Dog Bite

pandaboy

Hi all, would love some advice on this.

I've a 4 year old shih tzu, had him since he was a pup. He's always been protective around his food so we leave him be when he eats. He's an indoor pet, walked but not regular enough. I've just moved back home so I've been walking him. Anyway, I was out in the back garden. He was out with me doing his business, I went to go to the back door and he rushed ahead of me as he normally does, but he started growling before I could open the door. It was as if he was being impatient. I said no, stepped away and moved from the door just to let him know tha I wouldn't let him in if he growled.

Anyway, a few minutes later he seemed calm and I went to rub him, he growled and latched onto my hand. I'm pretty upset because he's had his moments in the past but he's never bitten me properly before, like if he growls I'll let him calm down. The cut's deep enough, after drawing blood.
If someone could give me advice on what to do with the cut, and whether I should see a doctor that would be great.

More importantly though, I've kept him out the back. I don't want to bring him in because I want him to learn that what he did was wrong and he won't be allowed inside because of this (is this a right thing to do or will it make things worse?)

I feel terrible because I don't know what to do here, especially right now.

cocker5

OP,

Firstly sorry to hear your dog bit you .. not a nice situation to be in...
Clean to bite and put savlon on it, when was the last time you had teatnus shot?

Secondly levaing him out the back wont solve anything he doesnt know why you are leaving him out there. Dogs dont think like humans,... they dont think back at what they have done, they think now , in the present. So by leaving him out is serving no purpose really.

What way did you react when he bit you? did you shout etc?

Thirdly has he been checked out by a vet? alot of time dogs bit due to stress / pain... so you need to rule out 100% theres nothing medically wrong with him..

You mentioned you recently moved home.... is there much physical contact from other members of the family? ie is your dog well handled by your parents? if not then he wouldnt be used to contact and reacted normally...

If he is well used to being petted / cuddled then maybe its a medical problem ??

celica00

First of all, he wont understand that he is outside because of what he did.
It sounds like serious respect/dominant issues.
If that would have happened with a so called fighting dog, most of the people would put them down.
Get a proper training and loads of different excercise if he has not enough!


EDIT: Dont train or do stuff if you are not confident enough, I suggest to visit a dog-school or courses with him or let you show some basic stuff from someone who is experienced.

pandaboy

Thanks for your replies.

@cocker5, I didn't react at all. I stood back, kept quiet, held my hand and sat down. I didn't stand my ground, more shock than anything. He hasn't had a check up with the vet in a while. The parents have been talking about getting him destroyed for fear of this happening again. He does have dominance issues. I'm more inclined to avoid this and have him trained properly. Would medical castration help in any way?
He's treated like a human being more than a pet. He gets a lot of contact, but some times such as food or leaving the house he gets quite dominant. I've suggested feeding him outside, he he can growl quite heavily if you're within 6 feet of him eating, even passing by.

@celica00 I'm more inclined to go the training route. I'm extremely close to this dog and the last thing I would consider would be to have him destroyed. Again, I'm in shock right now from the bite.

tk123

Firstly I hope your hand is ok! What you're calling 'dominance' sounds more like resource guarding which (this is not a dig at you) you've admitted the dog has shown for years and you/your family never addressed. Your best course of action imo is to take him for a checkup to rule out any medical issues (dogs can lash out if they're in pain) then contact a qualified behaviouirst who'll come to your house and give you one to one training. If you let us know your location somebody will be able to recommend a behaviorist near you or check out apdt.ie

cocker5

Pandaboy...

what i meant was you should have shouted NO!! and gave out to him when he bit you. I wouldnt tolerate that from any dog etc...

If he hasnt been to a vet in ages then DEF bring him to the Vet to rule out any medical issues / pain issues. Im not too sure if neutering can help him, in many cases it can reduce aggressiveness but its not a given, but its worth a look

I wouldnt rush down the PTS route until you have explored all other avenues.

he does sound quiet domiant (Resource guarding)... tell your parents to stop treating him like a baby, he is a dog and yes part of your family but not a baby, an animal. You mentioned he has had his moments but its never been addressed... your bit today is the result of ignoring this behaviour (really hope you are ok).

Def feed him outside...

Try these guys they should be able to help with his issues...

http://www.dogtrainingireland.ie/home.php

These websites may be able to help you:

http://www.dogstrust.ie/az/a/aggression/aggressionwhy09.aspx

http://www.2ndchance.info/aggressivedog.htm

http://dogs.about.com/od/dogbehaviorproblems/a/causes-of-aggression-in-dogs.htm

DBB

cocker5 wrote: »

Pandaboy...

what i meant was you should have shouted NO!! and gave out to him when he bit you. I wouldnt tolerate that from any dog etc...

No, not recommended. By punishing the dog for growling, snapping, or biting, you're punishing his warning system. By punishing his warning system, you're training him to bite seemingly unprovoked. Or to bite harder than he already did.
Giving out to a dog for an aggressive act does not make the blindest bit of difference, or can make the problem worse. It will not stop him being aggressive, because it will not address the cause of his aggression.
That's why OP needs to see a behaviourist who is qualified to know what to do in these circumstances.
It's not about punishing the behaviour (in this case, aggression), it's about digging deeper to find out why the dog feels the need to bite, and addressing that. In other words, it's about addressing the emotions which caused the dog to feel the need to bite in the first place.

he does sound quiet domiant (Resource guarding)...

