobes back in the 80's when they were they cool dog of the moment. One person in a house would get a puppy, and by the time the dog was an adult, the dog had chosen one of the housemates over the owner. I knew two dogs with the same story back then. Inseparable, intuitive, smart dogs.


----------



## Max Orsi

[FONT=&quot]Very nice post Matt! Now let’s just remember we are diccussing about opinions on bond/relation in a working dog/handler team. There is no right or wrong!!
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“I think a pet dog can easily build as strong a bond as a working dog, there are plenty of cases of pet dogs saving kids or attacking assailants even when they have perfectly good means of escape.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Totally agree with the statement above but not related to the original question[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“They are pretty good questions on the subject I would say and would also say that you may be implying the dog with a good 'bond' is gonna be the one that is playing with you etc not the object.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am not implying, that is what I believe. In order to have a good working relationship the game with the handler should be the reward and not an object or food, to avoid creating conflict over possession or control of the game.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Personally I think, at the risk of yet another thread becoming a battle of semantics, that those questions describe 'engagement' rather than bond.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No battles here, only an interesting exchange of opinions, no need to be defensive about it.

“You can even bring up the old favourite dead horse of 'Drive' here.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would reather keep it only about the “bond/relationship” to stay on point.

“For example (not referring to my dogs here):

is the dog working for the reward (object) or is it working to play with you?
_the dog is working for the object, he is 'driving' the handler for it._

are you just an accessory to put the ball in motion or is the dog paying with you?
_the dog is not playing with the handler, he is 'driving' the handler for the reward._

does the dog get to keep his reward (object) as part of the reward?
_the dog is bringing the ball back to the handler because he is 'driving' the handler to animate it again._

what happen when you take the reward (object) back? 
_the dog again begins 'driving' the handler to get his reward again_

Can you train a good working behaviour into a dog with this?”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Depends on what you believe a good behavior is.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
“I would say you can and most probably people have gained titles on their dogs this way.
This type of dog/training could produce a dog that can switch handlers very easily.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You can obtain precision and compliance strictly with compulsion, the dog performance wont look too happy and your relationship with the dog while working wont be what I would call a “good one”. Your dog will still love you off the ring and when you go for other activities.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“So how to build the bond?
By feeding your dog, by grooming your dog, by petting, by walking your dog, sharing your food with it (?) taking it everywhere with you (?) Sleeping with your dog in your tent in the middle of some shitehole country you have come to bring democracy too? sitting in a cruiser with it for long periods then entering into high emotion high stimulus events in which you succeed as a team (?)by doing all the everyday things, satisfying the dogs needs basically, socially and practically.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]With all of the things you said and a few more. U could tie your dog to a chain and see him/her once a day to feed and your dog will still love you. Would you call that a “bond”, because it is a form of bonding.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It speaks volumes about you as a person all the extra work you have done to find an activity to enjoy with your dog, I really enjoy reading the story.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I had the example of the chained dog above, because I believe bonding is a term used too generally while talking dogs.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]something[/FONT][FONT=&quot] that binds a person or persons to a certain circumstance or line of behavior, is the definition I found on the vocabulary.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That is why I always refer to working dog handler bond relationship and not to bonding in general. The type of bond I require on the field is not the same Irequire in the house, hunting, walking etc.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To answer you specific question, you are not doing anything wrong, some dogs are just hard to live with, just like people, that does not mean they are hard to work with [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Again very enjoyable post. Thanks[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Happy training[/FONT]


----------



## Denise King

For me, it is when I make the commitment to train a dog and the process of the dog being trained. You make the steps toward learning a specific skill together. It seems that as you make progress, feeling proud of yourself for training a skill and proud of the dog for finally understanding the goal. For ME that is the process of bonding! I had a surprisingly difficult time trying to make my ideas understood so hope I succeeded!

Every dog that you train has slightly different way of learning so you have to get into the dogs head and personality to make the training successful!

Denise King


----------



## David Winners

This is an interesting discussion, and one I look forward to participating in when I can. I will address my experience with my first working dog, as we had the least bond to begin with, but the strongest bond in the end.

Fama was 4-1/2 when I got her, and a solid single purpose EDD. She had been on 5 handlers before me, with only one successful certification and a short deployment before she bit a local national in a truck and was sent home. She was pushy, to the point of biting just to punk you out, and very kennel aggressive. The trainers paired us up because of my past experience with dogs, and my assertive personality. She was very good in the work from the start. She just needed someone who could handle her.

I will answer your questions with our first 2 weeks together as a reference:

is the dog workin for the reward (object) or is it working to play with you?

Fama was very much working for the reward. Who was on the other end of the leash was irrelevant to her.

are you just an accessory to put the ball in motion or is the dog paying with you?

I was just a ball dispenser.

does the dog get to keep his reward (object) as part of the reward?

The dog gets a victory lap if it wants one, but is soon recalled to the handler and the ball is taken back. Fama was lifted off the ball as she would not out.

what happen when you take the reward (object) back?

She would push me to start a search again.

To also address Rick:

She would become aggressive to me if I lifted her off the ground. I had to shoulder her in muzzle. She would take jumps as directed, but they were all see through hurdles.

To summarize our relationship: she was a kennel dog who only came out to work or to be groomed. We had a come to Jesus in our first week, which stopped her aggressiveness towards me, but she didn't look to me for anything except her reward. There was very little engagement during OB, though she would comply to commands at about 90%. She was easy to work, but hard to work with. There was a lot of conflict between us, and we really didn't like each other. 

I talked to my trainers and Kenny and requested to start training on my own in obedience, to retrain using positive reinforcement, and to start working on our relationship, as it was more than a bit confrontational.

Every minute I wasn't watching another team train, I spent with my dog. I got my lunch to go and would eat it in the truck with her. I would read books and do my homework in the back of the truck with her. All her food came through marker training. She had to comply with a string of commands before I would even let her out of her crate. NILIF to the max, huge exercise plan, hard and strict boundaries about behavior on and off leash.

At the end of 9 weeks together, we were really clicking as a team. On week 5, she moved into my hotel room and had free reign of the room while I was there. This afforded us the opportunity for impromptu marker training, crate games, NILIF work at doorways and stairways, and quiet time together. She started sleeping on the corner of the bed.

Our bond had grown, and I could see it in the work. She was much easier to control off leash, and would out the ball easier. She trusted me to pick her up and do painful things to her (like shots at the vet). Her engagement was great in OB, and better during search work. She started to check in regularly while off leash. She still thought she had to protect us, and would lunge at people if they came too close.

The biggest change happened after we deployed and started working outside the wire. Fama was attacked off leash by 3 feral dogs. Luckily I was close by and joined the fight pretty quickly. It ended up by me dragging Fama out from underneath an MRAP, putting her behind me, and shooting 2 of the dogs with my pistol. That was a game changer for Fama. She no longer tried to defend us all the time. She really started to relax, especially around her eyes. That was the moment we clicked, and became real partners.

I noticed it in the work right away. I could direct her off leash with just a slight turn of my shoulders. She was incredibly attentive to any direction from me without losing obedience to odor. We went from a 3 to 1 pay schedule to 12 to 1. She was working for me. I still rewarded her with the ball, but it wasn't the goal anymore. I could get her up on roofs by her jumping / me throwing her, and she would search and then return to the edge and jump down into my arms. Everything new in training came very easy. I almost never had a leash on her anymore. We were in it together 100%.

After we got back and she went back to the kennels, I had the opportunity to work her again about 5 months later. We hadn't lost a step.

The trouble is in quantifying this bond. How do you measure how a dog looks to you? How do you measure trust or respect? I can feel it in a dog, but can't really put it into words.


----------



## Bob Scott

David said;
"The trouble is in quantifying this bond. How do you measure how a dog looks to you? How do you measure trust or respect? I can feel it in a dog, but can't really put it into words."

Well spoken! The whole post in general. This comment in particular.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Bob Scott said:


> Although I use the term bonding just as I use terms like Drive, prey, fight, etc in order to communicate with today's dog owners. I never gave any of these terms much though until the became main stream.
> Bottom line is I have fun spend time with my dogs. I expect them to do what I say. My methods have changed simply because I've always been curious about how and why something works. I've adjusted those methods to suit me and whatever dog I may have in the present.
> Just because I've had success with past methods doesn't mean I have to stay with them but it also doesn't mean I wouldn't use previous methods if I thought they were needed.
> *Bonding is nothing more then kicking back and enjoying time with a new pup or dog. Try not to over think it! :wink:*


+1 and then some!


----------



## rick smith

re: "Bonding is nothing more then kicking back and enjoying time with a new pup or dog. Try not to over think it!" 

re : "+1 and then some!"

Bob and Alice ... i consider you both experienced dog people, so PLEASE explain why you feel this way beyond the one liners ...

it almost look like you both feel the concept of bonding with a dog is over rated and a waste of time to discuss


----------



## Matt Vandart

Or it's just simple as that


----------



## Catherine Gervin

to the entireity of David Winners' post, how excellent that was to read! i know it's the purpose of a military K9 to be able to flow from one handler to the next, and i have no idea how you accomplish that, how big a dog's heart must be, because my husband keeps very fond/protective tabs on the guys from his unit with whom he worked closely in Afghanistan and i know he misses them and that having the new guys in his new unit not being the ones he weathered combat with keeps up his distance and standoffishness. i know that it's different for a pack animal to adapt to a new partner/master, but it's still damn impressive. then there is your story, where your dog came to fully trust you and "let you in" and it makes me sad that she'd ever have to work for anybody else, because it feels as though she'd display that same indifference and be the lesser for not having the same relationship she has with you. i know that has nothing to do with anything, especially not when the war is still trudging on and she is a soldier and soldiers don't get to make a whole lot of decisions about things if they want to be good soldiers...i'm just saying, it was a moving thing that you got through her veneer so that she was working for you, not just working.


----------



## Sarah Platts

David Winners said:


> The biggest change happened after we deployed and started working outside the wire. Fama was attacked off leash by 3 feral dogs. Luckily I was close by and joined the fight pretty quickly. It ended up by me dragging Fama out from underneath an MRAP, putting her behind me, and shooting 2 of the dogs with my pistol. That was a game changer for Fama. She no longer tried to defend us all the time. She really started to relax, especially around her eyes. That was the moment we clicked, and became real partners.
> 
> I noticed it in the work right away. I could direct her off leash with just a slight turn of my shoulders. She was incredibly attentive to any direction from me without losing obedience to odor. We went from a 3 to 1 pay schedule to 12 to 1. She was working for me. I still rewarded her with the ball, but it wasn't the goal anymore. I could get her up on roofs by her jumping / me throwing her, and she would search and then return to the edge and jump down into my arms. Everything new in training came very easy. I almost never had a leash on her anymore. We were in it together 100%.
> 
> The trouble is in quantifying this bond. How do you measure how a dog looks to you? How do you measure trust or respect? I can feel it in a dog, but can't really put it into words.


I cut David's post but he really put into words the difference between just a working relationship and what you can achieve if you get a bond with the dog. 

Thanks for posting David and you're right - it's hard to put into words or even describe it but you know it when you get it.


----------



## Sarah Platts

Max Orsi said:


> Define your "sometimes pet dog" that can do the work, please.
> 
> Here is my definition of pet dog:
> 
> A dog who has, like all dogs, even abused ones, a pack bond or loving bond with the owner/family but is not required to perform specific tasks under control and direction of the handler in unfamiliar setting with variable distractions of leash and of EC.


I would not to confuse 'relationship' with 'bond' . The dogs under your description I would describe as having a relationship not a bond. Even pet dogs are required to perform specific tasks under control or direction of their owners. True there are some dogs who are allowed to run amok but that's even those dogs have relationships and may even have a bond. There are many people who travel with their pet dogs so I would think this falls under the unfamiliar setting with variable distractions of your definition but are still required to behave in a certain manner or carry out directed tasks. What you need to do is stop thinking of things on your terms and look at it from the other perspective. 



Max Orsi said:


> By definition if as you said a pet is trained to work in the arena you choose, is no longer a pet.


And if I said their arena was the home? Would you still classify them as pet dogs?

C


Max Orsi said:


> can you have your friends/clients pets go to work in the arena you choose without changing the type of relationship they have?


This is I think is your problem. I don't get to chose their arena. Or even the relationship they have. However I do think that if you have a bond - as opposed to just a relationship - then you can switch arenas and not change the relationship.


----------



## Max Orsi

Very nice discussion!

David asked how do you mesure the bond.

Again I believe people use the term too generally. if we use the vocabulary definition "something that binds a person or persons to a certain circumstance or line of behavior" we notice that it speaks of a certain circumstance, not all circumstance.

Also there seem to be some confusion with bond and temperament of the dog. Not all dogs needs to be close to the handler all the time, some enjoy smooching some are more independent, some are possessive some are not etc. 

In my experience breaking down type of relationship like particular exercises in its simplest pure form, yields the best (performance) results.

Trust is not measured, the dog either trusts you or he doesnt.

When you place your dog in non ordinary situations (uncomfortable) and the dog repeatedly can deal with it successfully, will gain confidence in the handler.

All successful trainers in the world uses the same principles, is not something I just came up with.

For the sake of this very interesting discussion maybe we should start posting some video references, as to better explain/understand our theories and its results

Happy training


----------



## Max Orsi

Sarah, here is were the communication problem lies.

you say 'I would not to confuse 'relationship' with 'bond'"

the vocabulary says "something that binds a person or persons to a certain circumstance or line of behavior"
I go with the vocabulary definition.

Now that we have explained the terms could we just discuss on how you build your working relation?

I am not interested in a battle over the definition of a "word" I am interested in how you build the working bond/relationship.

you said "I don't get to chose their arena. Or even the relationship they have. However I do think that if you have a bond - as opposed to just a relationship - then you can switch arenas and not change the relationship.

I would like you to show me some videos of that 

David thanks for your description and very nice indeed
Thanks

Happy training


----------



## Max Orsi

Sarah

could you explain to me why I constantly have better and faster result and working relationship with people pets than the owners themselves?

why do you think those dogs, as soon as they get to the field, run up to me and ask to work? why not with the owner?

ever heard someone tell you "my dogs likes you better than me"?

Just curious

Happy training


----------



## Alice Bezemer

rick smith said:


> re: "Bonding is nothing more then kicking back and enjoying time with a new pup or dog. Try not to over think it!"
> 
> re : "+1 and then some!"
> 
> Bob and Alice ... i consider you both experienced dog people, so PLEASE explain why you feel this way beyond the one liners ...
> 
> it almost look like you both feel the concept of bonding with a dog is over rated and a waste of time to discuss


Don't make me shake my head at you, Rick. Bonding with a dog is nothing more or less then spending time with your dog, in whatever capacity, and enjoying that time. The bond between owner and dog grows naturally as time evolves. There Is no huge secret way to it or some special route to achieve that bond.... it just grows and gets stronger. All this searching for hidden meaningd or preffered ways to strengthen a bond is again a human sentiment...... people are so determined to disect each and every aspect of what a dog is that I sometime wonder where it ends. Why make things so hard when they can be so very simple?


----------



## Max Orsi

Alice Bezemer said:


> Don't make me shake my head at you, Rick. Bonding with a dog is nothing more or less then spending time with your dog, in whatever capacity, and enjoying that time. The bond between owner and dog grows naturally as time evolves. There Is no huge secret way to it or some special route to achieve that bond.... it just grows and gets stronger. All this searching for hidden meaningd or preffered ways to strengthen a bond is again a human sentiment...... people are so determined to disect each and every aspect of what a dog is that I sometime wonder where it ends. Why make things so hard when they can be so very simple?


Because people have been dissecting every aspect of what a dog is and why it does it, we can now get better relationship and much higher performances that years past.

Would you agree with the above?

we can still train dogs the way it was done 20/30/60 years ago to achieve control, but I doubt we can achieve the "picture" and the performance we can with modern dogtraining.

I see you are from the Netherlands, I just spent 8 months in europe, mostly belgium, france and italy, I have seen that most of the successful trainer there keeps the dog in kennel most of the time, some in areas separated (far) from the house.

If spending time and living with a dog is enough to create a working relationship, how do this people do it?

some, not all, have excellent relationship with their dogs, all have excellent performances

Happy training


----------



## Jennifer Andress

Max Orsi said:


> could you explain to me why I constantly have better and faster result and working relationship with people pets than the owners themselves?
> 
> why do you think those dogs, as soon as they get to the field, run up to me and ask to work? why not with the owner?


I would guess (based on my own experience in similar situations) that you're clearer in your communications and better able to understand (and probably respect) what the dog is trying to tell you. A _lot_ gets lost in translation, especially with pet people, and IME dogs are very quick to latch onto someone who reads them better.

Personally I tend to reward with a much higher rate of reinforcement than most of my pet clients did, too, especially when first establishing a working relationship with a new dog. I think that helped their dogs latch onto me faster. Also I was generally faster to switch reinforcement types based on the feedback the dog was giving me, whereas sometimes the owner would be there on the field with a handful of regular kibble or dry biscuits and wondering why the dog wasn't responding.

I don't think that's the same thing as building a bond, though, even if it can become that over time. I think that's just being a better slot machine and more fun for the dogs to play.


----------



## Max Orsi

Jennifer Andress said:


> I would guess (based on my own experience in similar situations) that you're clearer in your communications and better able to understand (and probably respect) what the dog is trying to tell you. A _lot_ gets lost in translation, especially with pet people, and IME dogs are very quick to latch onto someone who reads them better.
> 
> Personally I tend to reward with a much higher rate of reinforcement than most of my pet clients did, too, especially when first establishing a working relationship with a new dog. I think that helped their dogs latch onto me faster. Also I was generally faster to switch reinforcement types based on the feedback the dog was giving me, whereas sometimes the owner would be there on the field with a handful of regular kibble or dry biscuits and wondering why the dog wasn't responding.
> 
> I don't think that's the same thing as building a bond, though, even if it can become that over time. I think that's just being a better slot machine and more fun for the dogs to play.


I agree Jennifer, that is exactly what I have been saying, you are better at establishing a working bond/relationship, that is different than a living, spending time together bond/relationship.

Now, cold you answer this question " I see you are from the Netherlands, I just spent 8 months in europe, mostly belgium, france and italy, I have seen that most of the successful trainer there keeps the dog in kennel most of the time, some in areas separated (far) from the house.

If spending time and living with a dog is enough to create a working relationship, how do this people do it?

some, not all, have excellent relationship with their dogs, all have excellent performances"

We don't agree on the definition of bonding, we are clear on that, so for once could we agree to give it the definition of the vocabulary, so we can keep this very interesting conversation going?

you said "I don't think that's the same thing as building a bond, though, even if it can become that over time."

If over time it can became "bonding" you are bonding, then the next question should be "how long doe it takes to bond?"
'
Thanks for discussing

Happy training


----------



## Matt Vandart

In the words of Edwin Howard Armstrong:


> They substitute words for reality, then talk about the words....


lol


----------



## Max Orsi

Matt Vandart said:


> In the words of Edwin Howard Armstrong:
> 
> 
> lol


You are so right Matt!! Nowhere more than in the dog world.

