While this topic could be displayed under just about any heading, since I train mostly police service dogs, and for some other reasons, I chose to put it here. It certainly applies to any dog but especially any dog that is trained to bite.

I've often come across bad relationships between dogs and handlers. Dogs that were afraid of their handler and handers that were afraid of their dog. Some trainers are still on the old mode that you must “dominate the dog at all times.” They teach their handlers that you must be very physical with the dog and kick his ass at least once a day to remind him who is in charge of the team.

I’ve also seen dogs that won’t take this from any handler and so sometimes find themselves in doggie heaven because they were “psycho.” (While there are “Charley Mansons” in the dog world, they’re few and far between).

I believe that the relationship between the dog and handler should be one of mutual trust and respect. This is the relationship that exists in the wild within a dog pack and it doesn’t happen by the alpha dog kicking anyone’s ass, especially not on a daily basis.

One thing I do at PSD seminars is to have the handlers walk out into a field with the dog on leash and then, when the dog’s attention is elsewhere, have the handler lie down, flat on his back on the ground. I’ve had some handlers refuse saying that their dog won’t regard them as alpha if they allow their dog to stand over them. I’ve had some dogs try to burrow their way underneath the handler because they suddenly found themselves in the alpha position and freaked out, anticipating an asskicking.

Yet (and this is another reason I’ve put this in the police dog section of the Forum) where do most fights end up. Both the officer and the crook go to the ground. Think about being the type of handler who has kicked his dog’s ass 6 times a week. Now suddenly the handler is on the ground fighting with a crook, who by the way, has never hurt the dog. Do you think that the dog might just decide that this is the day that he gets to be the alpha in the pack??? Sometimes handlers get bitten by their own dogs out of confusion. But often it’s that the dog realizes that he may have an advantage and tries to take advantage of it.

There are training schools where as many as half of the handlers are bitten by the dogs in the first two weeks. This is usually because handlers are cranking hard corrections on dogs that don’t respect or trust them. This usually takes a bit of time. But these handlers are victims of a system that only lets them attend a school for a few weeks before getting back to police work. And so they find themselves rushed. But the real problem is with the trainers at these schools who think it’s macho when a handler gets bit by his dog and stands up to it. They sometimes have "beer–buying–penalties" for getting bitten by your own dog.

I’ve never had a dog bite his handler, except out of confusion because I believe that before training starts and throughout their relationship there should be a bond of respect and trust.

I think the fastest way to get this is with play and food. I like for the handler to hand feed his dog all his meals for a few weeks. In the wild the alpha chooses where to hunt and which animal to kill. I think that hand feeding, providing the dog’s food, equates to that. I think it helps to establish the bond that exists naturally.

This is NOT food reward training. This is simply the handler providing the food for the dog. If the handler just puts down food and walks away, yes he’s provided food but after that he’s out of it. Hand feeding keep the dog a part of this form of communication as long as the food lasts. And with every handful the dog is reminded that the handler is alpha.

Food goes to a very basic level.

Play is another way to get this but not the form of play that has the handler throwing a ball for his dog. Watch the Discovery Channel or spend a few hours at the zoo watching wild dogs play. They run, they bump shoulders, they throw hips into one another. Their interactions is quite physical. I recommend this form of play to my handlers.

I’ve been teaching this and doing it myself for quite some time but this is the first time I’ve written it down.

Questions, especially from those who disagree, will help me fill the blanks that I’ve inevitably left.

Perfect!! I have never been able to understand why anybody would want a physical confrontation with their dog. There are so many better ways to demonstrate who is in charge. Usually I use obedience to establish control. The dog is used to it, it is so ingrained that they respond with out thinking about it. It also redirects their thought process to something more constructive.

Why create a problem where you have to fight your own dog? In the end you have taught him that physical confrontation yeilds control and provided an option to gain control. You must win at all costs, if you lose the next confrontation will be bigger and worse, and now the dog is out of control or afraid of you. You have to trust them and they need to trust you, physical confrontation will do little to assist that.

I had no idea so many handlers were bitten. Thats kind of scary.

I have a couple of questions. You said the fastest way to get a bond of trust and respect is to use food and play. Do you use this because you're under a time crunch or have you found it to be the most effective? What other methods have you tried that didn't really work well?

The form of play you describe is interesting. I've never seen humans play that way with dogs. Is the idea that the human interacts with the dog as a dog would?

I am interested to know.

Catherine--

Allow me to interject here: I thought Lou has already explained quite adequately why food and play are so important in forming a true and long-lasting bond between a dog and a handler. I think you misinterpreted the word "fastest" to mean a "short-cut". Lou probably meant to say "fastest and most effective", and probably, the only way.