There is no such thing as a dominant dog.
They do not exist.
It is a complete fantasy which has been disproven.
Resource guarding is not dominance. It's resource guarding.
If a person tried to take my wallet off me, I'd get really angry with them. Does that mean I'm dominant? No, it means that I'm peed off that they tried to take something that's mine.
Believe me, it's no different for dogs.
It is these quack diagnoses of "dominance", a state of mind that has been proven not to exist in either wolves of dogs, that causes people to get hurt, and dogs to get put to sleep. Misdiagnosis is worse than no diagnosis at all.
Please read http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org.uk, it will tell anyone who thinks that dominance exists why they're mistaken. It was created by qualified applied behaviourists and behavioural scientists, and is backed up by some pretty impressive dog behaviour, training, and welfare organisations.

OP, please, get someone in who is qualified to help you with this problem, which is usually quite treatable. Be really careful that you choose carefully, as there are so many unqualified, self-trained quacks out there who will try to use inaccurate diagnoses to treat your dog using inaccurate, often harmful methods.
As advised already, if you tell us what part of the country you're in, hopefully someone here can point you in the right direction.

DBB

cocker5 wrote: »

http://www.2ndchance.info/aggressivedog.htm

http://dogs.about.com/od/dogbehaviorproblems/a/causes-of-aggression-in-dogs.htm

Please note that both of these websites are written by people who are NOT qualified in the field of dog behaviour. And from that perspective, their opinions should be taken with a pinch of salt.
It will come as no surprise that they too are spouting about a fallacious "behaviour" they call dominance and asserting your dominance by being pack leader. But like I said, the world is full of people who like to paint themselves as experts when in fact, they have no behavioural training whatsoever. That's why they haven't learned that what they're saying is disproven and dangerous.

Instead, allow me to link you to information which is provided by people who are actually qualified to give an opinion, and to give advice:

Some really good stuff in both downloads here:
http://www.apbc.org.uk/info/dog_safety_information

Resource guarding tips here:
http://www.apdt.co.uk/content/files/training-tips/Preventresouceguarding.pdf

cocker5

DBB...

Thats my opinion... as a dog owner and not a professional.

I have had dogs all my life (including an agressive dog) and im sorry but I would not allow a dog to bite and say nothing... and it did work with our agressive husky.... so there is no rule that suits ALL dogs ... there are general rules / training.... all dogs are different but thats just me.

I used the word Dominat loosely ... as you can see i had resourse guarding in barckets.... (again people on boards picking up on one word and going all out :rolleyes:)

either way the dogs has issues and as i already said to the OP, he needs to get the dog to the vet to rule out any medicals issues then get a professional dog trainier.

OP best of luck with what you decide.

carly_86

Snip.No advocating hitting a dog.

cocker5

DBB wrote: »

Please note that both of these websites are written by people who are NOT qualified in the field of dog behaviour. And from that perspective, their opinions should be taken with a pinch of salt.
It will come as no surprise that they too are spouting about a fallacious "behaviour" they call dominance and asserting your dominance by being pack leader. But like I said, the world is full of people who like to paint themselves as experts when in fact, they have no behavioural training whatsoever. That's why they haven't learned that what they're saying is disproven and dangerous.

Instead, allow me to link you to information which is provided by people who are actually qualified to give an opinion, and to give advice:

Some really good stuff in both downloads here:
http://www.apbc.org.uk/info/dog_safety_information

Resource guarding tips here:
http://www.apdt.co.uk/content/files/training-tips/Preventresouceguarding.pdf[/QUOTE]



ohh for gods sake I was only trying to be helpful in the interm.... before the OP gets helps with the dog.... I already suggested VET and professional help....


note to one's self...
be aware of posting anything on boards.... attack mode is in full swing

DBB

cocker5 wrote: »

ohh for gods sake I was only trying to be helpful in the interm.... before the OP gets helps with the dog.... I already suggested VET and professional help....


note to one's self...
be aware of posting anything on boards.... attack mode is in full swing

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion Cocker, but I am perfectly entitled to pull you up when you give out wrong, potentially damaging information. This is not attack mode, it is simply putting right the misinformation you posted. If you can't take that, then make sure of your facts before you post on such a sensitive and complicated topic.

In always hear the line "well I hit my dog and it worked for him". Well done! But you only got away with it. Same goes for Carly's post above. At the end of the day, this does not deal with the underlying reason, the underlying cause of why the dog bit in the first place. And it certainly does not address the emotions, or serve to make the dog feel more positive about things that make it feel fearful or angry enough to bite.
Some dogs, when you hit them, or shout at them, become so frightened that they won't repeat the behaviour... but this is not making them feel any more positive about the person they were aggressive towards.. it just inhibits their behaviour. That is not a cure, and to say that "it worked" is such a gross oversimplification, ignores the welfare of the dog, and potentially places people in even more danger.
Whilst you and Carly may have got away with it, that's all you did. If you did that to many other dogs, you'd either (a) get bitten, (b) temporarily suppress the aggression, build frustration in the dog, and then witness a huge, frustrated, seemingly "unprovoked" attack, seemingly way out of proportion with the action that provoked it. There's a reason why Cesar Milan, with his misinformation that dominance is the cause of all bad behaviours, has many scars from dog bites he has sustained over the years. It's because he doesn't understand why the dog bites, and by misdiagnosing, he mistreats, and that's why he gets bitten. As do other people who try to use dominance to explain why dogs misbehave.
It's a credit to your dogs that they didn't retaliate, but that does not give anyone carte blanche to use abusive or unpleasant methods to stop a dog from being aggressive.
Again, please have a read of the link I gave to the Dog Welfare Campaign, perhaps it will appraise you of why using the diagnosis of dominance is wrong.

carly_86

She should of trained a dog when it was a pub on how to behave. A dog should growl at someone when his eating

Weathering

Simply get rid of him. He's too much of a danger to you and too others. What if he does real damage next time? Simple decision

DBB

carly_86 wrote: »