Luckily we did not mention "drive" 

Happy training


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Max Orsi said:


> You are so right Matt!! Nowhere more than in the dog world.
> 
> Luckily we did not mention "drive"
> 
> Happy training




Did someone mention the word "drive" :-o :-s :-$ =; ;-)


----------



## rick smith

i hope "I" didn't mention that word.......

for now, i'm sticking to overthinking "bond"
...here's my summary to date :
Part 1 
three types :
good 
bad
so-so

Part 2
the definition : (using two words) mutual trust and respect (ok, i just overthunk it some more and made it three words)
...which Alice and others consider Anthro and humanizing so it's not applicable in dog talk, and this thread should be PTS //lol//

THEN we can start talking about drives again //rotflmao//


----------



## Sarah Platts

Max Orsi said:


> Sarah
> 
> could you explain to me why I constantly have better and faster result and working relationship with people pets than the owners themselves?
> 
> why do you think those dogs, as soon as they get to the field, run up to me and ask to work? why not with the owner?
> 
> ever heard someone tell you "my dogs likes you better than me"?
> 
> Just curious


I can't explain that to you because I have no basis on which to form an answer. Your response is purely subjective. Unless you have the statistical data to back it up, others will probably have a different opinion. Perhaps, you have the ability to form a good working relationships with dogs? Some people get along better with animals then they do their own kind. You seem to use bond and relationship interchangable or if you have one then you will get the other but for me I don't see that as a given. As far as finding videos of this, how about you find some that reflect a 'working relationship' and others that reflect those with a bond. That way I can see what you think it looks like.


----------



## Max Orsi

Sarah Platts said:


> I can't explain that to you because I have no basis on which to form an answer. Your response is purely subjective. Unless you have the statistical data to back it up, others will probably have a different opinion. Perhaps, you have the ability to form a good working relationships with dogs? Some people get along better with animals then they do their own kind. You seem to use bond and relationship interchangable or if you have one then you will get the other but for me I don't see that as a given. As far as finding videos of this, how about you find some that reflect a 'working relationship' and others that reflect those with a bond. That way I can see what you think it looks like.


Even if I used the subject "I" in the above post, the results are not subjective,

Any dog trainer worth of being called that, has had similar result working pet dogs.

I have several videos posted on this forum, just do a search if that is what you want to see, I just asked you a video to back a statement you made that I find unbelievable.

To me the results of methods are tested on the competition trials, the people I have learned from and I have had success there to prove it isn't too bad .

Like I said above I am not looking at a war over definitions of a term, I posted a vocabulary definition of the term bond and asked, for the sake of the discussion to agree to that definition.

I am looking for an exchange of ideas, and to have a discussion of the different methods people uses to establish a working bond/relationship with their dog.

I did not need you to try analyze my results, especially when you have not experienced it yourself.

Happy training


----------



## Sarah Platts

Max, not trying to start a fight but your statements are clearly in the first person, and subjectively based..

_could you explain to me why I constantly have better and faster result and working relationship with people pets than the owners themselves?

why do you think those dogs, as soon as they get to the field, run up to me and ask to work? why not with the owner?_

But moving on......

I can find videos of what I feel are a good, bonded, working pair but I'm interested in what _you_ consider to be a bonded pair.


----------



## Max Orsi

Sarah Platts said:


> Max, not trying to start a fight but your statements are clearly in the first person, and subjectively based..
> 
> _could you explain to me why I constantly have better and faster result and working relationship with people pets than the owners themselves?
> 
> why do you think those dogs, as soon as they get to the field, run up to me and ask to work? why not with the owner?_
> 
> But moving on......
> 
> I can find videos of what I feel are a good, bonded, working pair but I'm interested in what _you_ consider to be a bonded pair.


Sarah, the dog!

If what you say is true, pet bond is sufficient for a working dog bond/relationship, why someone else dog would prefer to work with me than the owner?

When you imply that I have some mystical attraction to dogs, you are avoiding the discussion topic, which is not what does a dog needs to do to establish a working bond/relationship with max?

"When you state other probably have different opinions" again you avoid the topic of discussion. I want to know how you bond, If all you do to bond is let the dog sleep on the couch next to you, I am ok with it.

Happy training


----------



## Joby Becker

as in any relationship, communication can be the key.

some people communicate with their dogs well, others dont. I have also like Max worked with many many dogs that I had zero problems easily having the dogs do much more for me, than they would for their owners, minus an actual "bond". But more of a clear communication with the dog, on his level, as a dog...instead of like a child 

I have had lots of dogs move in and out of my life. Some I feel were more bonded to me than others. some to the point of being neurotic about it LOL.

I think it can be compared to siblings in families..all have relationships, some have much stronger bonds than others...


----------



## Sarah Platts

Max Orsi said:


> Sarah, the dog!
> 
> If what you say is true, pet bond is sufficient for a working dog bond/relationship, why someone else dog would prefer to work with me than the owner?
> 
> When you imply that I have some mystical attraction to dogs, you are avoiding the discussion topic, which is not what does a dog needs to do to establish a working bond/relationship with max?


No, I never said that nor am I avoiding the discussion. One of your posts indicated that only 'working' dogs form a bond with their handler. What I said was that you should not discount pet dogs because they can form the same bond with their owner as a working dog. Then it got sidetracked to a discussion on word definitions and what you felt the dictionary definition of bond was. I agree to the dictionary definiton but disagree to the setting in which you are applying it to. If I subscribed to your definition then just the act of putting a leash on the dog would create a bond. I think that there is no easy, black & white answer that will suffice here. I think David did a great job of showing this with his post and what he had to do to move beyond a working relationship to one that included a bond. But even then he had trouble quantifying it into words. Perhaps there is no right or wrong answer but must be left up to individual interpretation.

While not dogs, you asked for some videos so heres two. One in my opinion shows a great working relationship. The other shows a great working relationship that includes a bond. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKQgTiqhPbw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsUIodoG044


----------



## Max Orsi

So Joby, do you think spending time with a dog in the house. walking, petting him, feed him etc is enough to establish a working bond/relationship?

Happy training


----------



## Max Orsi

Sarah Platts said:


> No, I never said that nor am I avoiding the discussion. One of your posts indicated that only 'working' dogs form a bond with their handler"
> 
> *Please, do show me where I typed that.*
> 
> . What I said was that you should not discount pet dogs because they can form the same bond with their owner as a working dog
> 
> *I never typed you have to discount (?)* *pets, please prove me wrong again.
> I just disagree the bond/relationship established with a pet is enough for a working dog*
> 
> . Then it got sidetracked to a discussion on word definitions and what you felt the dictionary definition of bond was. I agree to the dictionary definiton but disagree to the setting in which you are applying it to
> 
> *As I said, dont want to argue about your definition of a word or mine, that's why I took the vocabulary definition*
> . If I subscribed to your definition then just the act of putting a leash on the dog would create a bond
> 
> *Again you are assuming, analyzing what you know nothing about
> 
> *. I think that there is no easy, black & white answer that will suffice here. I think David did a great job of showing this with his post and what he had to do to move beyond a working relationship to one that included a bond. But even then he had trouble quantifying it into words. Perhaps there is no right or wrong answer but must be left up to individual interpretation.
> 
> *What has david post to do in "our" conversation? I already reply and thanked David for the nice post
> *
> While not dogs, you asked for some videos so heres two. One in my opinion shows a great working relationship. The other shows a great working relationship that includes a bond.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKQgTiqhPbw
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsUIodoG044


*The video show nothing of the building of a working bond/relationship with a dog, further I immagine is not you in them, so again you speculate analyzing something you know nothing about.

Could we get back on the subject now?

I am still waiting for the answer you did not reply/

Thanks
*


----------



## Jennifer Andress

Joby Becker said:


> as in any relationship, communication can be the key.


Yes, the more I think about it, the more I come back to thinking that the answer is ultimately "communication." Not just being able to understand (although of course that is huge), but responding appropriately and respecting what the dog tells you.

And I think that the reason the bond is stronger in working and sport partnerships is because the dogs are being asked to do more, so the communication is more refined and you get the boost of cooperating to achieve a common goal.

That's why the bond is so strong no matter what the sport or working endeavor is, as long as it's cooperative and, at some level, mutually enjoyable. Hunting retrievers, agility dogs, IPO dogs, trick dogs, police dogs, herders -- doesn't matter what the goal is, necessarily, only that it's something that people and dogs do together.

I also think that's why you only see it sometimes in pet dogs, and usually in pet homes where the people do something actively with their dogs. It might just be hiking off-leash together or teaching a bunch of tricks, or the dog providing an unusual degree of emotional support to a vulnerable owner, but the common thread I find in the clients I remember is that the dog was always being asked to do _something_ beyond being furry furniture. And as a result the person became uncommonly attuned to the dog, and vice versa.


----------



## Joby Becker

Max Orsi said:


> So Joby, do you think spending time with a dog in the house. walking, petting him, feed him etc is enough to establish a working bond/relationship?
> 
> Happy training


no I dont.

I think in some cases it can hurt the working relationship, depending on the individual dogs and your lifestyle/ home situation.

I suppose it could be looked at in some cases as similar to being super close friends with or living with a co-worker, or subordinate employee. Sometimes it makes the working relationship better, sometimes it doesnt.


----------



## David Winners

Joby Becker said:


> no I dont.
> 
> I think in some cases it can hurt the working relationship, depending on the individual dogs and your lifestyle/ home situation.
> 
> I suppose it could be looked at in some cases as similar to being super close friends with or living with a co-worker, or subordinate employee. Sometimes it makes the working relationship better, sometimes it doesnt.


I agree and have seen negative effects on the work due to lack of leadership / boundaries / etc... when a working dog is allowed in the home. IMHO, it's the fault of the handler, in their inability to maintain a professional relationship when not working. There is always the fear that a working dog will become a "pet" especially with new handlers.

ETA: my dogs, particularly my working dogs, get nothing for free, including attention. I believe this has a tendency to keep our relationship black and white to the dog, to the betterment of our bond and the work.

David Winners


----------



## David Winners

Sorry to double post. It won't let me edit...


My dogs, particularly my working dogs, get nothing for free, including attention. I believe this has a tendency to keep our relationship black and white to the dog, to the betterment of our bond and the work. 

David Winners


----------



## Haz Othman

Hey David, nice job with Fama. Its too bad she ended up back in the kennels after all the work you put in. I know thats how it goes but it makes you feel for the dog.


----------



## David Winners

Haz Othman said:


> Hey David, nice job with Fama. Its too bad she ended up back in the kennels after all the work you put in. I know thats how it goes but it makes you feel for the dog.


Thanks. She's doing what she should be doing, finding bombs. It would be terribly selfish of me to think she should stay with me. I'm glad we accomplished what we did together, and I'm glad she can still do what she loves. She's on a new handler and doing very well.

She's coming to my house when she retires, unless the Army screws up lol.

David Winners


----------



## Bob Scott

rick smith said:


> re: "Bonding is nothing more then kicking back and enjoying time with a new pup or dog. Try not to over think it!"
> 
> re : "+1 and then some!"
> 
> Bob and Alice ... i consider you both experienced dog people, so PLEASE explain why you feel this way beyond the one liners ...
> 
> it almost look like you both feel the concept of bonding with a dog is over rated and a waste of time to discuss



Probably because I've been involved with dogs since I was a kid I simply never gave any thought to actually doing anything specific to "bond" with any dog I've owned. 
I think it puts to much stress on a newby to think they have to actually work at it. Just have fun.
As to working dogs I think David W's thoughts are pretty much on target. NILF! I will add to that. Consistency with any dog, pet or partner. !
NILF and consistency are things most of us old farts did out of simple experience over the years and maybe a bit of natural instinct with reading dogs. That goes back to something I've always said. Some people are naturals at training and "pack" leadership. Some have the ability to learn to do that. Some can learn to mimic that and never know why. Some will never get it.
Nothing wrong with discussing it but as said before it's easy to see but hard to explain. 
Just kick back and enjoy the time with the dog. Play with it. 
One thing a really believ in is that starting with a puppy makes training a no brainer. Breaking established bad habits is where the though process starts. Relaxing and enjoying ("bonding" with) the dog is the first part of training OR breaking bad habits.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

David Winners said:


> This is an interesting discussion, and one I look forward to participating in when I can. I will address my experience with my first working dog, as we had the least bond to begin with, but the strongest bond in the end.
> 
> Fama was 4-1/2 when I got her, and a solid single purpose EDD. She had been on 5 handlers before me, with only one successful certification and a short deployment before she bit a local national in a truck and was sent home. She was pushy, to the point of biting just to punk you out, and very kennel aggressive. The trainers paired us up because of my past experience with dogs, and my assertive personality. She was very good in the work from the start. She just needed someone who could handle her.
> 
> I will answer your questions with our first 2 weeks together as a reference:
> 
> is the dog workin for the reward (object) or is it working to play with you?
> 
> Fama was very much working for the reward. Who was on the other end of the leash was irrelevant to her.
> 
> are you just an accessory to put the ball in motion or is the dog paying with you?
> 
> I was just a ball dispenser.
> 
> does the dog get to keep his reward (object) as part of the reward?
> 
> The dog gets a victory lap if it wants one, but is soon recalled to the handler and the ball is taken back. Fama was lifted off the ball as she would not out.
> 
> what happen when you take the reward (object) back?
> 
> She would push me to start a search again.
> 
> To also address Rick:
> 
> She would become aggressive to me if I lifted her off the ground. I had to shoulder her in muzzle. She would take jumps as directed, but they were all see through hurdles.
> 
> To summarize our relationship: she was a kennel dog who only came out to work or to be groomed. We had a come to Jesus in our first week, which stopped her aggressiveness towards me, but she didn't look to me for anything except her reward. There was very little engagement during OB, though she would comply to commands at about 90%. She was easy to work, but hard to work with. There was a lot of conflict between us, and we really didn't like each other.
> 
> I talked to my trainers and Kenny and requested to start training on my own in obedience, to retrain using positive reinforcement, and to start working on our relationship, as it was more than a bit confrontational.
> 
> Every minute I wasn't watching another team train, I spent with my dog. I got my lunch to go and would eat it in the truck with her. I would read books and do my homework in the back of the truck with her. All her food came through marker training. She had to comply with a string of commands before I would even let her out of her crate. NILIF to the max, huge exercise plan, hard and strict boundaries about behavior on and off leash.
> 
> At the end of 9 weeks together, we were really clicking as a team. On week 5, she moved into my hotel room and had free reign of the room while I was there. This afforded us the opportunity for impromptu marker training, crate games, NILIF work at doorways and stairways, and quiet time together. She started sleeping on the corner of the bed.
> 
> Our bond had grown, and I could see it in the work. She was much easier to control off leash, and would out the ball easier. She trusted me to pick her up and do painful things to her (like shots at the vet). Her engagement was great in OB, and better during search work. She started to check in regularly while off leash. She still thought she had to protect us, and would lunge at people if they came too close.
> 
> The biggest change happened after we deployed and started working outside the wire. Fama was attacked off leash by 3 feral dogs. Luckily I was close by and joined the fight pretty quickly. It ended up by me dragging Fama out from underneath an MRAP, putting her behind me, and shooting 2 of the dogs with my pistol. That was a game changer for Fama. She no longer tried to defend us all the time. She really started to relax, especially around her eyes. That was the moment we clicked, and became real partners.
> 
> I noticed it in the work right away. I could direct her off leash with just a slight turn of my shoulders. She was incredibly attentive to any direction from me without losing obedience to odor. We went from a 3 to 1 pay schedule to 12 to 1. She was working for me. I still rewarded her with the ball, but it wasn't the goal anymore. I could get her up on roofs by her jumping / me throwing her, and she would search and then return to the edge and jump down into my arms. Everything new in training came very easy. I almost never had a leash on her anymore. We were in it together 100%.
> 
> After we got back and she went back to the kennels, I had the opportunity to work her again about 5 months later. We hadn't lost a step.
> 
> The trouble is in quantifying this bond. How do you measure how a dog looks to you? How do you measure trust or respect? I can feel it in a dog, but can't really put it into words.


Survival through team work is powerful. I see this in stock dogs. Each time you conquer something together that threatened one or both of you, the connection deepens. The day the dog thinks you are there to help him win the confrontation instead of impede or worse, put him in harms way, is always a giant step forward. Like David, I can't measure it or prove it and its a matter of feel. I know it when I have it. The jumping into his arms makes me think of Rhemy. He does this from high up places and I can't help but think of the trust that goes with that. Makes me also think of Gary Garner's Xena. There are 2 or 3 threads currently going that are sort of related for me. The working relationship for me is minimally dog performing trained responses. That relationship can be successful even while the dog is just in it for himself; i.e. reward. But as David has described, it is at an altogether different level when the dog is in it for the handler. Thinking back on some of the "pet" dogs that I've had vs. the dogs I've worked and I would say that the pet dog can be just as bonded and even more so depending upon his character. I train other dogs and handlers and yes, their dogs work better for me. #1, they are not by nature one person dogs. #2, I'm clear in the communication which includes the marker/reward system. I don't think I'm that bonded to these dogs [with the exception of one of them] but for sure if I work with them enough, there is a strong connection. Some may work for me better but they prefer their owners. My dogs live as pets when they are not working. If it is the type of dog that is independent, then in pet life I have to employ NILIF to a certain degree to keep them at a level of command compliance that I need on the trial field. If its the type of dog that is already in it for me, I don't do anything different in pet life. Pet life can entail leadership, boundaries, etc.

T


----------



## David Winners

Bob Scott said:


> Probably because I've been involved with dogs since I was a kid I simply never gave any thought to actually doing anything specific to "bond" with any dog I've owned.
> I think it puts to much stress on a newby to think they have to actually work at it. Just have fun.


This was actually a thought I had after both you and Alice posted. It's such an ingrained thing with you because you have been doing it a long... long time  

I struggled explaining it to new handlers at first because I grew up with a pack of dogs too, so it was something I never concentrated on until I got into working and more so training working teams.

The fundamentals of bonding with a dog are akin to feeding it, just something you do.


David Winners


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Max Orsi said:


> Because people have been dissecting every aspect of what a dog is and why it does it, we can now get better relationship and much higher performances that years past.
> 
> Would you agree with the above?
> 
> we can still train dogs the way it was done 20/30/60 years ago to achieve control, but I doubt we can achieve the "picture" and the performance we can with modern dogtraining.
> 
> I see you are from the Netherlands, I just spent 8 months in europe, mostly belgium, france and italy, I have seen that most of the successful trainer there keeps the dog in kennel most of the time, some in areas separated (far) from the house.
> 
> If spending time and living with a dog is enough to create a working relationship, how do this people do it?
> 
> some, not all, have excellent relationship with their dogs, all have excellent performances
> 
> Happy training


Here's the thing... My dogs are kenneled. Does not mean they are sitting in that kennel 24/7/365 and only come out to eat and train. 

My kennel sits about 6 yards from the house. It all depends on the amount of space you have in your yard for a kennel. You assume that all kenneldogs live in their kennels and never see anything else apart from walkies, feeding and training when in fact most people give their dog quite a lot of freedom from its kennel. 

Here is what my day looks like with a kennel dog, be it adult or pup.

6 AM wakeup call, walk the dog for about 20 minutes. Come home and feed it in the kitchen. Dog gets to walk around the yard and kitchen for about an hour until hubby goes of to work and I need to start my day. Dog goes into kennel. I clean house, do shopping, hang washing...bla bla bla. I start to prepare things for evening dinner. (Always put everything ready in the morning so its a quick job to cook at night) Dog is allowed out of his kennel until I am done setting up everything and then I grab a coffee while the dog does his thing in the yard like playing or running or just sleeping in the corner of the kitchen. Could be hes out 30 minutes, could be hes out an hour. Back in kennel he goes until noon. Walkies again and he gets to roam the yard or we play fetch or I do some small training sessions. This takes up to an hour. Back in kennel. 5 PM, hubby comes home, dog is allowed out of kennel again, hubby walks dog now. Feed the dog, sit in kitchen drinking coffee, discus his day, dog is once again roaming around the yard or in kitchen chewing his toy or bone or just hanging with us. Back in kennel until 10 PM, last walkies and into kennel for the night. 

Most people I know have some sort of patern like this. The only reason I kennel the dogs is so he has time to himself, he doesn't become a nuisance, I don't have to tell him to go away or leave it constantly. Its a place of rest for him without people constantly getting on his ass for whatever behaviour he might show. Add to that the fact that I will sell the dog in LE or MIL as soon as it is certified. When he is sold to another owner he will not get the luxury of a sofa or bed to lay on, he will be kenneled, so why give him something that might be taken away in the future? He will not miss what he does not know.  

