Quote:

Then you go to some backwater country and the dogs eat dirt, have no shelter, are treated like crap, but most of them behave better than "baby" ever will.

That's what I thought too, but the comparison doesn't bother me, as it is not super relevant. If there is a flux in/out/around a mongrel population of say 50 dogs, five of which hang out in a spirit of cooperation with their humans, how does that help me?

I guess if I want to shoot for a success ratio of 1/10 in training my dogs it would, but most of us have one, two, maybe three dogs at a time to train. We don't start with 50 and whittle down to five who are able to adapt to our style and abilities.....most of us,that is.

Those functioning with a group mongrel dogs don't have to deal with the "others" who fall off, wander away, get killed. On the other hand, I have to live with and train the three dogs who live with me. They don't have the luxury of wandering away and finding a different way of life. I guess I could have the luxury of offing them if they don't fit in, yet insist on staying here, but that isn't really my cup o' tea <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Tracy

The points of the post are these:

1) Dogs are completely selfish creatures...and completely unhuman.
2) They don't view humans as part of their pack. For the most part, the only reason our dogs hang out with us is because we restrain them, contrary to mongrel dogs.
3) Our dogs live in OVER ABUNDANCE, and that is not productive.
4) Rank issues are not percieved by the dog as intra species...they are inter species...(like felines and vultures...where if the circumstances are "right" - perception of weakness - , the birds will drive off the feline.)
5) There is a hardwired ability to coexist within the human environment based on SYMBIOSIS...much like a remora with a shark.
6) Classical/Operant conditioning theory OBVIOUSLY works...but the operant/result relationship may have a more extended time frame than commonly thought.
7) Canine survival acts are hardwired; they occur in a time continuum, and good dogs are always evaluating.
8) Not all dogs respond to the dog/human relationship as geographically/breed/job desired, partly because we have "huskies in El Salvador" (eg), partly because we don't use dogs much for their original intended purpose, and mostly because people breed and sell every pup. I think a pup that does not display appropriate breed behaviors within twelve weeks should not be sold (as pet quality or anything else), but if it is, it should walk out of the breeder's place WITHOUT GONADS.
9) "Protection-able" dogs that are bred for most of today's sport formats, are selectively bred for the wrong traits.


These points are important from MY training perspective because:
1) I think dogs should not get a free ANYTHING (pat, meal, secure bed, etc.)
2) I think that based on scenarios, puppies should be trained that it's "better" to live with its humans.
3) A very effective form of puppy punishment is temporary "banishment" or isolation.
4) Dogs should NOT BE CODDLED nor have "too much" of anything.
5) Dominance over our dogs should be clear, without emotion, and continous.
6) Positive is fine to start out with, but timely and appropriate compulsion is FUNDAMENTAL.
7) We shouldn't "serve" our dogs; it should be the other way around.

Having said that, I have always had dogs; they have always lived inside my house; most of them have been rather serious; all of them have been socialized to be stable (with some it was a hard process); my dog and my kids interact and always have; mostly the dogs were clear which were the dominant members of the human species, and were taught that "other" humans could be defeated, and so on. If they ever challenged anyone in my family, the felt something similar to full and wild wrath befall them ( aka getting the $#!+ kicked out of them ), which basically extinguished the behavior.

Mike...creative literature? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

The points of the post are these:

1) Dogs are completely selfish creatures...and completely unhuman.

one of things new owners have hard time understanding. been there and it was not fun either for me or my dog at a time.

 Quote:

2) They don't view humans as part of their pack. For the most part, the only reason our dogs hang out with us is because we restrain them, contrary to mongrel dogs.

No, they will come back always if they have at least regular food and shelter. I have mutt that is pretty much "free spirit" and he always comes back. Smartest dog in my house. And "untrainable".

 Quote:

3) Our dogs live in OVER ABUNDANCE, and that is not productive.

have to find my english-croatian dictionary...<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

4) Rank issues are not percieved by the dog as intra species...they are inter species...(like felines and vultures...where if the circumstances are "right" - perception of weakness - , the birds will drive off the feline.)

Not intraspecies, but intragroup. So competitive aggression is competitive aggresion? If you are part of social system. And dogs DO recognize that.