She should of trained a dog when it was a pub on how to behave. A dog should growl at someone when his eating

It's not going to do much good saying what OP should have done.
The fact remains that the dog appears to be resource guarding now, which is a behaviour which responds well to appropriate treatment.
Many dogs develop behavioural problems due to factors which are not directly linked to training as a pup, you have no way of knowing whether this is the case with the OP's dog. If everyone followed the advice you've given so far, there'd be a hell of a lot more dead dogs out there now, rather than dogs that received appropriate behavioural treatment from qualified practitioners, and who are now perfectly lovely members of the family, as originally intended.
And your suggestion to hit the dog?
Why people think the first resort is to use violence to sort out a problem is jaw-dropping. It's a very simplistic, reactionary, narrow-minded way to do things.

carly_86

Snip-No advocating violence.
Read the charter.

muddypaws

carly_86 wrote: »

She should of trained a dog when it was a pub on how to behave. A dog should growl at someone when his eating

When it was a pub? so what training should have been done, pulling pints? how to serve shorts?

And you honestly believe a dog should growl at someone when eating? Why?

cocker5

DBB..

Forgive me if i am incorrect but are you suggesting that i hit my dog:

In always hear the line "well I hit my dog and it worked for him". Well done! But you only got away with it. Same goes for Carly's post above.

If so... you couldnt be more further from reality... i never once suggested i ever laid a finger / hand on my dog. Just setting the record straight :cool:

and as for you saying "i got away with it".. not sure what your referring too....

DBB... can I also ask are you a professional dog trainer?

DUBLINHITMAN

Just glad it wasn't a pittbull because everyone would say put it too sleep end of story
that's the ignorance of people
At the end of the day no dog can be 100% trusted there animals
however all dogs can be be trained and learn there boundaries but its all on you

carly_86

muddypaws wrote: »

When it was a pub? so what training should have been done, pulling pints? how to serve shorts?

And you honestly believe a dog should growl at someone when eating? Why?

I ment shouldnt growl when eatin

tk123

carly_86 wrote: »

Yes i do suggest to hit the dog it works

Is this the JRT in your other tread? I often wonder would people who smack small dogs be so brave with a bigger dog who could actually do serious damage.

Hellrazer

Can users please stop advocating violence towards their dogs.

carly_86

tk123 wrote: »

Is this the JRT in your other tread? I often wonder would people who smack small dogs be so brave with a bigger dog who could actually do serious damage.

Hey my dog is well looked after and it was only once get over it

pandaboy

Thanks for your replies, and discussions. A lot of information has been passed and DBB thank you for the links. I'm living in the Northside of Cork City, so any recommendations for a Dog Behaviourist would be much appreciated.

DBB

I think Nanci from Creedon's Doggy Daycare does home visits. Nanci is a good trainer and is qualified in behaviour, and should be able to help you.
The best of luck op. Will you let us know how you get on?

DBB

cocker5 wrote: »

DBB..

Forgive me if i am incorrect but are you suggesting that i hit my dog:

No. I used the line you quoted as an example of things I hear regularly from people, but I can see I should have been more careful in the bit you quoted, and I apologise for giving any impression that you hit your dog, it was not intended. If you read the whole post, you'll see that elsewhere, I specifically mention both hitting and/or shouting at a dog as a form of correction, and I specifically said as such because I was aware you had said you shouted at your dog, but did not mention hitting.
I hope that clarifies.

and as for you saying "i got away with it".. not sure what your referring too....

As per my post, it means that you were lucky that your dog's aggression stopped when you shouted at him, in a general sense. Using aversive training, and I acknowledge that shouting is nowhere near the worst of aversives, does not tend to solve aggression issues, because it does not address the underlying emotions that caused the dog to growl/snap/bite in the first place. Instead, punishing aggression simply suppresses the behaviour, but not the underlying emotion, which is storing up potentially serious problems in the future.

DBB... can I also ask are you a professional dog trainer?

Yes. But I specialise more in behaviour than training.

Wibbs

DBB wrote: »

There is no such thing as a dominant dog.
They do not exist.
It is a complete fantasy which has been disproven.

DBB you know I would be among the very first to dig in and shoot down the pack theory BS spouted by one side of this debate, bur I'd disagree with that statement in a big way.

As is usually the case with opposing often hardline positions, pendulums often go too far one way in opposing the other. Now I much prefer the more modern, pack structure is ballsology and reward based behaviour is far better approach.

However there are most certainly in all but name "dominant" dogs. Just like in people, some dogs who are naturally more confident, pushy, more independently minded and more likely to stand their ground, even get aggressive, if it crosses a line for them. Few would disagree that there are dogs out there who are more nervous, less confident and more "submissive", so why is the opposite such a stretch? To suggest that such dogs don't exist as a "fact" is more than a little dubious, because if an owner ends up with such a dog they may get more than a bit of a shock when the fashionable* training methods don't quite work.

Rather than dominance I'd think more along the lines of deference and respect. Some dogs just defer on the spot to their owners, even go out of their way to do so, even with strangers. Doormat dogs as it were. Other dogs can be a lot less accommodating. Look at the general diffs in recall with breeds. Call a Lab back and it's likely they'll come back to you, try the same with some Huskies and eve if you were holding a raw cows leg in your hand they'll ignore you. Now most dogs sit in the middle as we've bred them to be like that, but a few want a steadier hand. I do NOT mean "alpha rolls" or any of that shíte. I do mean they may require more of a two way dialogue and compromise that goes beyond "here's a treat if you're being nice". On the latter score I've seen dogs where food treats were near completely ignored as a training reward. They just weren't food focused. What then?