Having a kennel dog does not mean you do not have moments to bond with your dog or that there is no bonding. I think the bond is even greater due to the fact that we train with out dogs intensively. A bond grows regardless of where it is located or sleeps. it has nothing to do with amount of time spent with your dog, its what you do with the time that you do spend with your dog and what the quality of that time is.

Quality over Quantity my friend.


----------



## rick smith

re: NILF
i definitely agree with this in principle

with that said, i do give freebies to my dog now, and it doesn't seem to have had any effect on our relationship in any way
- i will sometimes walk up and give it a lot of attention (like a belly rub) without calling it to me
- or sometimes i will toss it a piece of meat without calling it or making it do anything....total freebie 

examples :
- my dog will always "recall" and hang around my wife when she brings her food to the sofa. it won't mug her but it will def be waiting for an eventual scrap to come its way and give her a lot of EC. it will still do what she asks it to do
- otoh, my dog will not budge from wherever it might be when i bring food. won't even look at me. if both me and my wife bring food, and if i call it up to the sofa it will fly up, but it will be facing her, not me 

i started this, "a few things in life ARE free", a couple years ago just to see what might change
- so far, nothing has, in terms of our relationship compared to how it acts around other close friends it has, so my conclusion is if you start it out right and get it solid, it doesn't have to stay as strict

and i also was wondering if i let other people give it commands if that would have an affect on our "bond" ... lots of people never want their dog responding to commands from others.
- so i tested this too
- my dog will do stuff for other people
- so every now and then i would have another person start giving it Ob commands, but sometimes i would give a counter command just to see who it would pay attention to me when faced with a choice :
1. the other person who has goodies to offer and has been handing them out to the dog
2. or me, with no treats, and farther away than the teat giver (sp intended)
....the dog would still respond quickly to what i asked, even if that meant refusing the command. and the dog didn't seem to be bothered or conflicted. at first i just looked at this as a kind of proofing even tho others would think i was being mean to the dog 

not sure if this has anything to do with the bond discussion, but it just came to mind when the NILF was brought up, and i still do this kind of stuff with my dog
- and i would add, this dog is not a professional working dog or competition dog; just a dog i decided to keep after doing some rehab work when it had aggression (live bites) problems with other owners

but i still measure our bond by judging how much mutual respect and trust we have.
...so maybe this is stupid, or maybe it helps keep the relationship strong, or maybe it's a way to measure the bond; i don't know either way, but still think about it sometimes because it violates a basic rule i've always believed in and teach to others


----------



## rick smith

if you learn how to handle dogs properly, it's easy, no matter what you are doing with the dog, and you end up not thinking about it.
- you are doing it right

many many many people don't, even if they've "been around dogs all their life"
many people have problem dogs they created without knowing it, and many of these people think they have a great bond with their "protective" dog they can't handle or control

THAT is why i think it is important to understand and discuss what a good bond really means and how it can be developed and how to recognize when it's bad ... or needs to be repaired
- that's also why i don't think it's an automatic thing that always happens over time. because i see so so many bad bonds, not just "training problems" 

that's just how i see it, because that's my experience


----------



## James Downey

leslie cassian said:


> A couple of posts have mentioned bonding with a dog. I remember asking someone once why he didn’t have his dog with him and his answer was that he was still bonding with her. I thought that was odd, as I’ve never really thought that I have done anything special to bond with a dog, or gone about it in any systematic way. It just seems to happen through spending time with them. There’s been a couple of fosters through my house this year and they all seem to be ‘my’ dog within a short period of time, (though I live alone, so they have no choice in that). Am I missing something?
> 
> Do you do anything special to create a bond with a dog? How do you know when that has been achieved?



I wanna address the second question. How do I know when a bond has been achieved?

With my first dog, in the first months of her life. I was just doing what I was told to do with my dog in terms of building bond. Not that I did not have affection for the dog. But I did not know what I was doing in terms of a working dog. So, I just imitated, and followed directions. At first, the dog had no feelings for me. The puppy just seemed to be more independent of me in the first weeks. As time went on, I could tell the dog started to get excited by my voice and presence. but it was not affection yet, it was just that I provided the things she liked. a few months later, the dog started to show that she favored me over other human beings, and any other dogs. Some affection began. At about 6-7 months. I was sitting on the couch, and she between my legs looked at me. Almost star gazed. I knew at that moment she was mine forever. And till this day she looks at me with the most adoring gaze. if someone holds her leash and I walk away, this is the only time I ever saw her try to bite someone who was not directly threatening her. 

My second dog, same thing. It seemed in the beginning he could take or leave me. Then he started to favor me, not out of love but for his resources. He was more independent. So things took longer. And maybe it's because he's a male...I don't know. But it took longer. It took almost a 15 months for me to get that devotion my female gave me at 6-7 months. I was watching for it this time. But. I don't know how to explain it. I guess it's the same thing when you realize your friend is now more than a friend he or she is homeboy. It's not anything you can really tangibly see. You just can feel it from the dog, when the bond to you. 

I also think the crate plays a huge role in building bond believe it or not. I think that keeping the dog crated and having all these intense emotional experiences with the dog, then putting them up to marinate on it time after time does something. I notice the rescue dogs we get, that we do not manage their freedom as close seem to not really not bond to one person so much. They have love for the whole family, but no one person gets the undying devotion our working dogs give the handler. 

I also notice that dogs we get that are older, seem to not give their whole to heart to anyone. And since relationship plays such a huge role in my training. It's one reason I am very hesitant to ever buy an older dog. I just worry that I would I miss that puppy to adult experience where something very important happens between me and a dog. And beyond training a dog. It's something I want from my dog. I want the relationship to be deep and emotionally charged. I am not saying that would be impossible with an older dog. I just don't know how I would go about building the relationship. All the things I think are important for a dog to learn in terms of relationship are only possible for me while they are coming of age and to some extent I utilize the puppies inability to out manuever me. And also their vulnerability, I defintely use their insecurity to my advantage.


----------



## rick smith

dogs read people better than people read dogs. i think most would agree with that.

re: trust and respect
i had a similar incident to one David wrote about
in both cases i think the dog had a chance to observe what the handler did and that made the dog trust and/or respect their handler more and had a positive effect on the bond

we often have our dogs out in front expecting them to do things and take charge.
- if we also keep the dog behind us and take charge, that they can observe, i also think this can also be a good method to use

simple example ... the timid dog who doesn't want to clear an obstacle because it doesn't know what is on the other side 
- handler goes over first ... dog follows ... dog gains more trust
- i know,,,stupid example, and i'm not saying you should run the obstacle course in front of your dog 
.....just used it to illustrate my point of building trust

maybe you can't fix all but you can help all
or, if you follow the pack leader theory, sometimes your actions speak louder to the dog than your (command) words


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

James Downey said:


> I wanna address the second question. How do I know when a bond has been achieved?
> 
> With my first dog, in the first months of her life. I was just doing what I was told to do with my dog in terms of building bond. Not that I did not have affection for the dog. But I did not know what I was doing in terms of a working dog. So, I just imitated, and followed directions. At first, the dog had no feelings for me. The puppy just seemed to be more independent of me in the first weeks. As time went on, I could tell the dog started to get excited by my voice and presence. but it was not affection yet, it was just that I provided the things she liked. a few months later, the dog started to show that she favored me over other human beings, and any other dogs. Some affection began. At about 6-7 months. I was sitting on the couch, and she between my legs looked at me. Almost star gazed. I knew at that moment she was mine forever. And till this day she looks at me with the most adoring gaze. if someone holds her leash and I walk away, this is the only time I ever saw her try to bite someone who was not directly threatening her.
> 
> My second dog, same thing. It seemed in the beginning he could take or leave me. Then he started to favor me, not out of love but for his resources. He was more independent. So things took longer. And maybe it's because he's a male...I don't know. But it took longer. It took almost a 15 months for me to get that devotion my female gave me at 6-7 months. I was watching for it this time. But. I don't know how to explain it. I guess it's the same thing when you realize your friend is now more than a friend he or she is homeboy. It's not anything you can really tangibly see. You just can feel it from the dog, when the bond to you.
> 
> I also think the crate plays a huge role in building bond believe it or not. I think that keeping the dog crated and having all these intense emotional experiences with the dog, then putting them up to marinate on it time after time does something. I notice the rescue dogs we get, that we do not manage their freedom as close seem to not really not bond to one person so much. They have love for the whole family, but no one person gets the undying devotion our working dogs give the handler.
> 
> I also notice that dogs we get that are older, seem to not give their whole to heart to anyone. And since relationship plays such a huge role in my training. It's one reason I am very hesitant to ever buy an older dog. I just worry that I would I miss that puppy to adult experience where something very important happens between me and a dog. And beyond training a dog. It's something I want from my dog. I want the relationship to be deep and emotionally charged. I am not saying that would be impossible with an older dog. I just don't know how I would go about building the relationship. All the things I think are important for a dog to learn in terms of relationship are only possible for me while they are coming of age and to some extent I utilize the puppies inability to out manuever me. And also their vulnerability, I defintely use their insecurity to my advantage.


I prefer puppies because there is no baggage to figure out and fix and there are certain things I want to instill at the imprinting stage. However, I think an older dog can become just as bonded. Takes more time and maybe effort. But I think you can get there.

T


----------



## James Downey

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I prefer puppies because there is no baggage to figure out and fix and there are certain things I want to instill at the imprinting stage. However, I think an older dog can become just as bonded. Takes more time and maybe effort. But I think you can get there.
> 
> T


I am not saying it cannot be done. I am sure people have done it. I was just saying that it would be difficult for me.

And I do wonder about the stages of emotional development in the brain as it pertains to bonding. Are there certain phases of puppy hood that facilitate bonding and those doors close somewhat with age so to speak?


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Bob Scott said:


> Probably because I've been involved with dogs since I was a kid I simply never gave any thought to actually doing anything specific to "bond" with any dog I've owned.
> I think it puts to much stress on a newby to think they have to actually work at it. Just have fun.
> As to working dogs I think David W's thoughts are pretty much on target. NILF! I will add to that. Consistency with any dog, pet or partner. !
> NILF and consistency are things most of us old farts did out of simple experience over the years and maybe a bit of natural instinct with reading dogs. That goes back to something I've always said. Some people are naturals at training and "pack" leadership. Some have the ability to learn to do that. Some can learn to mimic that and never know why. Some will never get it.
> Nothing wrong with discussing it but as said before it's easy to see but hard to explain.
> Just kick back and enjoy the time with the dog. Play with it.
> One thing a really believ in is that starting with a puppy makes training a no brainer. Breaking established bad habits is where the though process starts. Relaxing and enjoying ("bonding" with) the dog is the first part of training OR breaking bad habits.


*Totally agree with this.*

I'm sorry if I ruffled a few feathers of one or two of you. I didn't put it as eloquently as Bob did.

I don't see how one can't "bond" with a pup. As Bob says "its doing what comes naturally".

As for training, I trialled with my friend's dog. She was in her element. She just wanted to work. I think most dogs want "action" and if you provide this, you're their friend whether owner or not.

"Bonding" is a strange word for me. Someone I know said it was used for Formica!

Our younger GSD was not interested in working, either with Toni (his dog) or me. Tracking and Schutzdienst yes but Obedience no. I kept at it and he was far better than the older GSD that heeled disgracefully but Schutzhund and Tracking were great.

Whether the dogs work for you or for the sheer joy of the action is not important for me.

I love my dogs but I am not under the illusion that they love me.


----------



## rick smith

re: Alice's approach to kenneling
looks like a fine way to me 
.... and she is not the type of person who would run to the kennel and let the pup out if it's barking to get out like a lot of other people do when they put up their dogs in a kennel or a crate because they are out of control when NOT in the kennel or the crate 
- plus, her pup has a good life, and is not one of a bunch of dogs who are mostly staying in kennels, so it gets a lot of outside time with her too
- but i GUARANTEE when that pup comes out of the kennel and she is playing with it, she has already made up her mind what the pup can and can't do, and there will be structure in the sessions even if she doesn't need any deep thinking to plan it in advance.
**this doesn't happen with all owners

- of course, most dogs would probably prefer to follow their owners around and hang with them all the time, and many owners do just this...it can work but it sometimes doesn't

i have a pretty small house by many standards but i still make it a point to put the dog out a lot even tho it is totally calm in the house. separation can help create a good bond too when it's done right ... but it often isn't

it's not whether to kennel or crate, or not; it's a lot more, and most people i work with want the fast answer when they talk kennel and crating
- for me, it's not that black and white and i have to give reasons WHY
- it can be easy and problem free, but it doesn't happen automatically ... people have to have a consistent plan and need to think it out, but that doesn't mean they have to overthink it either

when you deal with people who have problems with their dogs you see how easy it is for them to put a dog on some type of autopilot bonding and training system that only results in more problems. they never see the problems develop in their "bonding" process //lol//

i totally realize the simple stuff i suggest is not needed for the vast majority of people who post here all the time....they def don't need suggestions from me, and already know a lot more than i ever will, so most of the time i write suggestions for people who are reading but won't speak up for any number of reasons since "supposedly" there are thousands of members on WDF.
- iow i'm not writing to the Alice's and Bob's

....but here is my only gripe
it seems to me that the suggestions of not trying to overthink things and discuss basic concepts that really ARE hard to describe in words might not provide much help to people who might actually need it

there's all diff kinds of bonds, some incredibly tight and some not so tight, but there are also lots and lots of BAD bonds out there and for me i will choose to call it a lack of mutual trust and respect, and offer what has worked for me when i've shown it and done it with people, and it made a positive difference

if dogs just "got stuff" with their owners simply enjoying them and playing with them, there wouldn't be any need for dog training in the first place. the reason "bonding" or "relationship" is hard to put in words is maybe because it is the sum of MANY small things that happen on a daily basis between dogs and owners that go unnoticed 

this thread could go for 50 pages and the Alice's and Bob's probably won't learn anything new ... i mostly participate because i hope there is more than 40-60 people reading the WDF threads and maybe it will change their perspective and give them fresh ideas ;-)
...off the soapbox


----------



## rick smith

one other way i look at this
- i would call bonding and training as the back side and front side of dog ownership and handling

- when i see people with "training problems", many are caused by the back side ... they have a crappy bond with their dog
- fix that part and the training often gets a lot easier 

can't always see the type of bond by watching someone train cause that's the "front side"
- that's why i look at owners/dog both inside and outside of their house and try and find out how they live with their dog. that is a lot different than just working outside in a field with them


----------



## Gillian Schuler

if dogs just "got stuff" with their owners simply enjoying them and playing with them, there wouldn't be any need for dog training in the first place.

*There wouldn't.*

No dogs* need* training in any sports. We as humans want it. Why not?

They want exericise and action - whatever that entails. Some dogs thrive on SAR, Avalanche, Suchhunde, IPO, Mondio, KNPV, etc. 

etc. but an owner that sets up his own programme to exercise the dog, has a happy dog.

Some dogs thrive on actions set up by their owners that have absolutely nothing to do with dog sports.


----------



## rick smith

i think ALL dogs need training. meaning behaviors that don't come naturally to them.

from the simplest basic family pet, who needs to come when called and walk with their owner with some basic control and not bother other people, to a highly trained EDD who has to search locate and indicate where explosive lies hidden

the only dogs who don't need training are ferals or wild dogs. once they live among humans they have to learn stuff they wouldn't do on their own, starting with where they can pee and poop


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Rick,

The wolf "trains" his pups, after they leave their mother at about 6 weeks? Just like the wild dogs do. See Eberhard Trummler.

He trains them in obedience. He leaves a bone outside and if a brave pup comes up to it, he snarls at him ferociously. 

If the pup starts to come forward again, he may just snarl, the pup retreats - the next time the pup ventures forward, he merely "raises his eyebrows".

Where the pup can pee or poop is just another following of the rules if it is does properly.

I think sometimes the difference between wolves and wild dgos is that many owners try a soft method at first and step it up instead of vice versa.

A pup / dog will most likely choose a human that shows him he is is master. No pup / dog is satisfied by not knowing the rules. He needs to know the boundaries, he needs to challenge them and, if "chastised" will accept them.

A handler who thinks he will first let the pup be himself for two weeks, has lost.

Where the pup needs to pee and poop is a small issue?


----------



## Alice Bezemer

rick smith said:


> i think ALL dogs need training. meaning behaviors that don't come naturally to them.
> 
> from the simplest basic family pet, who needs to come when called and walk with their owner with some basic control and not bother other people, to a highly trained EDD who has to search locate and indicate where explosive lies hidden
> 
> the only dogs who don't need training are ferals or wild dogs. once they live among humans they have to learn stuff they wouldn't do on their own, starting with where they can pee and poop



Actually... even feral and wild dogs get training of some sort or they would not survive, the only difference is they do not get trained by humans but by trial and error and by learning from the other packmates that they might have.

Its not so much the training that is the point here, its the mental and physical stimulation that a dog gets.... Biggest problem is problem dogs is? Lack of stimulation! Be it mental and or Physical. Fix that problem first and most problems will subside into the background or become a much smaller problem to deal with.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Gillian Schuler said:


> Rick,
> 
> The wolf "trains" his pups, after they leave their mother at about 6 weeks? Just like the wild dogs do. See Eberhard Trummler.
> 
> He trains them in obedience. He leaves a bone outside and if a brave pup comes up to it, he snarls at him ferociously.
> 
> If the pup starts to come forward again, he may just snarl, the pup retreats - the next time the pup ventures forward, he merely "raises his eyebrows".
> 
> Where the pup can pee or poop is just another following of the rules if it is does properly.
> 
> I think sometimes the difference between wolves and wild dgos is that many owners try a soft method at first and step it up instead of vice versa.
> 
> A pup / dog will most likely choose a human that shows him he is is master. No pup / dog is satisfied by not knowing the rules. He needs to know the boundaries, he needs to challenge them and, if "chastised" will accept them.
> 
> A handler who thinks he will first let the pup be himself for two weeks, has lost.
> 
> Where the pup needs to pee and poop is a small issue?


Yay Eberhard Trumler! Did you read any of his books? I read "Mit dem hund auf du" or loosely translated, dogs are to be loved/honden zijn om van te houden. Best and most important dog book I have ever read, granted.. I only read this one and Koehlers book but this one was the very best read ever. Till this day I still remember Stina....


----------



## rick smith

agreed Gillian
i'm just trying to show how i link bonding and training in my mind
showing the pup who is master could be an indicator of the bond portion, yes ?

and i don't think one necessarily needs a bond for training animals either

a big cat "trainer" can make them do clever things that they wouldn't do on their own, but if that trainer starts thinking it has a "bond" with that animal, they could easily be killed 

would you agree that if you work to establish a good bond first, the training later will be easier ?
- or do you think the trust and respect aspect is just trying to humanize and not really needed ?


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Alice Bezemer said:


> Yay Eberhard Trumler! Did you read any of his books? I read "Mit dem hund auf du" or loosely translated, dogs are to be loved/honden zijn om van te houden. Best and most important dog book I have ever read, granted.. I only read this one and Koehlers book but this one was the very best read ever. Till this day I still remember Stina....


Yes I have them nearly all:

Mit dem Hund auf Du
Hunde ernst genommen
Mensch und Hund
Trumlers Ratgeber für den Hundefreund (this is a terrific starter for the first dog owner). Very down to earth and more doggy than human.

Stina, his Kummerhund, the runt of the litter who always came to greet him when he approached. 