 Quote:

5) There is a hardwired ability to coexist within the human environment based on SYMBIOSIS...much like a remora with a shark.

6) Classical/Operant conditioning theory OBVIOUSLY works...but the operant/result relationship may have a more extended time frame than commonly thought.
7) Canine survival acts are hardwired; they occur in a time continuum, and good dogs are always evaluating.
8) Not all dogs respond to the dog/human relationship as geographically/breed/job desired, partly because we have "huskies in El Salvador" (eg), partly because we don't use dogs much for their original intended purpose, and mostly because people breed and sell every pup. I think a pup that does not display appropriate breed behaviors within twelve weeks should not be sold (as pet quality or anything else), but if it is, it should walk out of the breeder's place WITHOUT GONADS.
9) "Protection-able" dogs that are bred for most of today's sport formats, are selectively bred for the wrong traits.


These points are important from MY training perspective because:
1) I think dogs should not get a free ANYTHING (pat, meal, secure bed, etc.)
2) I think that based on scenarios, puppies should be trained that it's "better" to live with its humans.

why if it is hardwired? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
they won't go away if you feed them...
but that is pretty much it. ok, i have great alarm dog and if he was any bigger and with that heart; than i would not let him roam arond like he does now? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

3) A very effective form of puppy punishment is temporary "banishment" or isolation.
4) Dogs should NOT BE CODDLED nor have "too much" of anything.
5) Dominance over our dogs should be clear, without emotion, and continous.
6) Positive is fine to start out with, but timely and appropriate compulsion is FUNDAMENTAL.
7) We shouldn't "serve" our dogs; it should be the other way around.

Having said that, I have always had dogs; they have always lived inside my house; most of them have been rather serious; all of them have been socialized to be stable (with some it was a hard process); my dog and my kids interact and always have; mostly the dogs were clear which were the dominant members of the human species, and were taught that "other" humans could be defeated, and so on. If they ever challenged anyone in my family, the felt something similar to full and wild wrath befall them ( aka getting the $#!+ kicked out of them ), which basically extinguished the behavior.

Mike...creative literature? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Your way of thinking, to me, imposes alot of additional stress in dog ownership and completely takes the joy out of it. Someone told me about a book once that someone had written about how dogs think, examples given to me were "your dog doesn't curl up next to you because he loves you, he curls up next to you because you are warm", or "your dog doesn't lick you thru affection, he licks you because your skin is salty" and such things. I don't really care if it's true or false, to me it removes the joy out of the ownership/partnership between me and my dog.

I enjoy seeing my dogs enthusiasm and happyness when I walk in the door, I don't want to walk in the door and think "oh you're just excited because it means you're allowed out of your crate". That's a depressing thought to me and entirely untrue from how I see it, otherwise I would think that seperation anxiety wasn't able to exist in dogs.

I still don't understand what the point was, it's not a question, it's statement of opinion and an analysis that I should have ignored because it represents a point of view that doesn't make much sense to me. I know your whole purpose is to disprove any comparisons between human behavior and canine behavior - but to me this is like comparing a child from a good wealthy happy home to a thug child raised on the streets - is his addiction to crack and desire to kill people the way human nature intended us? Does this mean that children who grow up to be law abiding citizens have an inner desire to smoke crack and kill people? I think people are too caught up in the "dog's aren't human" routine that they ignore the fact that we are nothing but animals too, what were humans bred to do? We have instincts and genetic tendencies and behaviors, and adopted children tend to exhibit behaviors similar to that of their adopted parents simply because we learn by example. Is it wrong to say that this isn't possible in canine's that are adopted as family pets? Is it unreasonable to say that a puppy can grow up to be a nice part of that family the same way an adopted child accepts their new parents as family? The reason so many family pets are dominant and aggressive is because people don't consider their dogs to be similar to humans at all, they discipline their children and send them off to school but ignore the entire prospect of education and discipline for their 4 legged friend. I know that as a child I only listened to my parents up to a point, and after that point, I would go my own way anyway, pretty much like my dog, he has excellent obedience but he goes his own way when he doesn't agree with what I told him to do. I am curious what would happen if 20 babies were raised in the middle of a forest with absolutely no discipline or modern technology. Would the behavior they display be the behavior that we as humans would secretly desire? Or is our exposure to an alternative way of life have altered this instinct? I am sure you can train a child the same way you can train a dog by pure compulsion and punishment, but a child will resent their parent just as much as a dog will resent his master.