*dog training and ownership most certainly goes in cycles of fashion. The "dogs are wolves you know" fashion was very strong for many a year(and still is) and at the time was backed up by what seemed to equally strong science. If we were having this debate 20 years ago I'd guarantee your/our position would likely be quite different and it wasn't you'd be considered an outlier. You can be sure in 20 years time your/our opinion will be different again.

DBB

I daresay the science behind today's appraches to training is far stronger, more diverse, repeatable, statistically significant etc. There's nowt new about "positive training", a friend of mine has a 3000 year old Arabian manuscript which describes the use of food rewards in dog training, and moreover criticises the use of coercion in training too!

I will stick to my guns when I say that there's no such thing as a dominant dog, and the science is supporting this more and more. I will say there are domineering dogs (as you describe: pushy, confident etc), just as there are domineering humans, but that is not the same thing as being dominant, and care must be taken not to confuse the two.
Dominance describes a social structure or hierarchy (which does not exist in dogs), domineering describes a behaviour, a frame of mind. I have met and trained and modified the behaviour of a thousand or more dogs. I spoke the other day to a highly respected author, academic, and behavioural consultant, who has trained/behaviourally modified a lot more dogs than me. And we both agreed unanimously on one thing: we have never met a dominant dog.

Wibbs

DBB wrote: »

I daresay the science behind today's appraches to training is far stronger, more diverse, repeatable, statistically significant etc. There's nowt new about "positive training", a friend of mine has a 3000 year old Arabian manuscript which describes the use of food rewards in dog training, and moreover criticises the use of coercion in training too!

Like I said what if the dog is not food/treat driven? That exists. BTW every generation is convinced their science/research is the apogee. Only to be overturned a generation later. Read up on the history of science. If you think we've got it licked now, you're being very naive.

I will stick to my guns when I say that there's no such thing as a dominant dog, and the science is supporting this more and more. I will say there are domineering dogs (as you describe: pushy, confident etc), just as there are domineering humans, but that is not the same thing as being dominant, and care must be taken not to confuse the two.

How would you describe "dominance"? "Domineering" is somehow different to "dominant"? So you have encountered "domineering" dogs? Sounds like very subjective semantics to me.

Dominance describes a social structure or hierarchy (which does not exist in dogs),

Actually it does and the science backs it up. You're confusing family/pack behaviour as a given in dogs as per the wolf model. Yes dogs when they go feral don't adopt a family/pack structure like wolves. Yes they have a more fluid group structure, but within that structure some dogs lead and others follow. I hate to break it to you, but that's a hierarchy. It may be more fluid but it's a hierarchy nonetheless. Read up on some of the Russian studies into such feral domestic dogs. The studies on wild Dingos might also be worth a perusal.

domineering describes a behaviour, a frame of mind.

Ehhh as would the existence of dominance. That would also be a frame of mind, a behaviour. Talk about tying yourself in semantic knots to back up a theory.

I have met and trained and modified the behaviour of a thousand or more dogs. I spoke the other day to a highly respected author, academic, and behavioural consultant, who has trained/behaviourally modified a lot more dogs than me. And we both agreed unanimously on one thing: we have never met a dominant dog.

Are you telling me that neither you, not this "highly respected author, academic, and behavioural consultant" over a few thousand dogs by your reckoning never met a dog you couldn't train or behaviourally modify to the satisfaction of their owners? If so, frankly DBB I call bullshít and within that bullshít I'd put money you met a dominant/domineering dog you couldn't quite deal with. Indeed anyone who suggests they(and you seem to be claiming such) have a near 100% success rate is almost certainly skirting the truth of things.

Pretzill

Op I feel for you and your dog it's awful disappointing and I hope you find a solution to this behaviour. When I got our 3rd dog as a puppy she tried it on a few times - growled at me - but was a lovable divil a minute later, however of the other two dogs the oldest girl often put the pup in her place - I saw this as a group structure thing going on - not dominance as all 3 aren't agressive towards each other but a teaching maternal type instinct towards the pup. I did worry for a while that the two females wouldn't get on but in the end they became very close up until my eldest passed. Now I have a young dog who has a lovely nature, I feel that could've been different if it wasn't for the structure dare I say hierarcy in the group of three. I do agree shouting, slapping is completely the wrong thing to do but my dogs did it to each other? I don't know the science, I'm no behaviourist but if chickens can have a pecking order I'm sure it happens right across the animal kingdom.

DBB

Why do you have to be so dismissive in the way you post, Wibbs? I am simply engaging you here, I didn't ask for "ehhh" at the start of sentences, or being accused of talking bullsh!t, or it being suggested I've met a dog I couldn't deal with due to his domineering attitude? Can we not have a discussion without the patronising posting style, no? If not, I'll engage no more, but I will pick you up on some of the things you've said.

Wibbs wrote: »

Like I said what if the dog is not food/treat driven? That exists.

Yes, that's right. It's reasonably common, you'll find. But you're assuming that all that can be used is food or treats... I think you took my example from the ancient scripts a little too narrowly: I simply used it to illustrate that "positive training" is not some new-fangled idea that you seem to be implying it is.
A good trainer has got to find what motivates the dog, and use it. I don't use food very much to train my working GSD, because she much prefers toys. If she didn't like food or toys, praise is an option. If she (or any dog I work with) don't like food, or treats, or praise, then it might be getting to carry out a favourite activity (which could be something as simple as getting to sniff a lamp-post). If it's not any of these, it might be getting to meet another dog. And so it goes. Out of these five examples of reinforcement, only one involves food. Positive training is not all about chucking food at dogs, a common misconception held by many who try to criticise the "positive" training movement. To level this accusation just highlights their own ignorance.

BTW every generation is convinced their science/research is the apogee. Only to be overturned a generation later. Read up on the history of science. If you think we've got it licked now, you're being very naive.