Great books, I learnt a lot about the dog from them.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

rick smith said:


> agreed Gillian
> i'm just trying to show how i link bonding and training in my mind
> showing the pup who is master could be an indicator of the bond portion, yes ?
> 
> and i don't think one necessarily needs a bond for training animals either
> 
> a big cat "trainer" can make them do clever things that they wouldn't do on their own, but if that trainer starts thinking it has a "bond" with that animal, they could easily be killed
> 
> would you agree that if you work to establish a good bond first, the training later will be easier ?
> - or do you think the trust and respect aspect is just trying to humanize and not really needed ?


Poof, that's difficult to answer. Darach the GSD was Toni's dog. I was definitely no. 2 when he was around. But training with him after he decided it could be fun to do so, was easy. However, Toni used to go out into the garden with him and when he wanted to go in, he'd say "let's go in Darach". When I tried this, he'd start racing round the garden and avoided me. So I used to call him to me, give him a kibble, put his lead on and in we'd go. I was never his "Master" but he worked better for me than for Toni.

Outward going handlers have more chance of getting better results from their dogs in training than 
others but it doesn't mean they can be the better "Masters".

Is this rubbish??


----------



## rick smith

i think feral and wild dogs learn survival skills, and a lot is trial and error without a lot of guidance even if they live in a pack; not sure if that is considered training, but it isn't training to do what they wouldn't do naturally

dogs certainly don't need many if any survival skills if bred for humans.
in fact pups often don't know who their daddy is and get taken from mommy b4 she finishes showing them how to be dogs and kicks them out.

humans take over quickly and some know how to raise em, but many don't. but all dogs need "human skills" that are not natural behaviors, and that must be taught one way or the other

how this fits in with the subject of bonding i don't know


----------



## Max Orsi

It finally got to an interesting level. Thanks to all!! 

David , I really enjoy your posts, very easy to understand and follow, to the point.

Alice, thanks for your reply, I agree with you, the reason I had asked you the question is because someone was stating that the kind of relationship you have with a pet, and please let's not get silly about the definition again, everybody knows what a pet is, is enough to make a pet have a good working bond relationship, which I disagree.

Assuming I am reading and understanding well enough, some are typing the same, but arguing about the definitions.

I love and smooch, pet, brush etc my dogs too, we are not talking about who is the most loving owner.

All that has been said, like I said to Matt is good, even the extremes, but to get a good working bond/relationship we need to work on a specific type of relationship, unrelated to the one we have on the field.

Even the chained 24/7 dog can have a good working relationship with the handler.

There are a lot of recent observations and studies about social interactions within the wolf packs, that should probably be discussed on a different thread, , they are after all relatives of our dogs.

Happy training


----------



## rick smith

re: "I think sometimes <snip> is that many owners try a soft method at first and step it up instead of vice versa."

for SURE, and as i would relate that to the issue of bonding, is that if they don't bond properly and gain respect and trust early on, the owner makes everything after that much harder. 
- and if no probs arise, to me it is luck not skill .... or a very adaptable dog that chooses not to "make waves"

the typical example :
- what was acceptable and cute as a pup turns REAL bad when it matures ](*,)


----------



## Max Orsi

My above post should read "unrelated to the one we have off the field"

Sorry

Happy training


----------



## Matt Vandart

I think alot of working dog people under-rate the achievements of pet dog owners and the shit some pet dogs have to deal with myself.
Not saying anyone here, just saying.


----------



## Catherine Gervin

Matt Vandart said:


> I think alot of working dog people under-rate the achievements of pet dog owners and the shit some pet dogs have to deal with myself.
> Not saying anyone here, just saying.


any dog who lives peaceably with one or more small children...that is not an easy gig.


----------



## Bob Scott

Matt Vandart said:


> I think alot of working dog people under-rate the achievements of pet dog owners and the shit some pet dogs have to deal with myself.
> Not saying anyone here, just saying.



The biggest difference, IMHO, between pet dog people and working dog people is the pet dog people want to put to many human values, behaviors, etc on the dogs. 
Not knowing how to say "no" when the dog is being a PIA. Not WANTING to say "no" because "it's so cute".
My dogs are also my pets but they are never my kids or my grankids although I expect a lot out of my dogs AND my kids. 
My son's fav question when he sees me training the dogs is "Where was all that motivational crap when you were raising us"? My simple answer is "Dogs are easier". "A simple grunt from me get's their attention". :twisted:
BTW, I have a great bond with all three of my kids and all five of my grankids. We all get together often to just kick back and have fun. Same with my 6 siblings. Were all getting together next weekend ....to just kick back and have fun. ;-)


----------



## rick smith

interesting deja vous .... both my mom and dad had an unlimited supply of switches thanks to the apricot tree in our back yard. i do remember a couple times i "redirected" at him in my early teenage years, but ended up still loving him. i don't believe dogs love people tho


----------



## Bob Scott

rick smith said:


> interesting deja vous .... both my mom and dad had an unlimited supply of switches thanks to the apricot tree in our back yard. i do remember a couple times i "redirected" at him in my early teenage years, but ended up still loving him. i don't believe dogs love people tho



The hair on my neck still goes up when I hear a belt coming through the loops. To this day I take my own belt off very slowly to avoid that sound.







;-)
Most people would be quite upset if they realized how easily our dogs can change hands and be quite happy. A 2-3 yr old police K9 does this and within a week or so life is good again.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Bob Scott said:


> The hair on my neck still goes up when I hear a belt coming through the loops. To this day I take my own belt off very slowly to avoid that sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;-)
> *Most people would be quite upset if they realized how easily our dogs can change hands and be quite happy. A 2-3 yr old police K9 does this and within a week or so life is good again.*


Aint that the truth! The first dog we sold into security was quite the eye opener. Nicknamed him "Turncoat" I got to visit him at his new handler about 2 weeks after being sold thinking that he would be happy to see me :lol: He thought it was "nice" that I was there, gave me a halfhearted tailwag and walked of to lay in the sun, ignoring me for the rest of the time that I was there. only had ears and eyes for his new handler  

That shows you perfectly how strong a bond is in a dogs eyes and a humans eyes. A dog bonds to the hand that feeds due to his opportunistic character... I doubt there is any emotion that figures into it for the dog. He enjoys being with his owner, likes spending time with his owner even but put it in a new set of hands and he will be just as happy...

Our last dog, Robbie! Came for a visit with his new handler a few weeks after he was sold and this was a dog that was focussed on me and my husband! One of the best dogs we have had and have worked, everything was in perfect sync! He suffered us! He walked around the yard, took a sniff of his kennel, sniffed my hand, checked out Theo, grabbed one of Robbie 2's toys and went to sit with his new owner and didn't leave his side for a second. When they left he ran.... he RAN out of the gate after his owner...he YELPED AND RAN as if to say "Don't leave me with these people!"  Damn turncoat! Another indicator of how far a bond goes for a dog or how long it really lasts.


----------



## David Winners

Matt Vandart said:


> I think alot of working dog people under-rate the achievements of pet dog owners and the shit some pet dogs have to deal with myself.
> Not saying anyone here, just saying.


I have both pet dogs who deal with stuff, including a grandchild, and working dogs. There is no comparison to what they have to deal with. Nobody shoots at my pets lol.

Though I will concede that my pets have it pretty easy compared to most.

David Winners


----------



## Max Orsi

I really enjoyed his topic!!

Who can come up with the next ???
Please no table training or Drive!!!

Happy training


----------



## Matt Vandart

David Winners said:


> I have both pet dogs who deal with stuff, including a grandchild, and working dogs. There is no comparison to what they have to deal with. Nobody shoots at my pets lol.
> 
> Though I will concede that my pets have it pretty easy compared to most.
> 
> David Winners


Yeah I see what your saying David but I was more on about useless owners, idiot kids, bad management, zero boundaries, getting yelled at/corrected inappropriately etc. That's a tough life for a dog. It's a wonder more don't go postal.


----------



## Bob Scott

Alice said
" Damn turncoat! Another indicator of how far a bond goes for a dog or how long it really lasts."

I think the term "bond" should be followed by "As Long as you feed me". ;-)


----------



## James Downey

Bob Scott said:


> The hair on my neck still goes up when I hear a belt coming through the loops. To this day I take my own belt off very slowly to avoid that sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;-)
> Most people would be quite upset if they realized how easily our dogs can change hands and be quite happy. A 2-3 yr old police K9 does this and within a week or so life is good again.


I have left my home for long periods of time for work and within days my female started exhibiting behaviors of stress from my absence. I am sure that if I re-homed her it would be hearbreaking for her.

I also have re-homed one dog in my life. My first Malinois. He was a conformation line dog. I had no idea what I was doing and was heavily influenced by the Monks and Ceasar... Needless to say the dog and I did not have a great bond. I did that training for the first year of his life, then I found IPO and learned the err of my ways. I let up on him and started the training I would afford my future dogs. To late, the damage was done. The dog never was comfortable in my presence. He liked me well enough. But he never trusted me. I re-homed to my sister out of compassion. He transistioned very easy. He formed a remarkable bond with my sisters husband. His kids watched "jeopardy" on t.v. after school. (I know nerds) and soon after Mike would return from work. The dog would cry for him, and look out the window and wait for him to home. He would do this when the music came on from "Jeopardy". The dog passed this year. But I would bet a dollar to a donut, he would suffer a much great trauma if he had to be re-homed from my sisters house. 

I have seen some dogs change hands in my time doing this dog thing. And I have seen that most dogs that are changing hands had owners that viewed the dog as if were just a means for their ends. That is if the dog did not work out for their needs they had zero problem re-homing and finding a new dog. Now, I am sure dogs with there ability to build social bonds were aware of the nature of the relationship. My question is when dogs seamlessly transfer from one owner to the other. I do not really look at it as some quality in the dog. But more so the quality of the previous relationship.

Even as working dog guy now. One thing I still cling to from my pet dog days is: If it's completely acceptable for someone to re-home a dog cause they are not the dog they hoped it would be. Don't call that love.


----------



## rick smith

James :
i think i understood most of what you wrote, but i don't understand the correlations you are making here :
"I also have re-homed one dog in my life. My first Malinois. He was a conformation line dog. I had no idea what I was doing and was heavily influenced by the Monks and Ceasar... Needless to say the dog and I did not have a great bond. I did that training for the first year of his life, then I found IPO and learned the err of my ways. I let up on him and started the training I would afford my future dogs. To late, the damage was done. The dog never was comfortable in my presence. He liked me well enough. But he never trusted me."

- was the fact the mal was a conformation line dog significant ?
1. what was it about monks and cesar that prevented developing a bond ?
2 how did IPO make you discover the error of your ways ?
3. what do you mean by it was too late, the damage was done ?

sorry; i can't connect the dots here. but to me it reads like you are implying the following the monks/cesar ways can result in a dog that doesn't trust their owner and IPO was the answer that developed the trust


----------



## Bob Scott

A simple test for short term periods of how much a dog misses you.

Stuff your dog and your spouse in a car trunk. Come back it about an hour. Open the trunk and see which one is happy to see you. :twisted: 8-[ :-\":-\"


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

James Downey said:


> I have left my home for long periods of time for work and within days my female started exhibiting behaviors of stress from my absence. I am sure that if I re-homed her it would be hearbreaking for her.
> 
> I also have re-homed one dog in my life. My first Malinois. He was a conformation line dog. I had no idea what I was doing and was heavily influenced by the Monks and Ceasar... Needless to say the dog and I did not have a great bond. I did that training for the first year of his life, then I found IPO and learned the err of my ways. I let up on him and started the training I would afford my future dogs. To late, the damage was done. The dog never was comfortable in my presence. He liked me well enough. But he never trusted me. I re-homed to my sister out of compassion. He transistioned very easy. He formed a remarkable bond with my sisters husband. His kids watched "jeopardy" on t.v. after school. (I know nerds) and soon after Mike would return from work. The dog would cry for him, and look out the window and wait for him to home. He would do this when the music came on from "Jeopardy". The dog passed this year. But I would bet a dollar to a donut, he would suffer a much great trauma if he had to be re-homed from my sisters house.
> 
> I have seen some dogs change hands in my time doing this dog thing. And I have seen that most dogs that are changing hands had owners that viewed the dog as if were just a means for their ends. That is if the dog did not work out for their needs they had zero problem re-homing and finding a new dog. Now, I am sure dogs with there ability to build social bonds were aware of the nature of the relationship. My question is when dogs seamlessly transfer from one owner to the other. I do not really look at it as some quality in the dog. But more so the quality of the previous relationship.
> 
> Even as working dog guy now. One thing I still cling to from my pet dog days is: If it's completely acceptable for someone to re-home a dog cause they are not the dog they hoped it would be. Don't call that love.


Agreed. I have puppies that I've whelped that I don't see for years and if I talk while they are in the ring, its over. They still sniff me out at events. I play mental games with myself so I don't attach to any dog I have that I'm not keeping as mine. This is also so that the dog doesn't attach to me. That part of it doesn't always work. If you have kept your mental distance, then chances are the dog isn't that into you so as to impede transferring to another person. I also wonder how much the dog's temperament [pack-ness] effects this as well. I wouldn't dare generalize that dogs transfer with ease or that its only a matter of who fills the feed bowl.

T


----------



## James Downey

rick smith said:


> James :
> i think i understood most of what you wrote, but i don't understand the correlations you are making here :
> "I also have re-homed one dog in my life. My first Malinois. He was a conformation line dog. I had no idea what I was doing and was heavily influenced by the Monks and Ceasar... Needless to say the dog and I did not have a great bond. I did that training for the first year of his life, then I found IPO and learned the err of my ways. I let up on him and started the training I would afford my future dogs. To late, the damage was done. The dog never was comfortable in my presence. He liked me well enough. But he never trusted me."
> 
> - was the fact the mal was a conformation line dog significant ?
> 1. what was it about monks and cesar that prevented developing a bond ?
> 2 how did IPO make you discover the error of your ways ?
> 3. what do you mean by it was too late, the damage was done ?
> 
> sorry; i can't connect the dots here. but to me it reads like you are implying the following the monks/cesar ways can result in a dog that doesn't trust their owner and IPO was the answer that developed the trust


First yes that was the short version. if you include the part where I say "I had no idea what I was doing"...that might help with Monks/Ceasar part. I did leave a lot out. It was the short version. I guess I was giving credit that other dog trainers could fill in the blanks. And one of those blanks are...the IPO one. I don't know anyone that just read the IPO rule book, got a dog, and made a go at it alone and actually titled a dog. I was assuming that people would understand that "discovering IPO" included that I had a lot of people helping to learn how to train a dog. 

And as for the dog being a conformation dog being significant.... yeah it was significant...

Take a weak dog, and start asserting a dominance based training plan on him for a year, not having any idea what you are doing.....then you will know what I mean about it being too late, and the damage being done.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

James Downey said:


> First yes that was the short version. if you include the part where I say "I had no idea what I was doing"...that might help with Monks/Ceasar part. I did leave a lot out. It was the short version. I guess I was giving credit that other dog trainers could fill in the blanks. And one of those blanks are...the IPO one. I don't know anyone that just read the IPO rule book, got a dog, and made a go at it alone and actually titled a dog. I was assuming that people would understand that "discovering IPO" included that I had a lot of people helping to learn how to train a dog.
> 
> And as for the dog being a conformation dog being significant.... yeah it was significant...
> 
> Take a weak dog, and start asserting a dominance based training plan on him for a year, not having any idea what you are doing.....then you will know what I mean about it being too late, and the damage being done.


Conformation line doesn't always mean weak just as working line doesn't always mean strong. Just saying . But, yes, understood the rest.

T


----------



## David Winners

Bob Scott said:


> A simple test for short term periods of how much a dog misses you.
> 
> Stuff your dog and your spouse in a car trunk. Come back it about an hour. Open the trunk and see which one is happy to see you. :twisted: 8-[ :-\":-\"


: twisted: that was funny : twisted:

David Winners


----------



## Joby Becker

I think that dogs are creatures of habit, and that they mostly live in the moment. 

I also think that as it often goes with humans, dogs get comfortable within their own activity routines and environments. They for the most part adapt very well to various settings.

I think humans for the most part have huge emotional needs compared to a dog, and that humans at times overestimate the degree to which a dog is emotional, or at least attempt to use human terms for it.

I think when a dogs situation changes, he is not only noticing differences in his owner/handler, but also adapting to his new environment, and activity routines and patterns. I think if there is only one person that structures all of these things for a dog, then the dog certainly will be more attached to that particular person. 

I do think this contributes more to it than any sort of emotional response in the dog, that is directed at one particular individual or another. I have a hard time understanding what love really is, in human terms, let alone trying to apply it to dogs.

I think any dog can adjust pretty easily to a new owner, without becoming "heartbroken", especially if the activities and environment are appealing to the dog, and the new owner engages with the dog in things that the dog enjoys. 

If the new owner is a dud, doesnt make it fun for the dog, and the dog gets on new food he doesnt like as much, has to obey a bunch more rules, and put up with a bunch more crap from some assholes or other animals, and his environment becomes worse than his previous one, and he has to do a bunch more crap he doesnt want to do, then yes I can see a dog more likely to appear "heartbroken" at the loss of his previous owner.

when I say I love my dog, it means I really like the dog a lot. When I say my dog loves me, I have no clue what that means.


----------



## Joby Becker

so in the same vein of thought...

like with James' dog that he rehomed, it was about the relationship.

and that dog, and James' current female, I think COULD have moved to another owner, without being "heartbroken".

IF that new owner does things that the dog enjoys, and gives the dog a routine and an environment that the dog likes,finds fulfilling or whatever, I dont think the dog likely will miss his old owner to the point of becoming heartbroken, although I wouldnt say that it was impossible..

SO I agree with James, it is not something special within the dog itself necessarily, but the relationship formed between the people,and the dog, which can be influenced by a lot of factors I think like routines and environment. I think were we may disagree is that I think that a dog is probably more adaptable in most cases to switching owners and environments than most people might think. Although there are of course lots of variables that will go into how adaptable a dog will be to changes like this.


----------



## Catherine Gervin

Sarah Platts said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKQgTiqhPbw
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsUIodoG044


not that this thread hasn't moved pages past this, but i wanted to mention that i thought they were wonderful, and that i've seen many Dressage events with unhappy horses painstakingly dragging themselves through advanced routines--they were accomplished and obviously someone spent a tremendous amount of time working with them but they were not having a good time. not at all. of course these clips weren't of dogs and apparently it was implicit that the videos had to involve YOU--but i didn't see where that was stated before you were so chastised but none the less, they totally did illustrate a great working bond or relationship--or both, for sticklers!--and isn't evidence of bonded animal/handler work what the request of video footage was for?


----------



## Max Orsi

Catherine Gervin said:


> not that this thread hasn't moved pages past this, but i wanted to mention that i thought they were wonderful, and that i've seen many Dressage events with unhappy horses painstakingly dragging themselves through advanced routines--they were accomplished and obviously someone spent a tremendous amount of time working with them but they were not having a good time. not at all. of course these clips weren't of dogs and apparently it was implicit that the videos had to involve YOU--but i didn't see where that was stated before you were so chastised but none the less, they totally did illustrate a great working bond or relationship--or both, for sticklers!--and isn't evidence of bonded animal/handler work what the request of video footage was for?


The discussion was about if a working bond relationship with a dog was different than the bond/relationsip you establish with a non working dog.

A statement was made that you can take any pet (non working dog) and start working him without changing or adding a different relationship.

The video I requested was supposed to show that. 

If you post a video of a trial, of an different animal of the one we are talking about, I think is not related.

If you show a video of a dog trial, you are showing a working dog, not a pet.

What is the first thing Cesar milan does when he get into a pet home?

That was the topic of discussion

Happy training


----------



## Jennifer Andress

Joby Becker said:


> IF that new owner does things that the dog enjoys, and gives the dog a routine and an environment that the dog likes,finds fulfilling or whatever, I dont think the dog likely will miss his old owner to the point of becoming heartbroken, although I wouldnt say that it was impossible..


