A great deal has been written about dogs as descendants of wolves. For many, it seems popular in today's culture to focus on this heritage and discuss dog behavior in relation to pack behavior. Recently, I read a comment on a trainer's list that caught my eye. To paraphrase, one trainer stated that those working with dogs using pack mentality/hierarchy may be effective in spite of their approach - not because of it.

While dogs may have descended from wolves, they are not wolves. They are domestic animals, and over the past 10k years have evolved in ways that should be respected and appreciated. One key difference is the dog's desire to work and be with humans. This important trait no doubt developed gradually over time. Early transitional animals (pre-dogs) likely found it easier to scavenge food from humans vs hunting. Over time they became more comfortable sharing space and interacting with humans. Our ancestors benefited as friendlier dogs eventually helped with work and provided alert/protection.

Because pack discussions often focus on concepts of dominance and submission, I have always been a bit uncomfortable with this terminology when applied to dogs. Dogs are pre-wired to work with humans, and such outlooks diminish a predisposition for a strong partnership. While leadership and structure (also pack components) are important, dominance and submission is usually counter-productive IMO. In fact, I would argue it misses a key element of what makes dogs the wonderful companions into which they have evolved.

This bizarre story out of Arkansas involves a man who requested his healthy 2 year old dog be buried with him. The family honored the request, and had the dog euthanized before the burial. This situation isn't covered by any laws, and the family states the man made the request because of his love for and by the dog.

True love and respect for a pet require meeting its needs, and thinking outside the typical human viewpoint. Here, this owner isn't considering his pet at all - a demonstration of "love" with nothing but selfishness. Very sad request, and very sad it was carried out.

The story below is about a community that has labeled a small dog "vicious" after biting a vet tech in the face. The dog is a 10 year old dachshund, and there aren't really many details about the dog's history or the bite itself. The City in this report has prudently chosen not to label vicious dogs by breed, but here we see the flip side of that coin when labeling "vicious" dogs based on behavior.

One question I would have (and hope was asked), was whether this older dog in for a dental problem was in pain, frightened, or handled in some way that caused discomfort or stress? Only those there at the time can say for certain. In this case the City's law states a vicious dog is one who's attack is not provoked. An old dog in pain or stressed may very well have felt threatened, and if so, its bite should be considered provoked for purposes of this law.

I thought I'd continue with some thoughts regarding my last post on positive training and respect. In that post I mentioned training results are closely tied to respect. What I'd like to discuss further are the concepts of both friendship and respect.

To most people, the terms friendship and respect tend to go hand in hand. From a human perspective, we often respect our friends and become (or wish to become) friends with those we respect. For dogs, however, these concepts are two entirely independent components of a relationship.

Is there really teaching through friendship alone? IMO training methods based primarily on friendship do provide learning, but do not provide teaching - to me there is a big difference. With purely positive methods a dog will learn certain rewards are available for performance, but the dog is not taught commands are non-negotiable. Progress and performance are essentially left up to the dog rather than the owner, and this can set a dog up for failure! When dogs see commands as optional, they invariable have little (if any) respect for their owners and problem behaviors frequently begin.

Training a dog with leadership rather than friendship not only provides far more reliable training results, it provides true teaching which develops respect. The teacher, of course, must reciprocate with fair but progressive expectations and appreciation for the dog's efforts. When this mutual respect is present, most problem behaviors fall away, dogs become reliable, and owners bond with their pets on a much deeper level. Far greater rewards than when a dog is only offered learning on its own terms.

I challenge you again to ask the question - "does your dog respect you"? Review the points for consideration at the end of my positive training post. If you feel there's room for improvement, help is a phone call away. The sooner you improve your relationship with your dog, the sooner you'll enjoy a happier life together.

I've written posts over the years on topics pertaining to various training methods. Over the past week I've been watching several discussions on trainer lists regarding positive only vs balanced training. In an old post I reviewed Victoria Stilwell's "It's Me or the Dog", which favors positive only methods. Of the comments I receive on that page, those favoring Victoria Stilwell's methods (positive only) outnumber those favoring Cesar Millan's methods (balanced using corrections) about 2:1.

So today I was doing some web work and used Google's Keyword Tool to compare searches for Cesar vs Victoria (and their related training/websites/shows) - results ran 500,000 Cesar / 33,000 Victoria (15:1). While positive only advocates seem more vocal on my own website, keyword search statistics clearly indicate Cesar is more interesting to the masses (15:1). Why? Perhaps dog owners want results foremost, and they see results on Cesar's program using balanced methods (including corrections, encouragement and praise).

When getting to the the crucial element for results, I always find myself thinking back on a question from one of my original instructors - does your dog respect you? What a profound question! The (truthful) answer to that single question will speak volumes about a dog's behavior in almost every case. Will a dog trained with only positive methods respect its owner? In my experience - NO. The dog may be friendly and everyone may get along fine - as long as you never expect the dog to do anything it doesn't want to do. But friendship alone is not respect. And while friendship is a great human concept, dogs are not people and they require more.

So now I ask you - does your dog respect you? Here are some points for consideration...

LOW (you might want to consider some work with your dog):
- my dog will sit for a treat
- my dog runs out an open door
- my dog pulls on the leash
- my dog jumps up on me, guests, my things
- my dog dog doesn't know 'down'
- my dog pesters for attention
- my dog won't come when called

MEDIUM (room for improvement, but fairly "good" dog):
- my dog will sit without a treat
- my dog will stay inside with an open door (without being held)
- my dog walks calmly on leash
- my dog keeps his paws on the ground
- my dog knows 'down'
- my dog respects my space
- my dog usually comes when called if there are no distractions

HIGH (congrats - work on maintaining respect EVERY DAY!):
- my dog will sit and down on 1st request (no treats)
- my dog holds sit and down around distractions
- my dog will sit and down while moving/chasing/playing
- my dog walks with me without a leash inc. near distractions
- my dog respects my space and belongings
- my dog will go to an assigned "place" on command
- my dog will come to me even when distracted

Read more thoughts on this topic on my next post, Dogs and Friendship.