This is jumping to some pretty huge conclusion Wibbs. Did I say anywhere that we have it licked? Anywhere? No. No I didn't. The day we know everything will be a dark day indeed, and I'm pretty impressed by the hunger shown by today's behaviorists and scientists to find out more, in the full knowledge we're nowhere near any "apogee" yet.
What I can envisage is that we'll utilise their research even more, now that we have it (remembering that the vast majority of what we now know is only 15 years old at most. Training before that had scant, if any research at all to back it up one way or the other), and will accommodate these findings to make our training and training approaches more efficient.
One thing that cannot be faulted about the positive movement, which has been seriously lacking by previous approaches, is dog and owner welfare. Once that is held as being the top priority, then we're doing okay. What we know about welfare will change, but I suspect it can only change for the better.

How would you describe "dominance"? "Domineering" is somehow different to "dominant"? So you have encountered "domineering" dogs? Sounds like very subjective semantics to me.

I have explained the difference already: call it semantics if you like, but I'll warn you that this is a dangerous place to go in the applied field with owners. I think we all know that when someone comes on here and starts talking about dominance, they're not just talking about their dog being an over-confident bully: they're talking about their dog pulling on the lead, begging for food, counter-surfing, growling at the when they disturb them, jumping up on them, barging out the door ahead of them, etc etc. They're talking about what Cesar Milan and co have to say about these behaviours. And yes, there is a difference between being dominant and being domineering. As I said, one is a social concept. The other is a behaviour.

You're confusing family/pack behaviour as a given in dogs as per the wolf model. Yes dogs when they go feral don't adopt a family/pack structure like wolves. Yes they have a more fluid group structure, but within that structure some dogs lead and others follow. I hate to break it to you, but that's a hierarchy. It may be more fluid but it's a hierarchy nonetheless. Read up on some of the Russian studies into such feral domestic dogs. The studies on wild Dingos might also be worth a perusal.

No Wibbs, I'm not confusing anything. Behavioural scientists these days try to avoid the use of the word "pack", because it causes misapprehension and confusion. Family behaviour yes, but we know that this is not a structure dogs need to use now, having come from wolves, or proto dogs, that didn't need to maintain the family structure. And I'm not talking about dogs which have reverted to feral life. I'm talking about pet dogs sitting in people's sitting rooms, but I think you know that. The vague hierarchy created by feral dogs is no more unusual than the "hierarchy" that forms in prisons between bullies and non-bullies. It does not apply to pet dogs.

Ehhh as would the existence of dominance. That would also be a frame of mind, a behaviour. Talk about tying yourself in semantic knots to back up a theory.

It's not about me tying myself in semantic knots, Wibbs. It's about trying to make it clear to the average dog owner what it's really all about. Using words like "pack", and "dominance" evokes completely the wrong emotions and understanding that owners have of their dogs: trust me, I have seen it time and time again, the relief felt by owners when you tell them their bold dog is not, in fact, trying to plot some terrible wrath against them.
If you call a dog "dominant", it is interpreted by the majority of people as meaning that dogs are trying to take over the world. Not a nice thing for an owner to think. If you call them "domineering", most people *get* that this is more of an individual, over-confidence, they can think of people they know as examples. I'm not trying to back up the theory, I'll let the science do that. But I am trying to translate the science into layman's terms for the owners who need to know this stuff. If you can do it better, please be my guest.

Are you telling me that neither you, not this "highly respected author, academic, and behavioural consultant" over a few thousand dogs by your reckoning never met a dog you couldn't train or behaviourally modify to the satisfaction of their owners? If so, frankly DBB I call bullshít and within that bullshít I'd put money you met a dominant/domineering dog you couldn't quite deal with. Indeed anyone who suggests they(and you seem to be claiming such) have a near 100% success rate is almost certainly skirting the truth of things.

Whoa there! Whoa! HUGE leaping to conclusions there Wibbs! Where did I say anything about having a 100% success rate? Unlike some of my "peers", I wouldn't deign to claim such a thing. I am at a loss to know how you got this out of what I said... amazing really.
And this assumption any non-successes I've had were because the dogs in question were dominant? Really? Where did I say that? What on earth are you basing this on? I've never walked away from a problem dog, not one.
I've met quite a few domineering dogs, actually. And I'm pretty sure I've dealt with them quite well, because these confident dogs tend to be great to train once you've tapped into what they're looking for.
But I've never met a dominant dog. Neither has the author/academic/behavioural consultant I referred to, who for the record is part of a huge group of equally respected authors/academics/consultants (the very people you've quoted galore) who will also tell you... they've never met a dominant dog.
So, if it's okay with you, rather than paying much heed to your needless condescension, I'll stick with the opinions shared with those "highly respected authors, academics and behavioural consultants" who deserve the respect they get, rather than heeding the rude rant of the google expert you come across as.