Yes, I think I've seen something like that.

One of my foster dogs, Nessie, was adopted by a person who lives down the block from us. She used to bound across the roofs of the connecting houses to come back to us _constantly_.










In this instance, I don't think Nessie was super closely bonded to me. We only had her for a couple of weeks and she was a stable, friendly, happy dog who could easily have bonded to her new home (which I think she did). She came back to us because her new home, while loving, didn't provide her with a ton of structured stimulation or mental/physical exercise, so I'm pretty sure she just wanted to visit because we were more "fun" (and probably had tastier food).

She kept that up for almost two years, btw. I finally resorted to spraying her with the garden hose to make her go away after she trampled one too many of my plants jumping over the deck railing. Also some of the later foster dogs, not knowing who she was, would fight her; one of them bit her in the face and drew blood, so we couldn't have that going on anymore.

So I think that is a scenario where the dog didn't really "love" me, she just remembered that we were more fun and did more interesting things, and she came back because she wanted to do that.

OTOH I am pretty sure that Pongu, my insane fearful dog, would have an absolute meltdown if he were separated from me. Every time I leave him, even for a weekend, he regresses. Won't eat, acts panicky, will run away at every opportunity trying to find me. He's run away from my husband, he's run away from my parents, and he's run away from my brother.

I'm not entirely sure that's "love" either, so much as it is abnormal and pathological dependency, but it is what it is. I do think Pongu loves me, fwiw, but I don't think that's why he breaks down every time I leave. He breaks down because he's crazy. He's not a dog I could ever rehome (not that anybody out there wants an insane fearful dog anyway).

Someday I'd like to have a dog with that degree of devotion who isn't insane. I think that might be nice, if it exists.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Its interesting how people will struggle to construct some reason to form a basis for denying that the dog is connected to a person and only desires that connection.

T


----------



## Jennifer Andress

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Its interesting how people will struggle to construct some reason to form a basis for denying that the dog is connected to a person and only desires that connection.
> 
> T


I'd never deny that. I've seen it, and it's wonderful to behold. 

I am just not completely confident claiming it for myself. It feels like claiming you've found true love (which is what it is, ultimately). Immodest, somehow.


----------



## Max Orsi

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Its interesting how people will struggle to construct some reason to form a basis for denying that the dog is connected to a person and only desires that connection.
> 
> T


I don't understand where you got that from the previous posts! any of the posts in this thread.

I guess clear communication is not a problem just between dogs and people.

Do you compete in any dogsports?

Just curious

Happy training


----------



## Joby Becker

we all have our favorites. 

I think it is like anything else in life, sometimes it happens like a fairly tale and sometimes it doesn't...sometimes it happens for some people and sometimes it doesn't. I imagine that some people are better at getting there with a dog, and some dogs are pretty dern special when you come across them..

I personally don,t need or necessarily want my dog to only have a fairy tale connection to me and be driven by that...my dogs are but a part of my overall life, and in all reality I am but a part of their overall life.


----------



## Catherine Gervin

Max Orsi said:


> The discussion was about if a working bond relationship with a dog was different than the bond/relationsip you establish with a non working dog.
> 
> A statement was made that you can take any pet (non working dog) and start working him without changing or adding a different relationship.
> 
> The video I requested was supposed to show that.
> 
> If you post a video of a trial, of an different animal of the one we are talking about, I think is not related.
> 
> If you show a video of a dog trial, you are showing a working dog, not a pet.
> 
> What is the first thing Cesar milan does when he get into a pet home?
> 
> That was the topic of discussion
> 
> Happy training


i am confused--the first page's first question was how did one form a bond with a dog...it didn't say anything about pet vs working, it seemed a general quandary. 
also, you kind of Gestapo your way over people, and add hurdles to questions when you didn't like the answer you got...


----------



## Joby Becker

Catherine Gervin said:


> i am confused--the first page's first question was how did one form a bond with a dog...


thats what I thought


----------



## Max Orsi

Catherine Gervin said:


> i am confused--the first page's first question was how did one form a bond with a dog...it didn't say anything about pet vs working, it seemed a general quandary.
> also, you kind of Gestapo your way over people, and add hurdles to questions when you didn't like the answer you got...


I ask question to better to understand what is not clear to me. I don't think I "gestapo" since I have wrote multiple times there are no right or wrong.

The problems, it seems, that a lot of of people makes statements over what the other people think, instead of getting a clarification,

If people only took the time to read the posts of the thread, we could have better discussions.

FYI I am not a professional dog trainer, so I am not trying to sell you or convince you about anything, just trying to exchange ideas and experience.

Sorry if you felt "gestapoed", it was not my intention

By the way, do you train your dogs?
Just curious

Happy training


----------



## Catherine Gervin

i only have one dog currently--she is just over 9 months old, solid black GSD, Czech and West German. her name is Ripley. she is very handler sensitive and on the submissive end of the spectrum so i don't know what we'll end up doing...we have only done stuff at home--we just moved and are on strict budget until after Christmas, so i'm hoping to start working with this cool lady, Janice Ritter, as soon as the holiday season ends. my girl is phenomenal with children but spooks at adult strangers. she had been attacked by two small dogs shortly after we brought her home and is full-on dog aggressive now. her obedience is not so solid i'll be making a youtube clip anytime soon but we're getting there. she also does bites on those traffic barrels and outs on those, but i don't have any delusions that this counts towards any actual knowledge yet. she is my dog, but she loves my husband and my daughter immensely (not to tread into the dark waters of whether our dogs love or just utilize us...i feel ignorance to be bliss in this instance and like to pretend she really truly loves us). my dog is nothing worth talking up, but she does some Agility stuff and she's outstanding off leash and has some respectable kill tallies on small animals and tennis balls so i have hopes for some kind of sport competition...we'll see.


----------



## Max Orsi

Thanks for your input nd best of luck with your dog activities.

Happy training


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Max Orsi said:


> I don't understand where you got that from the previous posts! any of the posts in this thread.
> 
> I guess clear communication is not a problem just between dogs and people.
> 
> Do you compete in any dogsports?
> 
> Just curious
> 
> Happy training


Yes, I compete in dog sports.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Max Orsi said:


> I ask question to better to understand what is not clear to me. I don't think I "gestapo" since I have wrote multiple times there are no right or wrong.
> 
> The problems, it seems, that a lot of of people makes statements over what the other people think, instead of getting a clarification,
> 
> If people only took the time to read the posts of the thread, we could have better discussions.
> 
> FYI I am not a professional dog trainer, so I am not trying to sell you or convince you about anything, just trying to exchange ideas and experience.
> 
> Sorry if you felt "gestapoed", it was not my intention
> 
> By the way, do you train your dogs?
> Just curious
> 
> Happy training


So young, and familiar with the Gestapo. The mind shudders. At least she didn't call you "Gauleiter":grin:


----------



## Gillian Schuler

My 5 month old pup had to stay 5 days with the breeder whilst we took my Dad back to England to live.

I saw this pup from day one nearly every day until we took him home at 8 weeks. He'd already had visits to us in between.

When we came back I asked my friend and breeder to meet me at the train station with my pup because I'd left my old dog with her too, and, as we we first going for a walk with the pup's mother, I didn't want to show up and go again.

The pup jumped out of the car and sniffed me and seemed to think I was ok but he didn't know me.

In the forest the two dogs ran off together and my friend and I hid on opposites of the path. Who raced back to the breeder and ignored me? 

It was ok afterwards but I had the feeling the 3 months together, counted for nothing and we had to start again.

Old Ben had moped a bit without me!! Consolation.


----------



## Matt Vandart

I have a funny old situation Re: bonding in my house.
I have 5 dogs.
An English bull terrier
A Stafordshire bull terrier
2 Dobes
1 Malinois.

Due to the nature of my work, I often go away for anything up to three+ months at a time.
I will discount the english bull for this discussion as she is old and doen't give two hoots anymore but I will discuss the others.
The Staff is my birds dog and by that I mean she is HER dog. when she goes to work it gets miserable. It will do stuff with me, like training wise but thats it. If I don't bother with her she doesn't bother with me.
The dog is a crack head for her ball, I mean this dog would put many working dogs ball drive to shame but yesterday just for shitz and giggle we tried an experiment with this bonding lark in mind.
Football field, her at one end me at the other (with the ball and making it obvious) both calling dog in the middle.
Every time she went to the missus.
this is very interesting because for her early life, like the first six months that dog was mostly with me and I did alot of engagement and ball drive stuff with her all positive, no pressure. She just prefers my bird. 

Now discussing my dobes. When I go away to work they will work quite happily with Kath and in fact they are far more accurate with her but when I come back and she shows me what she has been working on they will break off immediately if I call or whistle to them.
They have little bond with Kath in the sense of a two way situation because quite frankly she doesn't like them and wishes they were not here. 
Yet they do as she asks, no questions both on and off the field.
A number of factors account for this IMO:
1. She has no emotional investment in them, as in she doesn't give a damn if they perform or not or in fact if they disappeared tomorrow.
2: She is a very, very good motivational trainer.
3: She absolutely never has anything to do with them when I am home, not even a pat or good dog.
4: She was the one with them most during THEIR early months. considering they are fairly high drive and there was two of that at the same time, TBH I don't blame her for her dislike of them.

I have a very good bond with these dogs but I assume this is what makes them sensitive to my mood. Like if they are performing badly I can put a face on but they know full well shit is not going well.

With the Malinois, we were having a bit of a dodgy relationship a little while back which is resolved now as described earlier. Yet even when we had that problem she would basically pine my absence when I went away to work to the point I started taking her with me, which in fact improved the bonding/relationship/trust etc situation a bit.

Interesting to note. My youngest kid does **** all with my dogs except cwtch them on the sofa, never feeds them never trains them just plays computer, watches tv and goes out with his mates. They ALL love him to bits, if he does pay them attention their tails nearly wag off, they go very submissive and when he comes home from school its like the wall of death with dobermans bouncing off the wall.
He does some of the filming for my vids, so sometimes I just give him the dog we are training at the time and say "heel her over there I'll vid you to show your mates" (he's only 12) and without fail those dogs give him 100% attention all three of them.

Forgotten what my point is exactly but I think this situation points towards something other than just training with your dog etc to build the 'bond' a word which is sounding more fascicle the further this thread goes it seems.


----------



## Max Orsi

Matt Vandart said:


> I have a funny old situation Re: bonding in my house.
> I have 5 dogs.
> An English bull terrier
> A Stafordshire bull terrier
> 2 Dobes
> 1 Malinois.
> 
> Due to the nature of my work, I often go away for anything up to three+ months at a time.
> I will discount the english bull for this discussion as she is old and doen't give two hoots anymore but I will discuss the others.
> The Staff is my birds dog and by that I mean she is HER dog. when she goes to work it gets miserable. It will do stuff with me, like training wise but thats it. If I don't bother with her she doesn't bother with me.
> The dog is a crack head for her ball, I mean this dog would put many working dogs ball drive to shame but yesterday just for shitz and giggle we tried an experiment with this bonding lark in mind.
> Football field, her at one end me at the other (with the ball and making it obvious) both calling dog in the middle.
> Every time she went to the missus.
> this is very interesting because for her early life, like the first six months that dog was mostly with me and I did alot of engagement and ball drive stuff with her all positive, no pressure. She just prefers my bird.
> 
> Now discussing my dobes. When I go away to work they will work quite happily with Kath and in fact they are far more accurate with her but when I come back and she shows me what she has been working on they will break off immediately if I call or whistle to them.
> They have little bond with Kath in the sense of a two way situation because quite frankly she doesn't like them and wishes they were not here.
> Yet they do as she asks, no questions both on and off the field.
> A number of factors account for this IMO:
> 1. She has no emotional investment in them, as in she doesn't give a damn if they perform or not or in fact if they disappeared tomorrow.
> 2: She is a very, very good motivational trainer.
> 3: She absolutely never has anything to do with them when I am home, not even a pat or good dog.
> 4: She was the one with them most during THEIR early months. considering they are fairly high drive and there was two of that at the same time, TBH I don't blame her for her dislike of them.
> 
> I have a very good bond with these dogs but I assume this is what makes them sensitive to my mood. Like if they are performing badly I can put a face on but they know full well shit is not going well.
> 
> With the Malinois, we were having a bit of a dodgy relationship a little while back which is resolved now as described earlier. Yet even when we had that problem she would basically pine my absence when I went away to work to the point I started taking her with me, which in fact improved the bonding/relationship/trust etc situation a bit.
> 
> Interesting to note. My youngest kid does **** all with my dogs except cwtch them on the sofa, never feeds them never trains them just plays computer, watches tv and goes out with his mates. They ALL love him to bits, if he does pay them attention their tails nearly wag off, they go very submissive and when he comes home from school its like the wall of death with dobermans bouncing off the wall.
> He does some of the filming for my vids, so sometimes I just give him the dog we are training at the time and say "heel her over there I'll vid you to show your mates" (he's only 12) and without fail those dogs give him 100% attention all three of them.
> 
> Forgotten what my point is exactly but I think this situation points towards something other than just training with your dog etc to build the 'bond' a word which is sounding more fascicle the further this thread goes it seems.


I hope you can notice, what you wrote above is exactly what I have been saying all along.

Happy training


----------



## Catherine Gervin

Interesting to note. My youngest kid does **** all with my dogs except cwtch them on the sofa, never feeds them never trains them just plays computer, watches tv and goes out with his mates. They ALL love him to bits, if he does pay them attention their tails nearly wag off, they go very submissive and when he comes home from school its like the wall of death with dobermans bouncing off the wall.
He does some of the filming for my vids, so sometimes I just give him the dog we are training at the time and say "heel her over there I'll vid you to show your mates" (he's only 12) and without fail those dogs give him 100% attention all three of them.

i think that--amongst dogs who enjoy kids--that it's the propensity for fun drawing all their attention, whether the kids do much with them or not. my dog will listen to commands given by my 4 1/2 yr old daughter but she'll also steal her things and make a game of chase out of it if my daughter isn't playing when given the invitation. the dog follows close at hand when other kids are playing with "her" child and shoves herself in the mix and uses her body to push the other kids back if she feels my daughter to be in danger or overwhelmed. when the kids mob the dog she is great, slowly wagging her tail, giving kisses, patiently letting herself be petted and hugged all over, but she's keeping an eye on my daughter and then she keeps looking to me,too, in what might be a desire for reassurance or affirmation or maybe it's just "look--they all like me", i don't know...her eyes are very placid during these exchanges and she smiles and pants between giving kisses. i praise excessively after these exchanges, it's true. she just likes following my daughter around in the house, doesn't want to miss anything it seems and since there is a never-ending opportunity for sneaked people food and impromtu games i don't blame her.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Max Orsi said:


> I hope you can notice, what you wrote above is exactly what I have been saying all along.
> 
> Happy training


Yah, I don't remember disagreeing with you, lol


----------



## rick smith

this thread has gone way beyond the two questions asked 16 pages ago.

guess i was thinking that "bonding" was more than all the different ways dogs hang around different people and act different ways. since the list of anecdotes seems to be going on and on, i was clearly .... wrong 

for all the definition freaks ..... is there any definition of any type of dog behavior that can be explained without using "human words" ???
in the very beginning of this thread, two words were used : trust and respect
....i'm beginning to think i need to learn how to bark and growl when talking dogs //lol//

- i don't recall anyone explaining why those words didn't apply and couldn't/shouldn't be used to explain dog behavior. instead there have been many stories of how dogs relate differently to diff people and how the dog's relationship changes over time.....

- but i didn't think the thread was about how many different ways dogs can relate to different people they are around them

normally, dogs are social people are social and they "relate" to each other... that is one trait they have in common, but telling stories about all these special relationships really doesn't explain much to me about what bonding means

i think most of the stories about how dogs follow kids around and "take care" of them, and how dogs willingly take directions from them, etc., can be explained in many ways other than that dog has a "special bond" with them. but that would be useless if those stories are being used to describe "bonding" 

what i have read seems that the consensus is we shouldn't try and bond, but rather just let it happen, because it does

guess i'll just choose to stay in the minority who think it is a valid term and can be measured, built up and fixed when it goes bad


----------



## Matt Vandart

I think Jobby hit the nail on the head ages ago, it's good comunication be that spoken or body language.


----------



## maggie fraser

_Do you do anything special to create a bond with a dog? How do you know when that has been achieved?_

I don't do anything special to create a bond with a dog ordinarily, just like many others here. I discovered something quite interesting many years ago when I worked horses for a living. In one particular scenario when all I was doing was training one horse after the other, that the relationship between me and some of the horses was considerably better than that between their grooms, the people who fed, cared for and gave attention and affection. 

If I had been looking to enhance/accelerate that strong relationship with new dogs/horses after initial settling in and getting to know one another, I provide physical and mental stimulation in the form of activity (training), environmental experience, provide routine, and wear my personality on my sleeve . The accelerated form is more full on than a natural pace for me, to enable us to get to know each other in as quick a time as possible at the animal's pace if that makes sense.

I know when that bond has been achieved when there is attunement and attachment, trust and respect. Prolly all been said on this thread already....but feeding the animal doesn't come into it for me, that's dependence really isn't it, nothing more?


----------



## rick smith

i'm about out of this thread, but one last post from this peanut gallery 

most, if not all of these stories people have been writing about are describing a dog with good relationships with different people and how long they last from one situation to another

- i get to see people who have PROBLEM relationships with their dog(s) and i think it is often because of a "bond" that needs fixing and i use mutual trust and respect as a way to go about doing that... what i keep reading is all the good sides of bonds and relationships, or whatever one chooses to call it 
- i am NOT "imagining" these problems or trying to create a customer so i can take their money ](*,)
....maybe i should just tell people to have more fun with their dogs. 
- that might be true based on what i'm reading, but i think it usually requires a lot more than that //lol//


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Is anyone else surprised we haven't heard from Chris McDonald on this thread? I feel like it is right up his ally and his mentors have some strong feelings about bonding.

Maybe he is bonding with his dogs in the jungle somewhere Hope he is okay and doing well!


----------



## maggie fraser

_- i get to see people who have PROBLEM relationships with their dog(s) and i think it is often because of a "bond" that needs fixing and i use mutual trust and respect as a way to go about doing that..._

Do you think there had been an existent bond in many of these relationships, or simply that a bond was not developing? I saw quite a bit of evidence of no bond type relations with dogs in my short time in Japan, really quite different to how things are generally here, I put that down to the culture, rightly or wrongly. I was also quite taken aback how they were with horses !!! Getting booted around and lifted into the air, getting an ear bitten off, constantly being galloped off with before being thrown off in quite spectacular style,, they were not bad horses. I hadn't experienced anything quite like it before (or since) to that degree. I am not referring to just one or two individuals persons/horses. You've a mountain to climb, but I'd agree a developing of mutual trust and respect is a good way to go in my opinion. I think one has to be able to relate to an animal before any bond can start to develop, and that can be a very individual thing. Some folks don't have that ability or are lacking, I dunno how you instill being savvy about an animal when that quality is so apparently absent, I did try when I was there re horses and dogs. 

Sorry for babbling on, I think I am interpreting your 'bonding' as confidence, or lack of. That's just my take on your post and I do find it quite an interesting topic. If I've taken your post out of context, I apologise, just ignore it!

