When you work with as many dogs as I do in any given week, you're bound to have a few dog fights here and there. I always try to avoid them when possible and work even a truly aggressive dog slowly towards meeting another dog. However, in the process of re-socializing a shelter dog it can happen. In most fights a quick sharp sound or simply moving between the dogs and giving a quick Look and Sit command resolves 90% of the snarks that happen. Unfortunately, the remaining 10% requires me to break it up with a bit more force. Those incidents always leave me with feeling bad. I always feel that when a fight like that occurs, I missed something to prevent it, or pushed the training too quickly. A friend of mine found that surprising, but here is my reasoning.
Today I had worked with a dog who's dog skills deteriorated a bit since her time in rescue. I introduced her with some minor scuffles and lots of play. While I give little credence to the whole male/male and female/female issues, I do like to run a dog by a variety of dog personalities. The little girl latched on to Jade's neck after a brief meet and greet, and short noisy fight ensued. As I would expect, Jade fought back and I broke them up and things were fine. So I thought.
It turns out I used too much force (noise, physical force etc.) for the situation. Nothing major, but for the dog's personality, just a little too much. Even after all the dogs I work with, when a real fight starts you want to stop it as quickly as possible before physical or emotional harm occurs to either dog. Yes, in some instances I still over reprimand for the overall temperament of a particular dog. I'm one trainer who is more than willing to admit my mistakes.
The dog now seemed what many would call submissive to me and did not want to fight with any other dogs in the group. Unfortunately, I feel I damaged my relationship with the dog. She would still approach me, wag, and seemed happy, but her spirit was lessened. She was almost too sweet to me, almost to say "You're not going to get mad again?" In the heat of the fight I never got mad, rarely do, but breaking a dog fight up can be a noisy affair. Your goal should always be to use the minimum amount of force to stop the fight and quickly gain control.
Now some owners and trainers may think, that I used enough force to show I was dominant and in charge of the situation. No, if I were an owner, I would classify my self in this situation as an overbearing owner who overreacted. I added more dogs to the playgroup and the little female appeared fine. Maybe an arrogant trainer might feel a sense of accomplishment that the dog would not fight in their presence. This is never my goal while re-socializing a dog. What I created was not generalized behavior modification, but a dog while in my presence, who will not fight. My goal is to modify a dog's behavior to generalize, in this example I want the dog to enjoy the company of other dogs, regardless of the humans present. She did play after that situation and was cordial to me and the other human and dogs in the group, but I did not accomplish what I set off to do. I now have to work with her again and really back off with my personality and energy. It's imperative she learn to play better with other dogs, regardless of who handles her.
I think that in some training circles. what I did and the result would the goal of the trainer. I know for a fact a Kansas City trainer still insists that the owners must dominate the dog and only one person in the family should be the leader of the dog. This is the same trainer where each and every picture of the dog on his website has a big shiny prong(pinch) collar on them in the graduation picture. The whole class is about forcing the dogs down, the philosophy that the dog should fear you more than what they are afraid of. I feel for these owners who go through this guys class and their dogs. You should be the leader, this does not have anything to do with dominance or pack theory. Watch this little video by Ian Dunbar http://www.dogstardaily.com/radio/pack-leadership.
Ask yourself, when you invoke "dominance" over your dog, are you really just being an overbearing bully to your dog? Step back and be a true leader to your dog.
Today I had worked with a dog who's dog skills deteriorated a bit since her time in rescue. I introduced her with some minor scuffles and lots of play. While I give little credence to the whole male/male and female/female issues, I do like to run a dog by a variety of dog personalities. The little girl latched on to Jade's neck after a brief meet and greet, and short noisy fight ensued. As I would expect, Jade fought back and I broke them up and things were fine. So I thought.
It turns out I used too much force (noise, physical force etc.) for the situation. Nothing major, but for the dog's personality, just a little too much. Even after all the dogs I work with, when a real fight starts you want to stop it as quickly as possible before physical or emotional harm occurs to either dog. Yes, in some instances I still over reprimand for the overall temperament of a particular dog. I'm one trainer who is more than willing to admit my mistakes.
The dog now seemed what many would call submissive to me and did not want to fight with any other dogs in the group. Unfortunately, I feel I damaged my relationship with the dog. She would still approach me, wag, and seemed happy, but her spirit was lessened. She was almost too sweet to me, almost to say "You're not going to get mad again?" In the heat of the fight I never got mad, rarely do, but breaking a dog fight up can be a noisy affair. Your goal should always be to use the minimum amount of force to stop the fight and quickly gain control.
Now some owners and trainers may think, that I used enough force to show I was dominant and in charge of the situation. No, if I were an owner, I would classify my self in this situation as an overbearing owner who overreacted. I added more dogs to the playgroup and the little female appeared fine. Maybe an arrogant trainer might feel a sense of accomplishment that the dog would not fight in their presence. This is never my goal while re-socializing a dog. What I created was not generalized behavior modification, but a dog while in my presence, who will not fight. My goal is to modify a dog's behavior to generalize, in this example I want the dog to enjoy the company of other dogs, regardless of the humans present. She did play after that situation and was cordial to me and the other human and dogs in the group, but I did not accomplish what I set off to do. I now have to work with her again and really back off with my personality and energy. It's imperative she learn to play better with other dogs, regardless of who handles her.
I think that in some training circles. what I did and the result would the goal of the trainer. I know for a fact a Kansas City trainer still insists that the owners must dominate the dog and only one person in the family should be the leader of the dog. This is the same trainer where each and every picture of the dog on his website has a big shiny prong(pinch) collar on them in the graduation picture. The whole class is about forcing the dogs down, the philosophy that the dog should fear you more than what they are afraid of. I feel for these owners who go through this guys class and their dogs. You should be the leader, this does not have anything to do with dominance or pack theory. Watch this little video by Ian Dunbar http://www.dogstardaily.com/radio/pack-leadership.
Ask yourself, when you invoke "dominance" over your dog, are you really just being an overbearing bully to your dog? Step back and be a true leader to your dog.
EmoticonEmoticon