Pixie Chief

I'm no behaviorist (dog or otherwise) but I think that the argument between Wibbs and DBB is down a lot to semantics. I think that the term 'dominant' somehow came to mean a bully of a dog that owners needed to be domineering with in order to control them and also along the way became an excuse for some pretty appalling treatment of dogs in general based on some suspect theories. I would use 'dominant' to describe my foxhound's personality (without reference to any theories - just as a word!). He is very sweet and affectionate but also willful, prone to counter surfing (although much rarer now) and often lacking in respect for his fellow house mates (dog and human). I don't use this word as a reason to abuse him, merely to describe the fact that he would run over the top of everyone in the house if he were let do so. Nothing to do with assertion or aggression, he's a very lovely and loving boy. DBB, I also get your side of the argument in the sense that it has become a dangerous definition to use given that many owners and trainers have used it as a reason to intimidate and sometimes physically mistreat a dog to get them out of bad or inconvenient behaviours without engaging some practical dog behaviour knowledge, thinking and effort. It's really an argument as to whether that word should now be used in relation to dogs at all. Part of the problem is that once a dog has been labelled 'dominant' everything that he does is now attributed to that label which is just as ridiculous as assuming something about the colour of someones skin. For example, my hound does not counter surf because he has a dominant personality. He counter surfs because he is incurably greedy. It's a hound trait to be fair. We dealt with it by leaving nothing on the counters for him to surf. If there is food, he can reach it and there is no one there to stop him, yeah, he's going to eat it. Knowing this, should I expect to punish, intimidate or otherwise bully him into not doing so? No. Would it be effective? No. Would I expect that attempt to make him aggressive because his strong personality won't accept that? Yes, because he won't understand what I'm trying to do. he will just see that he is being punished for eating food that was left there unattended and therefore must be for him! I would maybe make the point that it is the generalisations about what drives behaviours that are dangerous and not the definitions themselves?

DBB

I think a lot of what you say is quite right Pixie Chief, but one thing I will say is that whilst the argument may appear to be about semantics, it goes a little further than that.
As you probably know, every branch of science has words and terms that are used internationally to denote certain things, an international language of sorts. To a zoologist, or behavioural scientist, "dominant" is not the same thing as "domineering" at all, and to mix and match the two causes misapprehension.
You might call your hound dominant, but a behavioural scientist/zoologist would look at you with eyebrows raised to hear someone say this about a pet dog.
A dominant individual is one that's close to the top, at the top, or at least, higher than some others in his group, within a dominance hierarchy. It denotes a position within a power-driven, hierarchical social structure.
But it categorically does not describe a behaviour. Okay, there are certain behaviours one might expect from a dominant member of a hierarchy, but interestingly, these behaviours are not always as described by people who try to apply the dominance model to dogs (or any other animal that doesn't live within a dominance hierarchy), and they are not predictable across the board for every individual. If "dominance" were a behaviour, then it would be consistent and predictable.
Your hound would not be described as dominant by a scientist or behaviorist. He could be described as domineering alright, or stubborn, or pushy, but he is not seeking social status, he is not attempting to lead your pack. That is what dominance looks like, and dogs don't do it. It's all about resources with dogs, one way or the other. It's got nothing to do with social position.

Pixie Chief

DBB wrote: »

I think a lot of what you say is quite right Pixie Chief, but one thing I will say is that whilst the argument may appear to be about semantics, it goes a little further than that.
As you probably know, every branch of science has words and terms that are used internationally to denote certain things, an international language of sorts. To a zoologist, or behavioural scientist, "dominant" is not the same thing as "domineering" at all, and to mix and match the two causes misapprehension.
You might call your hound dominant, but a behavioural scientist/zoologist would look at you with eyebrows raised to hear someone say this about a pet dog.
A dominant individual is one that's close to the top, at the top, or at least, higher than some others in his group, within a dominance hierarchy. It denotes a position within a power-driven, hierarchical social structure.
But it categorically does not describe a behaviour. Okay, there are certain behaviours one might expect from a dominant member of a hierarchy, but interestingly, these behaviours are not always as described by people who try to apply the dominance model to dogs (or any other animal that doesn't live within a dominance hierarchy), and they are not predictable across the board for every individual. If "dominance" were a behaviour, then it would be consistent and predictable.
Your hound would not be described as dominant by a scientist or behaviorist. He could be described as domineering alright, or stubborn, or pushy, but he is not seeking social status, he is not attempting to lead your pack. That is what dominance looks like, and dogs don't do it. It's all about resources with dogs, one way or the other. It's got nothing to do with social position.

I absolutely agree with what you have said there and in a scientific world the use and definition of that word in that way absolutely applies. The problem being is that most people aren't behavioural scientists or zoologists and so there will be disagreements trying to get them to utilise or see the problem with terminology that has nothing to do with their professions or lives in general. The both of you are arguing over the use of a word as it each applies to you and so therefore are both right. You are defining the word in the scientific and theorist sense and are absolutely correct in saying that those theories as they were presented have been largely discredited. Wibbs is defining the word as most of the non-scientific/zoology/behaviourist world would understand it (or at least me) and in that sense, he is correct. It's not the terminology of the word, it's the interpretation of it that is causing the issue. Yes, he is using a word that in scientific circles would be frowned upon but he isn't doing it in scientific circles. You're both right in your own sense of the word, literally!

Tranceypoo

carly_86 wrote: »

She should of trained a dog when it was a pub on how to behave. A dog should growl at someone when his eating

Ummm no a dog should NOT growl at someone when it's eating, why on earth would you think that?

TooManyDogs

I'm always interested in this topic, not so much the dominant/domineering but the pack theory aspect. Living with a herd of 6 dogs (afraid to say 'pack' now :P ) I definitely see structure within my dogs, nothing like wolf packs obviously but still it fascinates me. I know there have been studies into wolf pack structure, dingo pack structure and feral pack structure but has anyone actually conducted any studies into numerous dogs living in a domestic household? I've read a couple of temple grandin's books and she touches on domestic dogs although she, to my knowledge, hasn't done studies into it her theory is wolf packs operate as family structure but unrelated domestic dogs have more of a corporate structure.

muddypaws

TooManyDogs wrote: »

I'm always interested in this topic, not so much the dominant/domineering but the pack theory aspect. Living with a herd of 6 dogs (afraid to say 'pack' now :P ) I definitely see structure within my dogs, nothing like wolf packs obviously but still it fascinates me. I know there have been studies into wolf pack structure, dingo pack structure and feral pack structure but has anyone actually conducted any studies into numerous dogs living in a domestic household? I've read a couple of temple grandin's books and she touches on domestic dogs although she, to my knowledge, hasn't done studies into it her theory is wolf packs operate as family structure but unrelated domestic dogs have more of a corporate structure.