Before I go, do you have much success in developing the actual bonding between your clients and their dogs? PM if preferable.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Catherine Gervin said:


> Interesting to note. My youngest kid does **** all with my dogs except cwtch them on the sofa, never feeds them never trains them just plays computer, watches tv and goes out with his mates. They ALL love him to bits, if he does pay them attention their tails nearly wag off, they go very submissive and when he comes home from school its like the wall of death with dobermans bouncing off the wall.
> He does some of the filming for my vids, so sometimes I just give him the dog we are training at the time and say "heel her over there I'll vid you to show your mates" (he's only 12) and without fail those dogs give him 100% attention all three of them.
> 
> i think that--amongst dogs who enjoy kids--that it's the propensity for fun drawing all their attention, whether the kids do much with them or not. my dog will listen to commands given by my 4 1/2 yr old daughter but she'll also steal her things and make a game of chase out of it if my daughter isn't playing when given the invitation. the dog follows close at hand when other kids are playing with "her" child and shoves herself in the mix and uses her body to push the other kids back if she feels my daughter to be in danger or overwhelmed. when the kids mob the dog she is great, slowly wagging her tail, giving kisses, patiently letting herself be petted and hugged all over, but she's keeping an eye on my daughter and then she keeps looking to me,too, in what might be a desire for reassurance or affirmation or maybe it's just "look--they all like me", i don't know...her eyes are very placid during these exchanges and she smiles and pants between giving kisses. i praise excessively after these exchanges, it's true. she just likes following my daughter around in the house, doesn't want to miss anything it seems and since there is a never-ending opportunity for sneaked people food and impromtu games i don't blame her.


All my dogs have been gaga over my kid. He's now 19 and in college. He gives them passing pats on the head and when on the rare occasion he was home when in high school, they pal around with him around the house when I was gone. Like yours, regardless, they have guarded him, protected him and played with him. He has little or nothing to do with my 2 year olds and for the life of me I don't understand why they go positively apeshi** when he walks through the door. Perhaps its because I do.  Dogs mimic their owners and after all for me, he is all that. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

rick smith said:


> this thread has gone way beyond the two questions asked 16 pages ago.
> 
> guess i was thinking that "bonding" was more than all the different ways dogs hang around different people and act different ways. since the list of anecdotes seems to be going on and on, i was clearly .... wrong
> 
> for all the definition freaks ..... is there any definition of any type of dog behavior that can be explained without using "human words" ???
> in the very beginning of this thread, two words were used : trust and respect
> ....i'm beginning to think i need to learn how to bark and growl when talking dogs //lol//
> 
> - i don't recall anyone explaining why those words didn't apply and couldn't/shouldn't be used to explain dog behavior. instead there have been many stories of how dogs relate differently to diff people and how the dog's relationship changes over time.....
> 
> - but i didn't think the thread was about how many different ways dogs can relate to different people they are around them
> 
> normally, dogs are social people are social and they "relate" to each other... that is one trait they have in common, but telling stories about all these special relationships really doesn't explain much to me about what bonding means
> 
> i think most of the stories about how dogs follow kids around and "take care" of them, and how dogs willingly take directions from them, etc., can be explained in many ways other than that dog has a "special bond" with them. but that would be useless if those stories are being used to describe "bonding"
> 
> what i have read seems that the consensus is we shouldn't try and bond, but rather just let it happen, because it does
> 
> guess i'll just choose to stay in the minority who think it is a valid term and can be measured, built up and fixed when it goes bad


Never, quite satisfied are you?  I think people responded as the term means to them. As to your last statement, I don't think you are in the minority. I will say this, in what I do, its all about trust and respect. If I make a bad handling call and my dog gets hurt in the process, he will no longer trust my handling decisions and start making decision on his own. If I'm going to play leader, then I'd better make the right decisions that don't cause him a perceived harm. Someone else described a change in the dog for the better after he was able to defend his dog from harm and keep her safe. That's all about trust. I have to trust my dogs. I can try to command some things but by the time I get the word out, its a day late and a dollar short--moment lost. So often, I have to go with what my dog decides. This involves respect and trust and it works the same from the dog's perspective. I train other dog/handler teams and first and foremost I have to figure out their relationship--good, bad and ugly. Here, you are amongst some pretty saavy trainers so for the most part, I think they have figured this out. Whereas in the pet world or with trainers with less self awareness and objectivity, it may be an issue. I personally don't have to ever think about bonding with an animal. Hell, my ducks follow me around. Other herders want to know how to get their fowl penned at night. Mine are waiting for me and come running out of nowhere when they hear my voice. I have to work NOT to bond/connect with my trainees' dogs. 

I have been a child with dogs and I've raised a child with dogs and you betcha, that dog is bonded and connected to that child. So no, those of us that understand, love and train a dog, don't think about doing anything special to bond with them. There are trainers who don't think about bonding. Relationship to them simply means how to get the dog to work and that's through drive satisfaction and you do what I tell you to do. That works for them and can work for motivating that type of dog to work as they desire. I look at it from a different perspective. Some people won't discuss this in a working dog environment that has a tendency to say all this bonding talk is just applying human emotions to dogs. 

A lot of times I don't think dogs are given enough credit for being able to distinguish human emotions. I don't think you can fake it when you start talking about the fix it department. You either have it or you don't and the dog will know it.

T


----------



## James Downey

on the subject of kids. 

When I had my first, as well as my second. Like any first time parent I was worried about the dogs and the baby. We kept the dogs where they could see, hear, and smell the baby but they were contained in a room away from the baby. when we did introduce them a couple days later. Everyone of those dogs, recongized immediatly that the baby was a big deal. and all of them were cool and respectful. 

As for kids, I got one dog that is cries to sleep with them, lays in their doorway of their bedroom. has to be outside with them. lays by the front door when they leave. He's more than just waiting for fall out food. He loves those boys.


----------



## rick smith

it's not that i'm never satisfied, i just see things differently, and believe me a give dogs a HUGE amount of credit for being able to coexist peacefully with humans and usually read them more accurately than humans read them.

i also think the vast majority of dogs tend to be on the submissive side and that is why so many get along so well with people ... start adding a few dashes of dominance and things change exponentially ... or if they learn to react with dominance as a way to cope with fear or anxiety and it gets even worse ... in my experience the dog who is genetically dominant yet confident and social is way less common. i've always been surprised that so many working dog people do not agree, but they should at least agree that lots of working dogs must also be able to function well in a pet mode too, if they are kept in a family environment

if a dog is good with kids i think it happens because the owners show the dog that kids must be respected even if they are mot consciously aware they are doing that. the more genetically submissive, the easier that will be. but i don't think it is genetically there to begin with : that dogs respect kids. 

unfortunately i have seen quite a few who were not good with kids. some started out that way; others were conditioned by the kids' actions towards the dog that the owners failed to notice was developing. hate to use more human words, but when the dog is consciously taught mutual respect, the problems usually go away

i could list many more examples, but it really won't change anyone's opinions. 

but i do think people should be made more aware they are teaching their dog all the time whether they realize it or not, because that's a BIG way dogs learn stuff. it's not just happening when the owner thinks they are in a "dog training mode", and that's what i refer to as the bonding process and how it can be deveoped

i was asked if it might have something to do with cultural diffs. yes, since the japanese culture has only started keeping dogs in a family. it basically started as a result of the end of WWII. until then dogs were kept outside off lead to do chores like hunting; that was going on for ages. but breeding dogs to live as part of the family is relatively new. pet stores are a modern thing and breeders that raise dogs for show or competition have not been around for hundreds of years like in other countries.

but with that said, about 20% of my customers are american military families stationed here, and i see the same problems with them when i work with them and their dogs....plus, many tell me how they "have been around dogs and had dogs all their lives"... i would gustimate the USA got a 30-40 year head start over japan, time wise, but that's just a w.a.g. i've never read about a history of dogs written with that perspective

yeah, i know....i belong on a pet forum 
it's just that as long as i have been here, the more i see that also applies to working dogs too, and that's why i hang around


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

rick smith said:


> it's not that i'm never satisfied, i just see things differently, and believe me a give dogs a HUGE amount of credit for being able to coexist peacefully with humans and usually read them more accurately than humans read them.
> 
> i also think the vast majority of dogs tend to be on the submissive side and that is why so many get along so well with people ... start adding a few dashes of dominance and things change exponentially ... or if they learn to react with dominance as a way to cope with fear or anxiety and it gets even worse ... in my experience the dog who is genetically dominant yet confident and social is way less common. i've always been surprised that so many working dog people do not agree, but they should at least agree that lots of working dogs must also be able to function well in a pet mode too, if they are kept in a family environment
> 
> if a dog is good with kids i think it happens because the owners show the dog that kids must be respected even if they are mot consciously aware they are doing that. the more genetically submissive, the easier that will be. but i don't think it is genetically there to begin with : that dogs respect kids.
> 
> unfortunately i have seen quite a few who were not good with kids. some started out that way; others were conditioned by the kids' actions towards the dog that the owners failed to notice was developing. hate to use more human words, but when the dog is consciously taught mutual respect, the problems usually go away
> 
> i could list many more examples, but it really won't change anyone's opinions.
> 
> but i do think people should be made more aware they are teaching their dog all the time whether they realize it or not, because that's a BIG way dogs learn stuff. it's not just happening when the owner thinks they are in a "dog training mode", and that's what i refer to as the bonding process and how it can be deveoped
> 
> i was asked if it might have something to do with cultural diffs. yes, since the japanese culture has only started keeping dogs in a family. it basically started as a result of the end of WWII. until then dogs were kept outside off lead to do chores like hunting; that was going on for ages. but breeding dogs to live as part of the family is relatively new. pet stores are a modern thing and breeders that raise dogs for show or competition have not been around for hundreds of years like in other countries.
> 
> but with that said, about 20% of my customers are american military families stationed here, and i see the same problems with them when i work with them and their dogs....plus, many tell me how they "have been around dogs and had dogs all their lives"... i would gustimate the USA got a 30-40 year head start over japan, time wise, but that's just a w.a.g. i've never read about a history of dogs written with that perspective
> 
> yeah, i know....i belong on a pet forum
> it's just that as long as i have been here, the more i see that also applies to working dogs too, and that's why i hang around


I don't know Rick, I think you do come from a pet dog perspective and I wonder how many genetically sound dogs you've experienced/raised from puppyhood of different breeds. I've witnessed dogs that had never seen kids be 100% correct with them. Khaldi at 13 weeks would hang off your pants leg but when the toddler walked up went wiggle butt friendly and not one attempt to do anything inappropriate. Khaiba had a 5 year old walking him by never doing any more than she could tolerate over a 20 minute span. He just trotted along beside her. She was a special needs child and her mother stood there in tears watching it saying that she would scream in terror if a dog got near her and how she couldn't believe it. All this took place while we were waiting for our table at a restaurant with outdoor seating. I've had several genetically dominant, confident, social dogs. One of them, took up residence under the baby's crib the moment I brought him home from the hospital and you had to pry her away. If he cried while I was changing him, she pawed my leg as if to say wth are you doing to him. Afterwards I'd hold him down to her and she'd sniff him all over and glare at me. You don't have to teach/train these dogs to be kid tolerant or that the kid is important. I've rarely in my life have had a submissive dog, unless it was a rehab rescue that I kept. I select for a certain type of people confident dog and there is no issue with children and babies. Thor was asocial with adults and kids/babies could do no wrong. I've lived with and raised my son with three breeds and this is just a sample of what I've seen. My GSD when I was growing up had zero use for anyone else in the family. Strictly one person dog that tolerated the others. I volunteered at the humane society and they surrendered her--6 month old import out of Sch 3 4 generation pedigree. I took her home. I was talking with a friend about someone that we grew up with in an abusive relationship and commented that none of the guys ever acted that way with me. He laughed and said because they knew they would get bit. There was also Tippy, the Doberman. My mother's friend was in the hospital ill and no one had been able to get the growling Doberman out of the garage. My mother swore he would come out for me. He did and we took him home where he stayed. She used to say that a potential burglar could probably have the contents of the house, as long as he didn't cross the threshold of my bedroom. As I've said before, we are a product of our experiences. Our first family GSD [Geisler] was a dog scheduled to be put down because she was too aggressive. My dad had two weeks to "bond" with her or prove he could get her out of the kennel. Every morning on his way to work, he went and read Shakespeare to her for an hour. At the end of the two weeks, he walked her out of there. 

T


----------



## Esther Chai

rick smith said:


> it's not that i'm never satisfied, i just see things differently, and believe me a give dogs a HUGE amount of credit for being able to coexist peacefully with humans and usually read them more accurately than humans read them.
> 
> i also think the vast majority of dogs tend to be on the submissive side and that is why so many get along so well with people ... start adding a few dashes of dominance and things change exponentially ... or if they learn to react with dominance as a way to cope with fear or anxiety and it gets even worse ... in my experience the dog who is genetically dominant yet confident and social is way less common. i've always been surprised that so many working dog people do not agree, but they should at least agree that lots of working dogs must also be able to function well in a pet mode too, if they are kept in a family environment
> 
> if a dog is good with kids i think it happens because the owners show the dog that kids must be respected even if they are mot consciously aware they are doing that. the more genetically submissive, the easier that will be. but i don't think it is genetically there to begin with : that dogs respect kids.
> 
> unfortunately i have seen quite a few who were not good with kids. some started out that way; others were conditioned by the kids' actions towards the dog that the owners failed to notice was developing. hate to use more human words, but when the dog is consciously taught mutual respect, the problems usually go away
> 
> i could list many more examples, but it really won't change anyone's opinions.
> 
> but i do think people should be made more aware they are teaching their dog all the time whether they realize it or not, because that's a BIG way dogs learn stuff. it's not just happening when the owner thinks they are in a "dog training mode", and that's what i refer to as the bonding process and how it can be deveoped
> 
> i was asked if it might have something to do with cultural diffs. yes, since the japanese culture has only started keeping dogs in a family. it basically started as a result of the end of WWII. until then dogs were kept outside off lead to do chores like hunting; that was going on for ages. but breeding dogs to live as part of the family is relatively new. pet stores are a modern thing and breeders that raise dogs for show or competition have not been around for hundreds of years like in other countries.
> 
> but with that said, about 20% of my customers are american military families stationed here, and i see the same problems with them when i work with them and their dogs....plus, many tell me how they "have been around dogs and had dogs all their lives"... i would gustimate the USA got a 30-40 year head start over japan, time wise, but that's just a w.a.g. i've never read about a history of dogs written with that perspective
> 
> yeah, i know....i belong on a pet forum
> it's just that as long as i have been here, the more i see that also applies to working dogs too, and that's why i hang around


 



I feel I can relate to every word Rick has said in this thread about bonding.


I am a first time owner of a working dog. In fact I have very little experience with dogs. As a child we had a mongrel guard dog, not allowed in the house, just fed and taken out for relieve activities. He was aggressive and not easy going even with my brothers who would just ignore him. I love dogs and spend time just playing with him after school, even smuggle him into the house when no one was around. He has serious food aggression and even I would not try to even stop him killing chickens escaped from their coup. Sadly my mom found out after some time and the dog was given away to an uncle to patrol his farm. I knew then that he would not last long due to his aggression but my plea to my parents had little input.


Twenty years on, my first dog was an English Springer Spaniel puppy. Unfortunately, I did not do my checks before acquiring him from an unscrupulous kennel club breeder. He had inherent health problems (surgical correction from entropion and bilateral myringotomy plus general underlying skin problem). Coupled with that, he was extremely nervious. In some respect, this dog taught me patience.


When Ollie died aged 8 yrs old, I researched for a reputable GSD breeder. I was so excited with owning my first ever gsd. As I was staying abroad with friends, I had to use the crate which was a good thing on hindsight. I’ve never seen a puppy so wanting to bite so much. When she was 5 months old still barking at other dogs, a trainer advised me to put a small pinch and correct that behaviour. I did as told but correcting a puppy did not come natural to me. Obviously it failed, she just kept barking at passing dogs. Out of desperation and fearing that I am unable to control the puppy, I handed him the leash to show me instead. The trainer took the leash and proceeded, the pain caused my puppy to turn on him where I witnessed him hanging my puppy to avoid being bitten. I was stunned. As I haven’t been bitten by a dog in my life I was worried that I may have acquired more dog than I bargain for. 


Realising this scenario, I consciously made an effort to bond with this puppy to gain confidence in myself if I needed to correct her. The puppy was hard work being a novice with this type of dog . If I lead her to the left, she would go to the right or bite the leash. I had to learn many ways to make myself interesting so that she makes the right decisions, simple things like following me, checking in, recall, play, new experiences places, people, kids.. etc. 


When she was 11 months, she chased a boy who did a flying kick as he was approaching just a fun gesture to his mates. I did not expect her reaction and failed miserably with my recall. Thankfully with my quick thinking I summoned the lad to stop running. He frost…phew that was a close! For the next few months we played near children playground and welcome kids to stroke her. She remain aloof when I take her to the park and is absolute fine now with kids running, crying, screaming, tantrums.


So yes bonding definitely made a real difference for my confidence in handling my dog where I don’t have to shout to get my message across. She is now 6 yrs old and enjoys the comfort in the house. My skin is still intact. :razz:






*Also I take this opportunity to thank you all you members of WDF for your invaluable contributions over the years, to my learning. =D>
*


----------



## Esther Chai

Hasten to add.....My understanding of what bond means to me is a good working partnership whether in work/ sport which build on a combination of trust, respect and fair play.


----------



## Jon Harris

Bonding to me is extremely important, in fact my life may depend on it as well as others around me. The dog I have now was shy, fear aggressive to other handlers. Startled easy and was not great with new surroundings. This is exactly the type of dog the you would think was not suited for the job I do. The dog and I are inseparable. He stays in my room, he is fed watered walked played with and recently he has finally started not wanting to only play and actually laid down next to me in bed and went to sleep.
He has a crate ( his room) that he likes and stays in even when the door is open. It is his safe place.
Bond between he and I is tight. He does not like anyone else to come near me and with my line f work that is OK.
I feel that the dog now trusts me. He will go anywhere I do. He will allow me to do anything to him like hoist him on my shoulders and carry him. He even has no aversion to being hoisted by rope of rappelling with me. In fact I think he likes it.

Sounds and sites don't bother him anymore as long as I am with him. Handler dependent? sure somewhat but I am his only handler and it looks like he and I will be working for the next 4 or 5 years together.
In my line the mantra is 'Trust your dog" I do and he trust me too.
The bonding is always getting tighter and is something that only gets tighter with fair treatment. Corrections happen , abuse doesn't.

He also thinks fighting over the mouse when Im typing is great fun


----------



## Jon Harris

This is a constant fight when typing


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Jon Harris said:


> This is a constant fight when typing


Jon,

When you get back States side. You should try Barn Hunt.
Your dog already is indicating the "mouse" ;-)


----------



## Jon Harris

very funny ha ha


----------



## Faisal Khan

The biggest advantage of bonding is to predict exactly when the dog will go for your a$$ and what action you will take to prevent it yet get the job done


----------



## Chris McDonald

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Is anyone else surprised we haven't heard from Chris McDonald on this thread? I feel like it is right up his ally and his mentors have some strong feelings about bonding.
> 
> Maybe he is bonding with his dogs in the jungle somewhere Hope he is okay and doing well!


 
Ha, been reading this thread with a smile. 
Keep playing with your balls and treats. Ya ya that’s right dogs need a reward :roll:


----------



## Gillian Schuler

But only if they don't have the right attitude to the work :grin:


----------



## Gillian Schuler

What is actually a "bond" apart from being something that sticks Formica to a surfaces?

A bond between a cat and its owner is far more apparent. A cat can walk away if it feels neglected.

A dog will not.

I find it is over-rated - I have loved all my dogs but cannot honestly say the love I felt for them was returned. How would I know? They were all dependent of me. Is this a bond?

I could mollycoddle or hit them, they would still be there at the end of the day.

Some say the bond between a Police or Army dog is stronger. What about the bond between the little old lady that has no relations (or none that visit her)? Is her bond with the dog less?

The "bond" in my mind comes from the owner, be h/she sports handler, homeless citizen, child, etc. can only try to assess this but it's all subjective.