Your objection to food and play, it seems, stems from the fact that you perceive those as bribery, thereby making a relationship somewhat "fake". Right?

Let me put it this way: let's forget about dogs for a minute and talk about humans. What, if not food and the process of feeding helps create a bond between a mother (or a surrogate mother) and an infant? What helps children form friendships if not interaction through play? Think of your relationships with your friends--are they 100% altruistic on either side? Did they start in a vacuum, or was there some need to be met and responded to? What other forms of communication you think will work better in forming a true bond with a dog? Staring soulfully in its eye and repeating: "You were bred to love and obey...you were bred to love and obey..." And if that didn't work--grab a pinch collar? That may work, too.

We dog lovers all strive for a perfect relationship of trust and respect. If you come up with a better mouse trap, I will be the first one to try it.

What I'm getting at is - Is the point of this to interact with the dog as another dog would? Regardless of what's done in the wild, dogs are not wild animals. I no longer believe that a dog is a pack animal, certainly not in the sense that a wolf or wild dog is. And a dog does not regard a human as a member of its pack. I don't try to dominate my dog (a very high drive pup). I merely direct and correct her when necessary. That may sound the same but it isn't. I want to communicate, not dominate.

Some years ago a study was done with monkeys. An infant monkey was given the choice between two 'mothers'. Each mother was made of metal, one had food and one had a warm covering over the metal. The monkey ALWAYS chose the one with the warm covering over the one with merely food and it did not eat. I do not believe that food is an important part of building a bond between a child and mother. Its the way the mother communicates with the child. I have always believed that and see evidence supporting that on a daily basis. There was another study (I'm sorry, but I don't know the source of this one) in an orphanage. It was observed that even though all children received plenty of food, the ones getting more 'cuddling time' were much healthier. This did not count feeding time.

I'm not going to say a bond created with food and play is fake. I think it will just never reach its full potential. And yes, I do think using food or toys is bribery. Since I know I probably won't explain what I'm doing correctly, I'll just keep it simple. I use properly applied stress (at least I hope so) and proper praise and correction (again, I hope so). I never force my pup to do anything. I'm finding that this type of training takes longer (at least for me it does), but the rewards are much greater. I used to use food and play to build a bond but I no longer do.

Regardless of what any of us believe, the truth stands on its own merits.

>I used to use food and play to build a bond >but I no longer do.

I look at it this way, I do not work for free. If my boss came to my desk and just gave me verbal praise and my co worker a check I would no longer want to work. If I do all this work for someone with just a verbal praise from them my work ethics and drive to want to be there or do a good job would vanish. Praise and money is the drive to keep doing a good job and the will to be there.

There has to be a balance of bond and reward and the reward (play or food) has be to great enough to keep the drive there.
Do you play at all with your dog? A ball a frisbee? Because playing with my dog creates a bond. Training isn't the only place you communicate and create a relationship with your canine partner

Just to toss in my two cents...Like Lou, I only work PSDs. While I do use some toys, kongs, balls and motivators, at times the dogs do not need them. For some dogs, the act of the hunt, location of a suspect, the work on its own is self-rewarding. The dare I say "drive" satisfies itself by acting on it in training or deployment. I personally do not use food, but some toys for me are fine. Suspects / decoys make great rewards as well..

Domestic dogs may no longer be wild animals, but it is still a pack animal. If you watch a group of dogs they will very definitely form a pack and maintain typical pack behavior. Some of the same differences are seen in humans and mob behavior. There is always a behavioal component set up by group dynamics. The dog will always need to have it's position in any group defined, if you don't define that position the dog will.

If a working dog has the correct genetics, doesn't it love to do what its bred to do? In the past dogs were not rewarded with food or toys - they worked because that was what they were bred to do and they loved the work. How were they motivated to work all day? A good relationship with the handler - not attained by just training, but in all interactions with the dog. This is still true in many countries where they aren't aware of modern training methods. If you need to 'keep the drive there' I would think there was something wrong with the dog's genetics. In the case of a sporting dog, however, I do see what you mean. The dog is taught to track and protect in an unnatural way.

I agree that the dog needs to know you are the leader. However, a dog will leave other dogs to be with man. Other pack animals will not do this - even when raised by man, they will leave man to be with their own kind. Dog pack behavior (if thats what it is) is different than wolf or wild dog pack behavior.

I'll have to say my method of choice is to do without the food & toys. The love of the job seems to be the paycheck for my dogs & those I train with. I don't carry food with me at all times & find keeping up with a toy to be a hassle. Yet my dogs start pushing me to head out to work everyday. I have found the food/toy to be more of a distraction to my dogs than a motivator. As for a better mouse trap? Depends upon the kind of mice one wants to catch.