There are some current buzzwords popular in dog training right now: Pack, Leadership, Discipline, Boundaries, Balance, Structure. Each of these words has value, and merit in the dog training world. I dont mean to pretend like they dont but I have to be honest when I hear them, I brace myself for the next few sentences, because experience has taught me Im probably not going to like what I hear next. You see there are some buzzwords missing from the dialogue: Empathy, Choice, Companionship, Guidance, Cooperation. These are equally, perhaps more important than the current vogue. There seems to be another type of balance that is often missing from the conversation on balance. The focus on the first 5 concepts taken on their own create a bottom heavy training program and philosophy. What I do mean by bottom heavy? Good question. I mean its clumsy and limited. I mean, that it makes for lots of control over dogs, but not a lot of life improvement for dogs because it leaves out important keys to the dogs sense of well-being. In many cases it is simply imposing ones will upon the dog and calling it training. Such a program is easy to develop and easy to maintain. It can work like clockwork, teaching structure and discipline and leadership often means wearing the dogs out and reducing their choices to next to nothing, and proclaiming the dogs behavior fixed because the dog has no real opportunity to engage in it. I know, I practiced this philosophy for years. This is very impressive to clients, and will earn you lines of happy customers. But what about the dog. Is the dog happier? Here is a myth I must firmly and irreversibly bust if I am at all capable. Dogs do not seek desire rules! They desire clarity. No dog wakes up in the morning thinking I sure hope someone keeps me from stealing chicken bones from the trash today. No friends, dogs dont desire boundaries. They would rather live without rules. What they desire though is clarity. Theres a difference. And its a big one. The imposing of rules is about us: The human. There isnt anything wrong with that, but lets call it what it is. *I* dont want my dog doing x therefore Im going to teach him to do x. Or, I want my dog to sit when I tell him so Im going teach him to do that. Rules, are about us. They do help the dog know what we want and thats a good thing, but its not that the dog wants us to create rules, he just wants to understand them if they exist. He seeks clarity, not rules. Clarity recognizes that we have chosen to limit our dogs behavior to make our lives easier and happier, and makes sure they understand where the line is, so they can choose to stay in bounds. Clarity enables the dog to live by the rules safely and with confidence. Thats our obligation to them and they do need it. They will gravitate towards those who make sense. Too often this is interpreted as them seeking strong leadership and so well-meaning trainers begin to lay the leadership on thick and heavy. Thats a cultural norm I guess. If a 75 pound Shepherd is good, a 100 pound one should be better right? If a little leadership is good, a lot more must be better right? Wrong. Restricting freedom is a great way to create clarity and its a great shortcut for those who dont have the time to actually have a dialog with the dog, and teach him to manage his own behavior. If you want a one size fits most program that will inpress clients fast, restrict dogs freedom with 100% structured activities and you will certainly be able to do so. But if you really want to help dogs (not just their families) you must teach them to enjoy their freedom responsibly. That takes work. It takes more work and greater understanding. You must move beyond structure into true liberty. What dog seeks isnt more rules, or even a strong leader. They seek clarity, consistency and security. If you provide those things, the dog will gravitate to you with neither of you thinking about who is in charge. When I start working with a dog, I begin by establishing not leadership, but intent. I make sure the dog understands that my intent is a peaceful relationship. I dont demand or expect anything from the dog. I merely ask that he tolerate my presence and I will tolerate his. This is the first step any two dogs who meet on the street will take. Who are you? What are you after? Do you want to hurt me? Once intent is established, we can start to establish a cooperative process. I begin to teach. Now here is an important distinction. Not all good leaders are teachers, but all good teachers are leaders. A good teacher doesnt set out to be a good leader (neither does a good leader in all probability) he sets out to be a good teacher. It just so happens that the act of teaching develops the kind of trust and communication that go hand in hand with leadership. To accept the teacher, the student must first acknowledge a degree of authority if only in a limited sense. I never say to a dog, I am the leader in this relationship I never take the leadership position I teach. I teach with respect, and awareness and a sense of commitment to the dogs well-being. It just so happens that those traits are also traits universally employed by real leaders in the real world. Seeking leadership for its own sake is an ego driven act. Guiding another being through a world he cannot quite fathom is an act of service. Which brings me to the concept of alphabetizing. Let me start with a confession. My dog eats before I do, usually goes through the door first, walks in front of me ( sometimes runs as much as 30 feet ahead) and will get on the couch and lay on me. All of that means exactly 0 about her status in my pack it means nothing to me, and it means less to her. Heres why, while shes eating kibble, Im eating a steak or pizza, or ice cream or any number of things that she