Please don't read this and jump into defensive mode, I know some people have their opinions and automatically try to prove themselves right instead of perhaps considering they are wrong or understanding someone elses point of view, I don't really care. This is my opinion - dogs should be dogs but they shouldn't be treated like crap because we are a superior and smarter mammal. People always complain about how people treat small dogs like children - heck, my nephews were here for 2 weeks, they are 2 and 5 years old and there's no way in hell that I had any desire whatsoever to treat them like people treat their little dogs, they drove me nuts and they damn well learnt that when I tell em to do something, they better do it! But that doesn't mean I won't take em to the playground or McDonalds or Disney World, I'm not gonna make em do tricks to get their happy meal either.

And yes - your original post sounded more like a dramatic creative writing essay - had you posted your above list of interpretations instead of/along with that original post I would have better understood your intention and ignored this thread entirely. Unfortunately I have a hard time not stating my opinion once I get started so here it is, my $0.02.

QUOTE: Unfortunately I have a hard time not stating my opinion once I get started so here it is, my $0.02. END

Well, Mike, I for one am happy to have your 2 cents worth on this thread.

 Quote:

Most people that post to this board have never walked where third world mongrels live...

Where I wandered they where on the menu. I think you don't give enough thought on how strong pack drive is. My kids and I jump on our bikes and a start up the road and the dogs start the high pitch bark and whine. They want to run with the family "pack" and on occasion they do. After they been fed,(probably overfed) Why do they insist on following us around? There are accounts of mutts in Iraq warming up to soldiers quickley. There is one documented case where a GI took one home as a family pet after all the appropriat shots/quarintine/paperwork. seems the cur alerted him to danger and save his life. I tried to find the story for Will's book but couldn't locate it on the net. The only thing I can conclude is that we are substitute pack members for dogs and they become substitute/additional family members for us.

I know this post is to try to better understand dog behavior,but why can we not just accept that dogs are for whatever reason drawn to man?Possibly the only animal in the world that chooses,yes I said chooses,to be with us.
Sometimes I think we try to disect every behavior we see in dogs and then we want to label it,categorize it, and file it away in a neat little file.
No matter how hard we try,there are some dog behaviors we have a terrible time explaining.That do not quite fit into our neat little labels and categories.
This talk of reinforcers and and why this and why that is giving me a headache.I think Ill go WORK with my dog and try to forget about it.

Mike:

 Quote:

Please don't read this and jump into defensive mode, I know some people have their opinions and automatically try to prove themselves right instead of perhaps considering they are wrong or understanding someone elses point of view, I don't really care.

I don't have defensive mode...I have fight drive! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Now, seriously...and apologising for it...I entirely forgot to mention the immense importance of establishing a superstrong bond with your dog through play and companionship. I should have started out with that, and thanks for pointing it out.

All your points are valid to me inasmuch as they represent your opinion. Many people feel like you do. I differ strongly from your view in that I disagree with allowing your dog obedience "discretion".

If you don't find anything of value in the thread - that's OK. What I'm saying is that the working breeds should not be bred and raised to be 80 lb. lap dogs. It's a disservice to the breeds. I don't like seeing working dogs that behave like goofballs.

I also pointed out what has worked for me over the past 25 years in the quest for easy <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> living with very powerful dogs in a family environment.

Ivan:

 Quote:

why if it is hardwired?

Immediate action/reward beats the heck out of "hardwiring". If the dog gets "satisfaction" from actions that contradict its hardwiring, you may as well throw the HWing out the window. Say dogs are "prone" to assist humans, but your dog was always allowed to go play in the neighborhood, and as he grew older he found girlfriends out and about, and he always was fed and sheltered by you. The result? The smartest dog in the house, but untrainable. jejeje...couldn't resist! Hardwiring is just an innate ability in my view.

One last bit of humor...thread closed!

I thought about refuting your theory, point by point, then realized that -- DUH -- it wasn't worth it and it wasn't necessary.

It wasn't necessary because all I have to say is that your theory and the training generated by it have produced dogs who were aggressive to your family members and had to "gett the $#!+ kicked out of them".