There is a book by Sally Leich, who is one of the most experienced husky people in the UK called Managing a Pack of Siberian Huskies,its not widely available, you can get them directly from Sally. Email is info@forstalssiberians.co.uk

I haven't read it, keep meaning to buy it, in fact will go and email now, but a lot of people with sibes have found it really helpful. A lot of people with sibes in the UK tend to have a good few, as they work them in teams. Not sure if Sally's dogs live outside in kennels, I think they do, but that they do go into the house every day to spend time with the family.

A friend has suggested I write a book on it and my views on it have changed a lot in recent years, through research but also from just experiencing the realities of living with a group of dogs. As I look around me, 2 are asleep on the sofa, 5 on the living room floor and 2 are curled up in the living room crate, the others are probably in on my bed. There hasn't been a fight with blood drawn here now for a long time, we will have the occasional disagreement, but they don't tend to actually fight. Clancy has the situation well under control, if he wants to go somewhere and someone else is already there, he either just stands and looks at them until they move, or just goes and lies on top of them, until they move. Clever dog :rolleyes:

carly_86

Tranceypoo wrote: »

Ummm no a dog should NOT growl at someone when it's eating, why on earth would you think that?

I ment shouldnt

DBB

Pixie Chief wrote: »

The problem being is that most people aren't behavioural scientists or zoologists and so there will be disagreements trying to get them to utilise or see the problem with terminology that has nothing to do with their professions or lives in general.

Would you not think that it behoves the behavioural scientists or zoologists to explain the differences though, so that lay people aren't being misguided by misinterpretation and confusion? It's misuse of the terminology that's responsible for the problem we now have with the term "dominant". People use it to mean something it doesn't mean. The medical or veterinary world will always rectify such misunderstandings, so why shouldn't behaviorists?
And that's all I'm trying to do here! The best a behaviourist can do, as an applier of the science to the real world, is explain to people what it all means, and why there's a problem with using the wrong words to diagnose what's wrong with their dogs.

Bullseye1

DBB wrote: »

Yes. But I specialise more in behaviour than training.

If you don't mind me asking where does one get a qualification in dog behaviour?

DBB

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If you don't mind me asking where does one get a qualification in dog behaviour?

This is a hard one to answer bullseye, because a Google search will show you course after course you can do in behaviour, some online, some more hands-on, some much better than others. Many are run by individuals who gave no training in behaviour themselves, and no form of meaningful external accreditation.
You get your piece of paper at the end and call yourself a behaviourist who has a piece of paper. In fact, you don't even need a piece of paper to call yourself a behaviourist!
However, the "industry" is trying to bring about a standardisation. The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB), based in the UK and the umbrella group for behaviourist and research associations, provides recommendations for what a behaviourist should have, qualification-wise, in order to get certified with them as a Certified Clinical Animal Behaviourist (CCAB) or Certified Applied Animal Behaviourist (CAAB).
To be either, you must have the minimum of an honours degree in Animal Behaviour, and X amount of demonstrable, supervised hands-on experience. I can't remember what the time length is, I think it's a year.
Degree courses are offered in a few UK universities, as are higher levels of qualification, such as PG Diploma and M.Sc. No honours degree courses are available in Ireland right now, but it is possible to do foundation degree level via distance learning with residential blocks in the UK.
Whilst these certifications can't be forced upon anyone, because ASAB's is a pretty rigorous screening process, a quality control process if you like, the knock on effect is that insurance companies will only pay out for consults with such certified behaviourists, the long term aim being that the public will come to learn that there are good ones and bad ones, but at least they'll be able to tell the difference by looking at the certifications the behaviourist has.
Training does not require such a level of qualification at 3rd level, and again, no qualifications are necessary to call yourself a trainer.

inocybe

DBB wrote: »

I think a lot of what you say is quite right Pixie Chief, but one thing I will say is that whilst the argument may appear to be about semantics, it goes a little further than that.
As you probably know, every branch of science has words and terms that are used internationally to denote certain things, an international language of sorts. To a zoologist, or behavioural scientist, "dominant" is not the same thing as "domineering" at all, and to mix and match the two causes misapprehension.
You might call your hound dominant, but a behavioural scientist/zoologist would look at you with eyebrows raised to hear someone say this about a pet dog.
A dominant individual is one that's close to the top, at the top, or at least, higher than some others in his group, within a dominance hierarchy. It denotes a position within a power-driven, hierarchical social structure.
But it categorically does not describe a behaviour. Okay, there are certain behaviours one might expect from a dominant member of a hierarchy, but interestingly, these behaviours are not always as described by people who try to apply the dominance model to dogs (or any other animal that doesn't live within a dominance hierarchy), and they are not predictable across the board for every individual. If "dominance" were a behaviour, then it would be consistent and predictable.
Your hound would not be described as dominant by a scientist or behaviorist. He could be described as domineering alright, or stubborn, or pushy, but he is not seeking social status, he is not attempting to lead your pack. That is what dominance looks like, and dogs don't do it. It's all about resources with dogs, one way or the other. It's got nothing to do with social position.

My dog would fit the classic description of 'submissive', both to people and dogs. He's also a resource guarder though against other dogs, and I think anxiety has a big part to play in that.

DBB

inocybe wrote: »

My dog would fit the classic description of 'submissive', both to people and dogs. He's also a resource guarder though against other dogs, and I think anxiety has a big part to play in that.

