Manners, cues, management and language for a better relationship with dogs
by Zazie Todd, Ph.D.
Click on Here for the original post
Have you ever thought about the different ways we talk dogs And dog training– and to what extent does this reflect (or shape) the way we interact with dogs?
Outdated views about dogs can really get in the way of resolving behavior problems when they arise. Unfortunately, they can also contribute to creating these behavioral problems, e.g. if people use aversive methods which are linked to increased fear, anxiety, stress, and aggression (among other problems).
I’ve written before about how we can go astray if we consider dogs as wolves, then make it worse by using outdated views of what wolves are. One of the reasons why this is so common is that metaphor is not only a way of speaking but also a tool of thinking.
In this case, the misconception that dogs are trying to be like alpha wolves – without even recognizing that an alpha wolf is basically a relative or considering how members of wolf families work together – can lead people to use aversive training methods. Of course it is better to use reward-based training methods.
But that’s not the only way talking about dogs is linked to how we treat them. With the shift to increased use of reward-only methods, we are seeing more and more people abandoning the word “command” and instead saying “signal.” Another common shift is from “obedience” to “manners.”
It is therefore not surprising to see this also when we think about management. Management involves making changes to the environment to resolve behavioral problems. This places responsibility on the person rather than the dog.
A certain reluctance with management?
When I talk to management people about dog training, they sometimes seem disappointed. It’s like they’re looking for a quick fix in which the dog changes its behavior, and they instead learn that there is a quick but tedious solution in which they have to change their own behavior.
Don’t leave food on the counter so the dog can jump up and get it, for example, or close the cupboard door where the trash can is with a rubber band so your pet can’t forage there again. (Instead, provide permitted foraging opportunities, like snuff mats, and it becomes fun again).
One situation where people still seem happy with a management solution is loose leash walking. When they are used to their dog dragging them from one place to another, it can be a relief to put a no-pull harness on the dog which often solves the problem on the spot. Of course, you can also choose to train, instead of or in addition to using the harness, and that’s a good idea, but it’s common for the harness to make a big difference.
I think putting on a harness seems like an easier thing to do than thinking about immediately putting the food in the fridge. After all, you need to attach yourself to your dog in some way for most walks, and putting on a harness doesn’t take much more effort than attaching a leash to a collar.
On the other hand, you’d rather be able to leave the food aside, go away and do a few things, then come back and put it away. But it takes a lot for a dog to spend those minutes smelling and looking at food and drooling without eating it. I’m not saying you can’t train them not to go for it, but you might as well put the food safely in the refrigerator.
Cultural ideas shape our attitude towards dogs
Where does this reluctance to embrace management come from? I think it’s not just about who puts in the effort. After all, training a dog also takes effort, sometimes a lot, especially if you’re not yet very good at the skill, which, inevitably, is common for a novice. To train well, you need to pay attention to timing, technique, motivation, etc. This can give you the pleasure of learning a new skill, but it’s also an effort that not everyone enjoys.
I think the reluctance to use management also has to do with these outdated cultural ideas that dogs are supposed to want to please and we’re supposed to be the boss.
Instead, thinking about management requires a cultural shift in which we accept the dog’s natural behavior as normal and not necessarily as something that needs to be modified. We also recognize our own role in the human-dog relationship, which involves teaching, caring, nurturing, recognizing and providing for the dog’s needs.
This is an important change because giving dogs the opportunity to engage in normal behaviors is a central part of good animal welfare.
This is also an important change because it helps us see dogs as they really are. Dogs are not obedience robots that must follow our every command out of respect for their leader. Dogs are living, breathing creatures, with needs of their own, individual personalities and quirks, and hearts full of love for their family members.
Maybe talking about manners, cues, and teaching instead of respect, orders, and obedience is just a linguistic shift. But maybe it also creates a world where we let dogs be dogs and care about their happiness.
If you want to learn more about how to have an even happier pet, check out my books Wag: the science of making your dog happy And Purring: the science of making your cat happy.