Not really. I subscribe to dog magazines, take part in dog forums, read updated books, volunteer dog advice for a charity, liase with an ABDP behaviourist on a regular basis and watch and learn from my own dogs. My opinion has been formed on scientific facts that there is no basis for a dog hierarchy in the home, dogs know we are not dogs therefore we do not need to behave like one (eating before them as a supposed alpha male dog would etc).

FFS. I have never said that dogs do not know that humans are not dogs. I have never said we should behave like dogs. I have never said we should eat before them. What I have said is that a dog needs to know its place in the home. It needs to know that the humans in its home must be obeyed. A dog that does not know it needs to obey its human masters is an unruly dog. There is a distinct difference between 'dominating' a dog and letting it know who is in charge.

And the point I'm making is there is now a different way of thinking and methods to (in your words) "letting the dog know who is in charge".

Your point is absolute nonsense. The dog needs to know who is in charge, or it simply won't obey. Are you seriously suggesting that a dog follows a command because it feels like it? It does so because it sees you as its 'master' or 'leader' and because it seeks the positive response that comes from pleasing you.

And as for methods, I've made clear on several occasions that I don't support 'dominance' or aggression based training techniques, and that I do support positive, rewards-based techniques. Unless you have massive deficiencies in your ability to read and comprehend simple English, I'm struggling to see what you're finding so difficult to understand.

FFS you've both got a dog/dogs. You each have differing views on how a dog should be trained and developed. Can't you just agree not to look after each others' dogs and move on?

No I'm suggesting a dog follows a command because in P+ it knows its going to get rewarded for that behviour. Explain this then; my behviourist came down to my house the other week and within 5 minutes she had taught them a new clicker move. Did my dogs follow that command because they think she is their new "master" who must be obeyed or did they follow that command because they will be getting a reward??

Anyway, Coddys right, I will continue to read and educate myself on the updated methods and you continue in your belief. One thing we agree on, p+ is the way to go

ps As long as he doesn't have a great dane or a mastiff I would gladly look after Rock Gods dog (s) if the need arise

No, we don't. I have never once disagreed with her assertion that positive training is best.

Fucksake. Your dog obeys commands because they see themselves as being subservient to (certain) humans. Your 'behaviourist' will be included in this because they know how to deal with dogs and because, presumably, they have taken commands from her before. Yes, they know they're going to be rewarded, but (and try to read this very slowly so that you understand) the very process of saying 'do what I say and I'll give you a tit bit' is very much a part of establishing/reinforcing the fact that you hold the authority.



You seem to be incapable of reading anything, much less understanding it. For the final time, I have never once disputed the methods.

And I have not said that you dispute positive reward base methods have I, in in fact I have agreed and acknowledged that we both use these methods. You seem to be missing my point that there are new beliefs out there that disagree with your method of "being the boss" and why dogs behave in certain ways. No where in my posts have I disputed you are against +R.

We are going around in circles here. We both believe in positive reward based methods, agreed? We both disagree on why dogs behave in a certain way for humans, agreed? I have put my point across on why I disagree with your "showing whos boss", you have put your point across on why you think you need to "show them who's boss", agreed? I respect your opinion and why you think that way (I used to until I read many different articles by many different trainers), but I like to think a different way. Many others believe your way, many others believe my way. Do we need to carry this on?

You seem to be struggling here. You seem to have read the phrase 'a dog needs to know who is in charge' and interpreted it in your own preconceived (and rather negative) way. The links you provided (and others) state that the species of wolf most closely related to the domestic dog live in packs that are quite similar to our family units (mother, father and some pups/younger dogs). So let's look at it from that point of view.

I have a six year old son. I have never beaten him. I don't shake him by the scruff of the neck. When I was potty training him, I didn't rub his nose in any mistakes he might have made. I don't 'dominate' him in any way. Yet he knows exactly who is in charge, and that I (and his mother) must be obeyed in certain situations. This is not only desirable for raising a well-behaved child, it's essential to ensure the safety of a child.

If I say "Daniel, please stop that", in a calm and quiet voice, he may ask me why he needs to stop and we'll have a discussion about it. If I raise my voice and say, "Daniel! No!", he will stop what he is doing immediately. If he is in imminent danger of causing himself harm, this response is essential. The same applies with dogs.

Their place in the pack (or family, if you prefer) is that of the younger dog in a wild wolf pack (or family). That's not to say that they see humans as parent wolves, but that they rely on 'their' humans to guide them through life and teach them what's acceptable and what's not in the same way as a parent wolf would. They 'look up' to the humans in their family as figures of authority (if they are trained properly). It's incredibly simplistic to say that they only obey a command because they think they'll get a reward. Yes, they might get one, but that simply reinforces the master/dog (or 'parent/child') relationship. And what happens when you remove the reward? Once I have trained my dogs to obey a particular command on a consistent basis, I cease giving treats. And yet the dogs don't cease to obey the commands. If they were obeying solely for a treat, they would quickly learn that there's no point in continuing to obey once the treats weren't forthcoming.

So whatever negative connotations you may have attached to the phrase 'a dog needs to know who is in charge', they don't apply at all. You've taken one sentence and jumped on it without giving any thought to the wider context of what was meant. Consider this: if a dog does not know who is in charge and they find themselves doing something that they might enjoy more than a treat (something that might endanger them or someone else), what then?