Indeed, quite possibly: submissive-type behaviours, such as fearfulness, rolling over at the slightest threat, peeing at the slightest threat, excessive use of other calming signals, avoidance etc etc are often caused by the emotions of fear, or anxiety, which themselves occur for a whole raft of reasons. Similarly, resource guarding often has its roots in anxiety.
However, none of these reasons include that the dog sees himself as low down on the social ladder, or pecking order. No more than a shy or soft-natured human is the way they are due to any pecking order! However, Cesar Milan and his ilk would have you believe that your shy dog is trying to dominate you because he's guarding his possessions!

Pixie Chief

DBB wrote: »

Would you not think that it behoves the behavioural scientists or zoologists to explain the differences though, so that lay people aren't being misguided by misinterpretation and confusion? It's misuse of the terminology that's responsible for the problem we now have with the term "dominant". People use it to mean something it doesn't mean. The medical or veterinary world will always rectify such misunderstandings, so why shouldn't behaviorists?
And that's all I'm trying to do here! The best a behaviourist can do, as an applier of the science to the real world, is explain to people what it all means, and why there's a problem with using the wrong words to diagnose what's wrong with their dogs.

At the risk of being completely semantic myself, I would argue that in the normal usage of the word (and in the psychology world), 'dominant' does not necessarily mean attempting to take over the world. Dominant is referring to a fairly typical personality trait denoting a strong person amongst humans and is not a social construct particularly. Dominance refers to a particular set of behaviors that absolutely have social ramifications, be they in an everyday environment or 'private time'! The two words are not interchangeable in that way. I would have a 'dominant' personality and yet am a natural mediator because it is balanced by other things (like learning the hard way that you can't go at people and expect results!). However, I don't display dominance behaviors any more than my dog does.

I suppose what I am saying is that the word is already in very common usage. It will be much easier over time to change how people interpret that word and the conclusions they reach about how to address problems than it will be to try and prevent everybody from using that word and replace it with something else. The evolution of language suggests that usage of words continues long after their original meaning is long lost and has undergone several changes as to its meaning.

The other point that I would nitpick is 'using the wrong words to diagnose what wrong with their dog.' There is nothing wrong with my dog - mostly because he lives in a home with people who have been around animals all their lives, watching and learning as we go (and screwing up quite a bit along the way too!) and we accept that animals have personalities just like people. It's a real argument for adopting dogs as adults as you get to know their personality before they come home whereas with pups, they grow up to be who they are and sometimes they are in the wrong home. Barring an animal is a real killer which is incredibly rare in my experience in any species, then there is a relationship/personality conflict instead which the humans need to take responsibility for much like with children.

I have no problem with how someone describes their dog. I have a real issue with people expecting their dogs to be robots or 'our old dog never did that'. They don't try to build a relationship with them, merely expect them to fit in their lives with little or no training or interaction. Worse again, there is often an anthropomorphic issue where they ascribe reactions, thoughts, feelings and actions to a dog that are human in nature and can't possibly exist for the dog - 'he did that deliberately', 'he knew that was my favourite whatever and shredded it because I smacked him earlier' - that stuff makes me nuts!

DBB

Pixie Chief wrote: »

The other point that I would nitpick is 'using the wrong words to diagnose what wrong with their dog.' There is nothing wrong with my dog - mostly because he lives in a home with people who have been around animals all their lives, watching and learning as we go (and screwing up quite a bit along the way too!) and we accept that animals have personalities just like people.

Once again, I can't disagree with much of what you say, up to a point at least, but one thing I want to clarify.. I hope you didn't think I was suggesting there's something wrong with your dog?! That was not my intention at all, so please don't take it that way, if you did! When I referred to "people" diagnosing their dogs, I meant people generally, not you specifically

are you serious

I love my dogs as much as anyone, but to throw it out there here's my 2 cents..

If either of my dogs ever were to bite me or someone else for no reason at all, then that dog has bitten its first and last person. The dog is gone, no second chances.

Bullseye1

Dogs don't bite for no reason.

borderlinemeath

are you serious wrote: »

I love my dogs as much as anyone, but to throw it out there here's my 2 cents..

If either of my dogs ever were to bite me or someone else for no reason at all, then that dog has bitten its first and last person. The dog is gone, no second chances.

But dogs don't bite for no reason. There's always a reason. Be it illness, resource guarding, dementia, blindness/deafness or just fear. There's always something that makes them lash out.

are you serious

borderlinemeath wrote: »

But dogs don't bite for no reason. There's always a reason. Be it illness, resource guarding, dementia, blindness/deafness or just fear. There's always something that makes them lash out.

Yeah I fully agree, but I nor anyone else should be bitten because the dog is upset!!

It is not my fault if the dog is sick or any of the other above ilnesses so therefore I should not be bitten.

Bullseye1

are you serious wrote: »

Yeah I fully agree, but I nor anyone else should be bitten because the dog is upset!!

It is not my fault if the dog is sick or any of the other above ilnesses so therefore I should not be bitten.

What if its ill and sod gob****e human is harassing it? Does it have the right to defend itself.

borderlinemeath

are you serious wrote: »

Yeah I fully agree, but I nor anyone else should be bitten because the dog is upset!!

It is not my fault if the dog is sick or any of the other above ilnesses so therefore I should not be bitten.

But it's the dogs way of communicating that he's not well, or not comfortable with somebody close to his food. And the latter is a training issue that the human is ultimately responsible for, so if they choose to ignore the warning signs they only have themselves to blame if they're bitten.

In the OP the dog is an obvious resource guarder, maybe now that the OP has moved home and the family structure has changed somewhat, the dog is more nervous than usual. It would be madness to get rid of a dog in a situation like that, when the human has let the problem fester into something bigger and failed to read the signs.