knows are way more appealing than her food. if shes taking her cues about who is in charge based on controlling food (and Im not convinced she is) then it is less likely about the order of the eating than it is about the value of the food. On walks, if I switch directions, she follows (then passes) if I stop she stops and returns to me, or at least waits for me, if I call her she comes. Marching order doesnt determine authority to dogs, the act of following (from in front or behind) expresses it. If marching order really did have anything to do with who was in charge in the dog community, how would the leader deal with a dog who was moving ahead? Would he put him on a leash and restrain him whenever he tried to move in front? How would he fix that problem? Doesnt it make more sense to suggest that followers follow out of deference when leadership has been earned? There is a difference between something that is an expression of a relationship and something that creates that relationship. But Im fairly convinced that marching order doesnt necessarily denote rank. For example, do you suppose while on a hunt a the swiftest wolf will slow down to ensure that the leader gets to the prey animal first? Or do you suppose he uses his superior speed to get there first and slow it down for the others? Heres another example, when a police officer sends a K-9 into a building, who goes in first? The handler? The dog? Do you suppose the dog is confused as to who the leader is? The reality is that the leader determines when the group moves, when they stop and what direction they move. He can do that from the front or the back. The behavior required from the rest of the group for him to do that is awareness of his position and movement. A dog need not be behind me to have awareness of my position and movement. He does not take this as a right, it is a privilege he is granted by a social group that trusts him. Which brings up another subject. Please, stop referring to your family of dogs as your pack. Its not that theres something wrong with the word (its a perfectly serviceable word), but my dogs are family and the word is usually connected with the same alpha, dominant, rules and structure mind set that I have been talking about up to this point. The problem is that dogs are not wolves, and dog packs dont behave like wolf packs. Thousands of years of domestication have created a species that is better suited to live among humans than among wolves. Let me say that again, because it bears repeating. Thousands of years of domestication have created a species that is better suited to live among humans than wolves. Its big business to teach people that if we act more like wolves than humans our dogs will respect us more, and will be better behaved. There are two problems with that theory. The first problem I just said twice. The second, is that for the most part, those who say such things havent the faintest idea how wolves behave in the real world. Those who do, find more contrasts than comparisons between wolves and dogs. Dogs have developed observation and communication skills that uniquely suit them for life among humans. These adaptations are what make them so successful as domesticated creatures. The dog is the only species on the planet (aside from us) whose natural habitat is with humans. Thats significant and should serve as a strong deterrent towards those who insist on mimicking wolf behavior as an effort to take control of their pack. But Im not saying that any real harm will come from trying to implement wolf protocols in your own home, except you will probably have to work harder than necessary and may confuse the dog a bit. There is an upside though. The reason pack behavior based trainers succeed is that they do make their clients super aware of their behavior and by doing so help them to create consistency. Moreover, by establishing these alphabetizing rituals, they get the owner creating clear expectations of the dogs behavior, which contributes to communication. As weve already established, clear communication and consistency are good things. But theres no need to frame it in terms of a third species not actually represented in the process. Man is not dog, dog is not man, neither man nor dog is wolf. How on earth will emulating wolf behavior make us more clear to the dog than emulating dog behavior would? I can hear the answers now But we dont often have the chance to see how dogs behave free from human interaction, we can see it in wolves! My response to that is Right! because dogs were designed to exist primarily in the presence of man! If we did our jobs as stewards of the species we created there would be no feral dogs. They exist because we discarded them. So shouldnt we measure in terms of their most natural state of existence and not an unnatural state the species wasnt designed for? Or from another point of view. If you want to understand how dogs interact with people, and how to influence how dogs interact with people, should you A) Study how wolves interact with each other? or B) Study how dogs interact with people. Framed that way, the answer seems obvious. The reality is, if we want to understand the dog, we need not look into feral dogs, or their wild ancestors. We also do not need to look to sterile laboratories and Skinner boxes. We merely need to open our eyes and pay attention to the conversation thats happening right in our own living rooms and kitchens and backyards. We share lives with these creatures, why look further than the ones we need to understand the most (the ones in front of us)? Your dog stands ready to tell you everything he knows about being a dog, and everything you need to know about him, if you are willing to listen .
Posted on: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:55:34 +0000