----------



## Jon Harris

i do agree that the police, army,service dog bond it stronger
as for the little old lady you mentioned I see that as more personification than a working bond
most of the elderly folks ive dealt with when it involved their pets saw them as almost their children.
army,police see the dog as a partner It is different, at least to me.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

"At least to you" but would this really overweigh the bond between a "lonely handler and h/er pet dog?

I know where you are coming from. If your dog is any way instrumental in saving your life, I understand your feelings. But, the relationship between a lonely / homeless / sick handler can bring out the same bonds?

I honestly cannot see the difference. People who are dying of a disease and only have a dog to relate to, etc.

If someone's partner dies and the bereaved just has the dog to relate to? Is this not comparable with a dog who is one's partner in the army, police, etc.

It all boils down to our needs surely?

I remember when my nephew died in a motorcycle accident at 18 yrs of age. When the dog died, the bond that had existed with the dog within the family was ruptured. A very painful experience.

The more I read the posts, the more I am convinced that this is a truly human aspect.

If a police or army handler dies in combat, the dog, if good, is transferred to another handler. Does the dog grieve?


----------



## Gillian Schuler

faisal khan said:


> the biggest advantage of bonding is to predict exactly when the dog will go for your a$$ and what action you will take to prevent it yet get the job done


\\:d/ \\:d/ \\:d/


----------



## Chris McDonald

Gillian, I don’t know if I fully agree with what you are getting at for several different reasons. 
In your cute little old lady example to me it depends on the dog. Maybe someone with more experience placing dogs than me can hop in. I have had/ seen dogs that were opportunist to the end and would look at that old lady like they owned her and she was there pet. And to a degree she was (wont get into that). 
And there are dogs that would look at that old lady knowing she is more fragile and they need to take it easy on her… kind of like you might see from a dog interacting with a kid. I don’t know exactly what the dog is thinking or feeling but how that dog deals with that lady can be on each end of the scale. This dogs simply had no respect for the little old lady….. AND in my DEFENSE I didn’t know that a little old lady was going to be the one taking care of the dog …. She wasn’t supposed to be… I would have never given the dog to that guy if I knew he wasn’t going to be the one spending the most time with the dog and he was going to leave it with his mother. WTF I mean the guy had some handler skills and it would have been a great dog for him. It wasn’t my fault we had to break the little old ladies heart and take the dog… we got her another that fits her better. 
And a very big bust city got a great new member to their swat team! So the point here is a young mali that is considered a swat level dog by a big city is not a good dog for a little old lady no matter what the bond!
The dog was a serious dog and the lady really liked it, she thought she was a bad ass grandma. She had to many people tell her that dog looks like it wants to eat me. God that was an accident waiting to happen. It wasn’t my fault, im telling you


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I actually thought that the main item here was the bond between dogs and their handlers - nothing more. Forgive me if I am wrong.

If the Malinois was given to the cancer diseased handler, who could foresee the outcome of their relationship?


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I must honestly say that many of you place too much emphasis on the bond between dog to handler.

Many dogs go on to work for another handler with the same gusto as before. Many a dog can be assigned to another handler without problem. The problem lies often with the new handler.

Very often people say when you lose a dog, don't get another one until you have finished grieving.

Sometimes just buying another pup straight afterwards can be healing. Who can turn a cold heart to a furry bundle with 4 legs?


----------



## Jon Harris

probably not different to them. Your posts seem to go both ways 
as per the Formica comment
i think the bond between the handler and the dog is very important. I think the old lady child relative with no one other than the dog it certainly a bond but in a different way Again I see this as more on the persons need for the bond and the personification of it.

With the working handler/dog bond I think it is more mutual. The handler learns the dog and learns the mood reactions and what the dog does, likes, tolerates and what conditions the dog does not like.
The dog, I feel, learns to trust the handler wont hurt him ans wont put him in a situation he cant handle
I really feel it is different.

now this is me.
let me give you a little back story where it pertains to me.
when i was involved in my accident in nov 2010 i really felt i survived because of the dog I had with me.
Had i not been a canine officer the car I was in would not have had the canine insert. That insert kept the car from wrapping around me any worse than it did. The investigators as well as the insurance adjusted said the insert probably save my life. 
Now enter the county shrink
PTSD and a little other stuff and she says as far as I'm concerned the dog saved me whether it really did or not is not important, As far as I am concerned mentally it did. The bond I had to the dog, my dog that was my partner became even stronger for me. The county shrink and I both agreed that I would not be happy anywhere working without a dog.
In fact she suggested I go into contracting over here as I would have a dog and would not be in a car ( which was causing some problems)

So you I see the bond between an army/service/police dog different than that of a pet and owner Maybe not any stronger but different. Pet owners love their dogs. The dogs depend on the owners and there is certainly a bond there.
cops/soldiers/service dog handlers/me depend of their dogs for their very lives. The dog, again, depends on the handler for everything. But i think those working dogs in these type of situations are viewed as partners by the handlers. I think the bond is very strong and after a while it just seems mutual to me.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Gillian Schuler said:


> I actually thought that the main item here was the bond between dogs and their handlers - nothing more. Forgive me if I am wrong.
> 
> If the Malinois was given to the cancer diseased handler, who could foresee the outcome of their relationship?


 
You know I don’t know what Im talking about-about this anyway, I think your right. So are you saying that the dog may have acted different if the women were sick? There could have been a different bond? Im so confused. Ill stop now.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I don't know Rick, I think you do come from a pet dog perspective and I wonder how many genetically sound dogs you've experienced/raised from puppyhood of different breeds. I've witnessed dogs that had never seen kids be 100% correct with them. Khaldi at 13 weeks would hang off your pants leg but when the toddler walked up went wiggle butt friendly and not one attempt to do anything inappropriate. Khaiba had a 5 year old walking him by never doing any more than she could tolerate over a 20 minute span. He just trotted along beside her. She was a special needs child and her mother stood there in tears watching it saying that she would scream in terror if a dog got near her and how she couldn't believe it. All this took place while we were waiting for our table at a restaurant with outdoor seating. I've had several genetically dominant, confident, social dogs. One of them, took up residence under the baby's crib the moment I brought him home from the hospital and you had to pry her away. If he cried while I was changing him, she pawed my leg as if to say wth are you doing to him. Afterwards I'd hold him down to her and she'd sniff him all over and glare at me. You don't have to teach/train these dogs to be kid tolerant or that the kid is important. I've rarely in my life have had a submissive dog, unless it was a rehab rescue that I kept. I select for a certain type of people confident dog and there is no issue with children and babies. Thor was asocial with adults and kids/babies could do no wrong. I've lived with and raised my son with three breeds and this is just a sample of what I've seen. My GSD when I was growing up had zero use for anyone else in the family. Strictly one person dog that tolerated the others. I volunteered at the humane society and they surrendered her--6 month old import out of Sch 3 4 generation pedigree. I took her home. I was talking with a friend about someone that we grew up with in an abusive relationship and commented that none of the guys ever acted that way with me. He laughed and said because they knew they would get bit. There was also Tippy, the Doberman. My mother's friend was in the hospital ill and no one had been able to get the growling Doberman out of the garage. My mother swore he would come out for me. He did and we took him home where he stayed. She used to say that a potential burglar could probably have the contents of the house, as long as he didn't cross the threshold of my bedroom. As I've said before, we are a product of our experiences. Our first family GSD [Geisler] was a dog scheduled to be put down because she was too aggressive. My dad had two weeks to "bond" with her or prove he could get her out of the kennel. *Every morning on his way to work, he went and read Shakespeare to her for an hour. At the end of the two weeks, he walked her out of there. *
> 
> T


That is so awesome!


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Jon Harris said:


> probably not different to them. Your posts seem to go both ways
> as per the Formica comment
> i think the bond between the handler and the dog is very important. I think the old lady child relative with no one other than the dog it certainly a bond but in a different way Again I see this as more on the persons need for the bond and the personification of it.
> 
> With the working handler/dog bond I think it is more mutual. The handler learns the dog and learns the mood reactions and what the dog does, likes, tolerates and what conditions the dog does not like.
> The dog, I feel, learns to trust the handler wont hurt him ans wont put him in a situation he cant handle
> I really feel it is different.
> 
> now this is me.
> let me give you a little back story where it pertains to me.
> when i was involved in my accident in nov 2010 i really felt i survived because of the dog I had with me.
> Had i not been a canine officer the car I was in would not have had the canine insert. That insert kept the car from wrapping around me any worse than it did. The investigators as well as the insurance adjusted said the insert probably save my life.
> Now enter the county shrink
> PTSD and a little other stuff and she says as far as I'm concerned the dog saved me whether it really did or not is not important, As far as I am concerned mentally it did. The bond I had to the dog, my dog that was my partner became even stronger for me. The county shrink and I both agreed that I would not be happy anywhere working without a dog.
> In fact she suggested I go into contracting over here as I would have a dog and would not be in a car ( which was causing some problems)
> 
> So you I see the bond between an army/service/police dog different than that of a pet and owner Maybe not any stronger but different. Pet owners love their dogs. The dogs depend on the owners and there is certainly a bond there.
> cops/soldiers/service dog handlers/me depend of their dogs for their very lives. The dog, again, depends on the handler for everything. But i think those working dogs in these type of situations are viewed as partners by the handlers. I think the bond is very strong and after a while it just seems mutual to me.


It can obviously be different from that of a pet owner but that is not what I have been aiming at.

Someone with a fatal disease has maybe the bond with the dog that you have in the Police, Army, etc.

I'm not talking about the average pet owner but I think I made that clear?

Bonds beteen handlers and dogs are mostly related to certain situations. You are saying that the bond between a police/army dog and that of a handler who is terminally sick and only has his dog for emotional comfort is different?

On the other hand, why should the bond between a happy handler and his pet dog be lesser than that of a police/army handler?

Maybe the happy handler does more with his dog than others?


----------



## Jon Harris

Damn, we sure need to ask the dog. Maybe they could clear this up


----------



## Catherine Gervin

Jon Harris said:


> This is a constant fight when typing


 this cracked me up!!! does he "talk" while he does this? i gave my girl a road cone to gnaw and it makes her sound this "ARRWAAAHHH WHHAAAR" grumbling one sided conversation because she had chewed off all the readily accessible pieces and the remnant is unwieldy and hard to really set upon. i just ask because of the expression on your dog's face...he looks merrily determined to delicately chew the mouse...it's very charming! perhaps less so for you, because you surely need the mouse.


----------



## Catherine Gervin

Gillian Schuler said:


> I must honestly say that many of you place too much emphasis on the bond between dog to handler.
> 
> Many dogs go on to work for another handler with the same gusto as before. Many a dog can be assigned to another handler without problem. The problem lies often with the new handler.
> 
> Very often people say when you lose a dog, don't get another one until you have finished grieving.
> 
> Sometimes just buying another pup straight afterwards can be healing. Who can turn a cold heart to a furry bundle with 4 legs?


incidentally--and i apologize for having so many random responses to this thread...to all threads, perhaps--i can 100% relate to the note about doing your grieving before getting a new dog. i had a tremendous APBT female literally a decade ago who had to be put down because of brain/ skull issues, and i could afford the MRI that explained she would not get better but would turn worse, more erratic, more violent without surgical intervention but that i could not afford that surgery, nor could i go beg my Dad for such a lot of money which only had the potential to help her IF she survived it, and they explained what a tentative percentage of IF it would have been. she could have lived the rest of her short life in a muzzle or she could get a 5k surgery and maybe...or she could be put down. i put her down, at two months short of her second birthday, and it cleaved a huge chunk out of me to do it. five years later i bought a Staffy/AmStaff cross puppy--just a sweet n' happy li'l girl and i had her for a few months before i realized that what i wanted was not a new dog, but my dead dog...i was cold for all the puppy antics and cuteness so i gave her away to a family with two young boys. their Dad would take her to work with him everyday--he was some kind of construction supervisor--and then go pick up the boys at Elementary School and she seemed delighted to be with them. five more years went by before i got my current dog--it took me that long to be ready. sooooo some people can get over their loss with the help of a new wet nose and some people should wait until they aren't hurting so much, i absolutely agree


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I'm sorry for your experience. I guess some peoole know instinctively, when to replace the old dog and when not.

I always use to say leave it time but sometimes for some people a new puppy can work wonders for the healing process.


----------



## Jon Harris

He also grabs my elbow it I dont pay attention. He is very demanding

Kind of like we work hard so we play hard

he is a nut and of course with a name like MAD it fits.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

And this is your bond? His grabbing your elbow when he wants to get your attention?

I'm not being facetious - I would genuinely like to come to an understanding with you.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

The more I read of these posts, the more I am convinced that the "bond" is in most cases, not all, outgoing from the handler.

How is it that a dog can have a bond with a handler and then, if he is sold further he can create a new bond much easier than we humans can.


----------



## rick smith

re: "Every morning on his way to work, he went and read Shakespeare to her for an hour. At the end of the two weeks, he walked her out of there. 
T
That is so awesome!"

i work with aggressive dogs
what T related probably happens a lot ...

i don't read shakespeare to em, and even if i brought a book it would probably be strapped to my arm, but i spend a lot of time when i first "meet em" doing absolutely NOTHING except maybe to eat my ham sandwich in front of them

has worked very well for me and ime there is nothing more stupid when trying to rehab an aggressive dog than trying to "tame the beast" and show em they have a new boss to "bond" to ... just to make this an ON topic comment //lol//


----------



## Jon Harris

well he doesnt bite it
and this is when Im at the computer. About the only time we get to p[lay is when we are in the room so he thinks in the room is play time.

normally the game is
he gets on the bed with a ball
Im in the chair at the computer 
he drops the ball off the bed and im suppose to throw it back to him. You see I understand my place in this game.

If we are playing and i turn to type he will sometimes put the ball in my lap or mouth my elbow to get my attention when Im trying to ignore him because i HAVE to type something

In the room there is no work.
In the mornings ( 0400) he gets fed. I go back to bed for a while and as soon as he finished he climbs in bed next to me. rolls over on his back and goes to sleep. 

Being here alone, I cant tell you how cool that is.

When we go outside the door he is all business. It is like throwing a switch. Now he pays attention to every move i make. THe is focusing on me and my actions
in the room he is focused on having fun. It is his house.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I guess I must agree with you


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Jon Harris said:


> well he doesnt bite it
> and this is when Im at the computer. About the only time we get to p[lay is when we are in the room so he thinks in the room is play time.
> 
> normally the game is
> he gets on the bed with a ball
> Im in the chair at the computer
> he drops the ball off the bed and im suppose to throw it back to him. You see I understand my place in this game.
> 
> If we are playing and i turn to type he will sometimes put the ball in my lap or mouth my elbow to get my attention when Im trying to ignore him because i HAVE to type something
> 
> In the room there is no work.
> In the mornings ( 0400) he gets fed. I go back to bed for a while and as soon as he finished he climbs in bed next to me. rolls over on his back and goes to sleep.
> 
> Being here alone, I cant tell you how cool that is.
> 
> When we go outside the door he is all business. It is like throwing a switch. Now he pays attention to every move i make. THe is focusing on me and my actions
> in the room he is focused on having fun. It is his house.


That happens to me with my current dog, the others were dfferent - you are still not êlucidating what is bonding.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

You can all tell me how your dogs relate to what you do and not do but I am not convinced that the bonding is in your minds and your minds only.


----------



## Jon Harris

you are still not êlucidating what is bonding.

I have no idea what this means Im just a dog handler

and the bond maybe is in my mind and not his maybe he just sees a kong dispenser. 

maybe he could care less

then again maybe not. Tell you what, Ill ask him in the morning what he thinks :-k


----------



## Gillian Schuler

You do that and tell me his answer :lol:


----------



## Jon Harris

he wants wants to play the game some more


----------



## rick smith

Gillian ;
"How is it that a dog can have a bond with a handler and then, if he is sold further he can create a new bond much easier than we humans can."

i'll take a stab at that ...
1. because dogs read people better than people read dogs. they are a domestic species because they need people to survive and have become dependent on that relationship...their needs are simple
2. people usually have much more complicated emotional needs to establish any kind of close bond with another human....and they can lie - dogs can't
.....which is why you can walk up to most any little kid and start bonding with them right away but cannot do that with a grown up since their brain has "matured" ..... maybe //lol//


----------



## Jon Harris

Gillian,
He says he doent know what êlucidating means either:mrgreen:


----------



## Catherine Gervin

there surely must be some kind of reciprocity between the dog and their person--they are pack animals, so maybe that is all the bond there is? a willingness to keep wagging the tail and obeying commands for the person who feeds them and logs the hours necessary to maintain them...that isn't much but it's a bond, is it not? i cannot come up with anything which isn't embarrassingly sentimental or anthropomorphizing the animals' reactions/behaviors but i cannot help but believe that it's more than diligence to training that made an impression on them which gets dogs to do things that are dangerous, painful, scary, unnatural and/or boring...it is a violation of natural law to risk your life for no reason. i also don't believe securing of a food source and the expectation of playing fetch would be enough to prompt those innumerable responses of which working dogs are capable amidst danger. many/most (?) of these dogs have experienced handling and care from more than one person, so they are aware of other feeders and other toy purveyors being out in the world...for some reason they listen to their person and they give over and over again. they may transfer that level of trust and commitment to someone new when the other person is gone--that is just being judicious--but it is beyond me to think of the relationship being totally one sided. taking good care of my dog and teaching her things and giving her exercize and fun and rules and her own place in our family is something i do because i want to, but she responds with this nebulous force that i've felt before from other sources and it certainly seems like love to me.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Like handler, like dog :grin:


----------



## Gillian Schuler

rick smith said:


> Gillian ;
> "How is it that a dog can have a bond with a handler and then, if he is sold further he can create a new bond much easier than we humans can."
> 
> i'll take a stab at that ...
> 1. because dogs read people better than people read dogs. they are a domestic species because they need people to survive and have become dependent on that relationship...their needs are simple
> 2. people usually have much more complicated emotional needs to establish any kind of close bond with another human....and they can lie - dogs can't
> .....which is why you can walk up to most any little kid and start bonding with them right away but cannot do that with a grown up since their brain has "matured" ..... maybe //lol//


I guess becase he doen't have the emotional baggage we carry around with us. A dog needs food, if he's lucky, exercise in form of walks outside, no more or less. If he's extremely lucky he gets to go to training, i.e schutzdienst, tracking, obedience but this isn't necessary.

Mensch! I'm nearly offto bed now, I get up early and walk the dog before going to my English lessons in the town below.


----------



## Jon Harris

This has been fun

There is little distraction here. No mail, No tv, No store, No PX, 
*speaking of bonding* I really appreciate the way this forum has treated me over the years First when I was in Afghanistan and now three years later in Iraq. You are basically feeding me and taking me walking.
You are all good people

Uncle Lou still around?


----------



## rick smith

re "If he's extremely lucky he gets to go to training"
unless he's a pit being "trained" to fight dogs .... but even a lot of those do fine and bond with their "next" owner


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Catherine Gervin said:


> there surely must be some kind of reciprocity between the dog and their person--they are pack animals, so maybe that is all the bond there is? a willingness to keep wagging the tail and obeying commands for the person who feeds them and logs the hours necessary to maintain them...that isn't much but it's a bond, is it not? i cannot come up with anything which isn't embarrassingly sentimental or anthropomorphizing the animals' reactions/behaviors but i cannot help but believe that it's more than diligence to training that made an impression on them which gets dogs to do things that are dangerous, painful, scary, unnatural and/or boring...it is a violation of natural law to risk your life for no reason. i also don't believe securing of a food source and the expectation of playing fetch would be enough to prompt those innumerable responses of which working dogs are capable amidst danger. many/most (?) of these dogs have experienced handling and care from more than one person, so they are aware of other feeders and other toy purveyors being out in the world...for some reason they listen to their person and they give over and over again. they may transfer that level of trust and commitment to someone new when the other person is gone--that is just being judicious--but it is beyond me to think of the relationship being totally one sided. taking good care of my dog and teaching her things and giving her exercize and fun and rules and her own place in our family is something i do because i want to, but she responds with this nebulous force that i've felt before from other sources and it certainly seems like love to me.


I agree. It is hard for me to believe that people don't think a dog attaches to a human beyond their biological needs. I can only say that perhaps they close themselves off to that aspect of the dog or they haven't had the ones that do. Once you've been in situations where the dogs on their own accord put it on the line for you, it gives bond a whole new meaning. My mother who really isn't a dog person but observed mine and my dad's relationships with dogs would be appalled at the idea that its satisfaction of biological needs that motivates the dog's aspect of the relationship. She would tell you that they refuse food, elimination and anything else unless it came from one of us. As long as they thought it possible for their needs to be satisfied by that one person, they didn't seek or accept that satisfaction from anyone else. I think a lot of this is very much grounded in pack principles which some people are selectively breeding out.

T


----------



## leslie cassian

Does bonding with a new handler negate the bond with the old handler? 

If a previous handler returned, would there still be a bond? Could they pick up a working relationship again? 

While some dogs may be 'one-man dogs', I think there are lots of dogs that are quite social and capable of being friends (bonding) with multiple humans on different levels.


----------



## maggie fraser

Gillian Schuler said:


> I guess becase he doen't have the emotional baggage we carry around with us. A dog needs food, if he's lucky, exercise in form of walks outside, no more or less. If he's extremely lucky he gets to go to training, i.e schutzdienst, tracking, obedience but this isn't necessary.
> 
> Mensch! I'm nearly offto bed now, I get up early and walk the dog before going to my English lessons in the town below.


I think that's a pretty sad attitude re; _A dog needs food, if he's lucky, exercise in form of walks outside, no more or less. If he's extremely lucky he gets to go to training, i.e schutzdienst, tracking, obedience but this isn't necessary._

Big on quality of life, aren't you Gillian? Hell, that is all we need too huh, food, water and a wee bit exercise?

I think we are still trying to agree on what bond (bonding) is.

I think bond is reciprocal positive emotional connection/attachment. I quite like this articulation....

Since most of us routinely read emotions in our dogs (wagging tail means happy, cringing means afraid and so forth) it may be difficult to believe that the existence of real emotions in dogs was, and in some places still is, a point of scientific controversy. In the distant past it was presumed that dogs had very rich mental lives with feelings much like those of humans. However with the rise of science things began to change. We learned enough about the principles of physics and mechanics, so that we could build complex machines, and began to notice that living things (both people and animals) were also based upon by systems governed by mechanical rules and chemical processes. In the face of such discoveries, religions stepped in to suggest that there must be more to human beings than simply mechanical and chemical events. Church scholars insisted that people have souls, and the evidence they gave for this was the fact that humans have consciousness and feelings. Animals might have the same mechanical systems, but they did not have a divine spark, and therefore they do not have the ability to experience true feelings.

Since most research at the time was church sponsored it is not surprising that prominent scholars, such as the French philosopher and scientist René Descartes adopted this viewpoint. In a highly influential set of analyses, Descartes suggested that animals like dogs were simply some kind of machine. He would thus describe my Beagle, Darby, as simply being a dog-shaped chassis, filled with the biological equivalent of gears and pulleys. Although this machine doesn't have consciousness and emotions it can still be programmed to do certain things. 
In recent times science has progressed a long way beyond Descartes and we now understand that dogs have all of the same brain structures that produce emotions in humans. Dogs also have the same hormones and undergo the same chemical changes that humans do during emotional states. Dogs even have the hormone oxytocin, which, in humans, is involved with feeling love and affection for others. With the same neurology and chemistry that people have, it seems reasonable to suggest that dogs also have emotions that are similar to ours.

Taken from here.... http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201303/which-emotions-do-dogs-actually-experience

I think the quality of bonding (when existent), re working/pet is as much about the individuals and their individual circumstances, none can say one is better or stronger than the other in a generic sense as we are all individual. To me it is what makes a relationship more fulfilling and more positive, trusting and reliable, and can go a long way when it comes to training/working, or living with animals. 

Everyone else is having a good babble on this thread thought I'd join in.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

maggie fraser said:


> I think that's a pretty sad attitude re; _A dog needs food, if he's lucky, exercise in form of walks outside, no more or less. If he's extremely lucky he gets to go to training, i.e schutzdienst, tracking, obedience but this isn't necessary._
> 
> Big on quality of life, aren't you Gillian? Hell, that is all we need too huh, food, water and a wee bit exercise?
> 
> I think we are still trying to agree on what bond (bonding) is.
> 
> I think bond is reciprocal positive emotional connection/attachment. I quite like this articulation....
> 
> Since most of us routinely read emotions in our dogs (wagging tail means happy, cringing means afraid and so forth) it may be difficult to believe that the existence of real emotions in dogs was, and in some places still is, a point of scientific controversy. In the distant past it was presumed that dogs had very rich mental lives with feelings much like those of humans. However with the rise of science things began to change. We learned enough about the principles of physics and mechanics, so that we could build complex machines, and began to notice that living things (both people and animals) were also based upon by systems governed by mechanical rules and chemical processes. In the face of such discoveries, religions stepped in to suggest that there must be more to human beings than simply mechanical and chemical events. Church scholars insisted that people have souls, and the evidence they gave for this was the fact that humans have consciousness and feelings. Animals might have the same mechanical systems, but they did not have a divine spark, and therefore they do not have the ability to experience true feelings.
> 
> Since most research at the time was church sponsored it is not surprising that prominent scholars, such as the French philosopher and scientist René Descartes adopted this viewpoint. In a highly influential set of analyses, Descartes suggested that animals like dogs were simply some kind of machine. He would thus describe my Beagle, Darby, as simply being a dog-shaped chassis, filled with the biological equivalent of gears and pulleys. Although this machine doesn't have consciousness and emotions it can still be programmed to do certain things.
> In recent times science has progressed a long way beyond Descartes and we now understand that dogs have all of the same brain structures that produce emotions in humans. Dogs also have the same hormones and undergo the same chemical changes that humans do during emotional states. Dogs even have the hormone oxytocin, which, in humans, is involved with feeling love and affection for others. With the same neurology and chemistry that people have, it seems reasonable to suggest that dogs also have emotions that are similar to ours.
> 
> Taken from here.... http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201303/which-emotions-do-dogs-actually-experience
> 
> I think the quality of bonding (when existent), re working/pet is as much about the individuals and their individual circumstances, none can say one is better or stronger than the other in a generic sense as we are all individual. To me it is what makes a relationship more fulfilling and more positive, trusting and reliable, and can go a long way when it comes to training/working, or living with animals.
> 
> Everyone else is having a good babble on this thread thought I'd join in.


And its high time you did. Saved me study hunting. Of course when the studies come out, my usual response is "duhhhhh. . ." but I guess everyone needs some sort of proof.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

leslie cassian said:


> Does bonding with a new handler negate the bond with the old handler?
> 
> If a previous handler returned, would there still be a bond? Could they pick up a working relationship again?
> 
> While some dogs may be 'one-man dogs', I think there are lots of dogs that are quite social and capable of being friends (bonding) with multiple humans on different levels.


I agree with you. As for the previous handler, the answer is yes, the bond will still be there. Any dog I've had or whelped, so far has remembered that relationship and I can always work them. My dogs accept the family pack structure even if they are more "one person." The one person types can care less about humans outside of the pack. Its not that they can't re-attach or form new pack relationships. They just see no need to as long as the existing one is intact. Bottom line, dogs have social needs that exist beyond biological satisfaction. Of course, if all you see them as is tools, then you perhaps don't see that aspect of them. 

T


----------



## maggie fraser

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> And its high time you did. Saved me study hunting. Of course when the studies come out, my usual response is "duhhhhh. . ." but I guess everyone needs some sort of proof.
> 
> T


That's for the folks one calls 'empty vessels'  It's not really derogatory as such, not really, it is just what it is .


----------



## Chris McDonald

First
I see people bought up a few times that the dog works for people because the dog knows it needs people to eat and survive? Etc. 
Do you guys really think that the dog puts 2 & 2 together? I don’t know if I agree with it. I mean I really don’t think the dog thinks that it needs me to survive or he needs to make me happy to get feed?
It doesn’t add up with what a dog is willing to do for us humans. In many cases in the past not only were us humans not necessarily responsible for feeding the dog, the dog had more responsibility of helping to feed us than we did of feeding it. 

Second
I haven’t read everything in this thread but I am impressed that the whole LE and masturbating thing hasn’t been bought up. You guys should be proud of yourselves, you grew up a bit.


----------



## Catherine Gervin

as far as animals not having souls--and therefore not going to heaven (or hell) i agree with Will Rogers and his "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went"


----------



## maggie fraser

Catherine Gervin said:


> as far as animals not having souls--and therefore not going to heaven (or hell) i agree with Will Rogers and his "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went"


I was raised Roman Catholic, I think I was five years old or so when I was 'taught' animals have no soul, I never believed another single word since!!


----------



## Jennifer Andress

Chris McDonald said:


> I see people bought up a few times that the dog works for people because the dog knows it needs people to eat and survive? Etc.
> Do you guys really think that the dog puts 2 & 2 together? I don’t know if I agree with it. I mean I really don’t think the dog thinks that it needs me to survive or he needs to make me happy to get feed?


I want to preface this by saying that I don't think it is _at all_ the same thing as having a bond, but...

...yes, I've definitely had dogs who knew (and, I will project, were in some way grateful) that I was giving them food.

Just about every one of my foster dogs was extremely underweight upon arrival, and in several instances were found in circumstances that indicate they were starving. I had one who was found at the side of a road, scrounging for roadkill to feed her babies. (The animal control officer who found her there found two of her puppies in the exact same location the next day. One was so malnourished that it died a few days later, the other survived and was adopted.) I had two others who were caught and taken to the pound because they were found scavenging garbage, one in a lady's back yard and another at an illegal dump site. All of these dogs were emaciated on intake. My Akita mix Crookytail was the most extreme example: his healthy weight is about 85 pounds, and he was 45 pounds when found.

When a dog goes from starving in the back woods to getting regular meals of high-end kibble and meat every day in exchange for something as simple as a Sit + eye contact, yep, I absolutely believe that dog knows the difference.

How far you can generalize from that to dogs that have no history of hardship, I don't know. And I certainly won't argue that it's universal to every starved dog ever, either. But my specific experiences with those specific dogs leads me to believe that yes, it is possible for at least some dogs with that background to make the connection that "people = do a little easy work = food."

And of course there are lots of stories about village dogs who play cute with tourists to get food handouts, etc. So I don't think it's a particularly difficult connection for (some) dogs to make.


----------



## Jennifer Andress

Having made that post, with 30 seconds' reflection I think it's a very silly post, but I guess I'll just leave it up there so my inanity can remain a matter of public record.

oh well.


----------



## maggie fraser

Was that last post ^^ a wind up? No offence intended, Chris could prolly do with the revision lol


----------



## Jennifer Andress

maggie fraser said:


> Was that last post ^^ a wind up? No offence intended, Chris could prolly do with the revision lol


Mine? No, it was a (really stupid) serious response to a question that I belatedly realized couldn't possibly be serious at all.

Sorry, I'm still learning to read tones on this board. 8-[


----------



## Chris McDonald

The questions were serious and I can see the point to the response but I dont think I explained my question right. Like most everything else there just aint a one answer fits all. I don’t know if a learned trait of playing cute for a treat is the same as a dog willing to work protecting a hen house every day for 10 years. Does the dog protecting the hen house really understand that he is exchanging his service for a bowl of food? I was trying to point out that I think the dog feels obligated to help or work for man, many possible reasons. There is some dog-man bond that allows for the dog – handler bond. There is more to it than a bowl of kibble. Someone mentioned that maybe his dog saw him as a kong dispenser. I see the point but to me that is just showing how blind everyone has become. Dogs were working for man way longer than this recent ball, tug, kong, treat trend. This whole ball, tug drive thing is wreaking the dog as bad as the aspca.


----------



## Jon Harris

I was the kong dispenser poster. It was clearly not the way i feel from the myriad of other posts on this topic i have made.

That term comes from us detection handlers that have push button dogs. Dogs that dont need us in the equasion at all to find the odor they are trained for. They do the pattern on their own go to the vehicle on their own and if nothing there move on to the ext on their own without direction from the handler at that point we become kong dispensers ( in that situation)


----------



## rick smith

Chris
what is it with your preoccupation with the ball,kong,toy thing ?
i don't recall them being used in ref to bonding even tho this thread has explained it in just about every other way imaginable 

but if you don't know what makes a (domestic) dog a dog rather than just a few generations away from reverting back to being a wolf, you probably wouldn't be able to recognize the difference if you met one in the jungle 

i don't get the LE and meat pounding comment either ... what am i missing here ?

one thing funny about this thread is that it has something for everyone and nothing for everyone...but then again, what long thread doesn't 
...when does it get to the point where it spins into a "locked" mode ? ...... rotflmao


----------



## Meg O'Donovan

This has been a long and winding thread to read, very interesting to me.

Thanks for the Will Roger's quote; I'd not heard that before.

Here's news of another scientific study as "food for thought". The title/headline of the article is silly. Read past it until you get to the brain science part of the article. I think that may have some relevance to this topic of bonding and dog's perceptions/brain function.

www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too.html


----------



## rick smith

interesting article .... Tx for posting
- i think the best part of that article was that dogs were able to be trained to stay still in an MRI chamber

regarding this part :
"In dogs, we found that activity in the caudate increased in response to hand signals indicating food. The caudate also activated to the smells of familiar humans."
... not very enlightening or surprising since they were testing well trained dogs that were likely "well bonded" to their owners 

"And in preliminary tests, it activated to the return of an owner who had momentarily stepped out of view."
... ditto

" Do these findings prove that dogs love us? Not quite."
... somewhat of an understatement 

"But many of the same things that activate the human caudate, which are associated with positive emotions, also activate the dog caudate. Neuroscientists call this a functional homology, and it may be an indication of canine emotions."
... obviously these studies are in the VERY preliminary stages, but i guess it's kinda cool that they are even being attempted 

my only problem is that it will be hard to get any comparison to dogs that are NOT well conditioned and "MRI certified" and therefore the data may be skewed in one direction


----------



## Chris McDonald

rick smith said:


> Chris
> what is it with your preoccupation with the ball,kong,toy thing ?
> i don't recall them being used in ref to bonding even tho this thread has explained it in just about every other way imaginable
> 
> I don’t think you need any of them. I do think they are used as a reference in bonding, just for the dog-ball bond. Not a dog-man bond.
> 
> but if you don't know what makes a (domestic) dog a dog rather than just a few generations away from reverting back to being a wolf, you probably wouldn't be able to recognize the difference if you met one in the jungle
> 
> No understand?
> 
> i don't get the LE and meat pounding comment either ... what am i missing here ?
> 
> Ya? Holly cow I must be getting real old? I have only been playing with dogs for 7 or 8 years? New k9 guys were told that there bond was important and how they were able to improve their bond. Just a bad, old, slow joke (except for the guys who fell for it). Im pretty sure it has been spoken about on this site in the past. I think there was a few newspaper clippings about this happening?
> 
> one thing funny about this thread is that it has something for everyone and nothing for everyone...but then again, what long thread doesn't
> ...when does it get to the point where it spins into a "locked" mode ? ...... rotflmao


----------



## Chris McDonald

Jon Harris said:


> I was the kong dispenser poster. It was clearly not the way i feel from the myriad of other posts on this topic i have made.
> 
> That term comes from us detection handlers that have push button dogs. Dogs that dont need us in the equasion at all to find the odor they are trained for. They do the pattern on their own go to the vehicle on their own and if nothing there move on to the ext on their own without direction from the handler at that point we become kong dispensers ( in that situation)


 
Understood, Do you think it can be done without a kong, ball?


----------



## Jon Harris

not sure what "it" you are referring to. In detection, there will be a reward for correct behavior be it a toy or a rag or whatever it is a perceived reward for good correct behavior in that context.

reward as in toy for bonding? I don't see it as the issue or really a part of it. Maybe that the handler rewards maybe but that is praise also.

no the bonding I have been taking about is different. It is emotional and I do believe the dogs can have and respond that way. As to souls? Dogs probably have kinder souls than people. 
I'm will Will Rogers on that part.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Jon Harris said:


> not sure what "it" you are referring to. In detection, there will be a reward for correct behavior be it a toy or a rag or whatever it is a perceived reward for good correct behavior in that context.
> 
> reward as in toy for bonding? I don't see it as the issue or really a part of it. Maybe that the handler rewards maybe but that is praise also.
> 
> no the bonding I have been taking about is different. It is emotional and I do believe the dogs can have and respond that way. As to souls? Dogs probably have kinder souls than people.
> I'm will Will Rogers on that part.


 
Sorry, I was not to clear. I meant do you think a dog could be taught to search for odor as yours does without the “reward” as you define it. 
This line leads me to believe that you might think the “reward” method as you define it is the only method? 
In detection, there will be a reward for correct behavior be it a toy or a rag or whatever it is a perceived reward for good correct behavior in that context.

I have skipped around and did not read exactly what you are speaking of but yes, I agree with you regarding the dogs soul. The dog likely dos not have to deal with greed, wrath etc. and some of those others.
Maybe Gluttony


----------



## Jon Harris

well, ive never seen detection ever trained or anything else for that matter without a reward. that is something the dog perceives as worth doing the trained behavior for. toys praise food all all rewrd based the other way is strict compulsion where the dog preforms the desired behavior to avoid punishment . That will work also but not in the long run i believe.

A dog that does what he is told to only avoid punishment will find other ways to avoid the bad stuff like run away, not come close to the handler or retaliate

the dog that is trained through reward will want to get the reward and therefore look on the tasks as in his own interest to do and not avoid.

There will also normally be a little but of mix of the two. some correction ( compulsion) for bad behavior and then reward for correct behavior. 

I dont know how you would teach a detection dog without some type of reward at least not until he can talk and understand spoken word and negotiate an agreement as to work.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Jon Harris said:


> well, ive never seen detection ever trained or anything else for that matter without a reward. that is something the dog perceives as worth doing the trained behavior for. toys praise food all all rewrd based the other way is strict compulsion where the dog preforms the desired behavior to avoid punishment . That will work also but not in the long run i believe.
> 
> A dog that does what he is told to only avoid punishment will find other ways to avoid the bad stuff like run away, not come close to the handler or retaliate
> 
> the dog that is trained through reward will want to get the reward and therefore look on the tasks as in his own interest to do and not avoid.
> 
> There will also normally be a little but of mix of the two. some correction ( compulsion) for bad behavior and then reward for correct behavior.
> 
> I dont know how you would teach a detection dog without some type of reward at least not until he can talk and understand spoken word and negotiate an agreement as to work.


 
I agree I don’t think there should be corrections in odor work


----------



## Jon Harris

agreed the dog is never corrected in detection simply not rewarded unless correct behavior is displayed.

they learn quickly what will get the reward and what wont.

i saw this the clearest in detection training with a dog that had a tendency to false.

run the dog it alerts on nothing. handler does nothing and waits the dog out to leave the false alert and go on with the search but bringing the dog back to the exact spot where he false alerted. if he does it again , wait it out and repeat. sooner than later the dog will not alert on that spot because it is getting him nothing. continue the search to a good alert and reward.
it only takes a very few times to correct a false alerting dog ( one that is cheating to get the reward) or thinks the desired behavior is to alert and hasnt made the connection to alert only on trained odor. It is easy to get him to where he wont false alert anymore. It is an easy thing to fix and Ive seen so many handlers get wrapped around the axle over this.


----------

