LGD issues

[Cowgirl71]

Glad I read this. My dogs are getting older, and I have started thinking about replacement dogs. The Anatolian was one of the breeds I was considering. It is now off my list.

I'm only on 21/2 acres. Don't need such a high energy dog.. Thanks.

You're very welcome. I would definitely suggest researching the different breeds and their characteristics and personalities before purchasing a pup. They do vary quite a lot, some will be better suited for what you are wanting in an LGD than others.

Quite honestly, Anatolians are generally "too much dog" for most hobby farms. If the main threat to your flock/herd is coyotes and the occasional typical domestic dog, a pair of Pyrenees are effective guardians. They are excellent guardians, and very caring to their charges. They generally bark away any predators, and their large size helps them appear more intimidating than they really are. Rarely do they have to resort to lethal control. They are very sweet and submissive with people. They are less active and are an excellent choice for smaller acreages. They are currently handsdown the most common/popular LGD breed in the U.S., which is not a coincidence. I'm not saying they are the best LGD breed, but they are certainly one of the very best choices for someone with a hobby farm, particularly someone who also has small children.

The next most common breed of LGD is the Anatolian (or at least they are definitely the next most common here in Missouri). If your predator threat is more extreme, such as wolves or cougars or bears, or even the 2-legged variety, and you have more land and have a firm confident personality, several Anatolians would make excellent effective additions to your flock/herd and property. They are definitely the better choice against a more severe predator threat. They are more aggressive, and physically better able to defend themselves against the larger more serious predators. While the Pyrenees prefer to bark threats away, Anatolians generally prefer a more lethal method. Both are LGD breeds, but they are each very different in both personality and guardian method.

 

[mirandaleecon]

Thank you all for your input! I really try to avoid the 'dominance' type training. About 95% of the time, it's fairly easy to work with him and give him positive reinforcement. There's just that 5% of the time when something gets triggered in him and there is no way to get him to stop jumping at me except to put him on his side.
We did get him a choke collar this weekend. So far, it's working great, when it's on. I walk him with a loose leash and the only time I pull is when he goes to nip me. The first time I used it he tried to nip my legs about 3 times, then quit and started walking politely. Normally it would have turned into him jumping up on me and nipping at me. Only issue I have now is when I let him off the leash, he does not listen. I'll work on that.

As far as him being chained up; We can't let him roam free now because he can't be trusted around the chickens yet. We had him in a pen (8'x24') when he was smaller but it was clear that wasn't going to hold him long and he didn't like it. We tried putting him in an unoccupied goat pasture (75'x75'), but it was clear he didn't like that either and he would dig out before long. So, we chained him to our front door as a temporary measure and he actually seemed content there. I'm guessing because he knows we are on the other side of the door and he can protect us. We walk him several times a day and let him run around for about an hour in the evening. If we're working outside, he's usually off the leash and hanging out with us. He won't run around during the day because it's usually too hot (he acts like he is allergic to the sun). He just runs to the shade and sits there. I've been contemplating letting him roam at night when all the chickens are locked up, but I'm not sure he's ready for that.

A couple things seemed to have come to light in the last week or so. I think I mentioned already but he is definitely teething. He's got a couple double teeth right now which I'm sure is uncomfortable.
He has also been having some stomach trouble. We took him to the vet Friday because he was refusing to eat all day. Turns out, he either really dislikes his food (Authority, grain free) or he has some kind of food sensitivity that is making him sick. We got him a new brand of food (Nutro) and given the choice, he chooses the Nutro over the Authority. If we mix them, he won't eat it. I still don't think he is too impressed with the Nutro either but at least he is eating it. If we give him some cooked rice and carrots with an egg mixed in, he inhales it. I'm hoping to start making all of his food but I want to do more research so I can make sure he's getting everything he needs nutrition wise. We are probably also going to get him an allergy test.

 

[mirandaleecon]

Oh, and I bought clickers. I actually trained my cats with them so I am familiar. It's been about 11 years since I trained them so I'm going to brush up on it. I'll let you know how that works out...

 

[DuckGirl77]

I personally wouldn't advise clicker training because it teaches the dog with treats, but what if the dog decides he would rather run into the street or eat a chicken that come to you and listen for a treat? I tried a little treat training with my dog, and it doesn't work half as well as the method I use now. I have a clicker training book b/c I did a ton of research on dog training and I wanted to test out everything. I never tried that, though. I even have a clicker, and maybe I'll find a use for it someday, but I absolutely will not train my dog with it!

Now, I know some of you will jump a few inches out of your seat when I say this, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the "dominance method" works. My dog is living proof of that. With treat training, the dog is controlling you. With the so-called "Dominance method", you control the dog and he won't get fat and demanding with treats. I use Don Sullivan's method: a mix of praise and punishment. Yes, punishment: it's the only way your dog will respect you and listen every time you give a command. My dog respects me so much more than he used to, and he gets more freedom and is a happier dog.
Check out theperfectdog.com and see what you think. The command collar is not cruel, rather, it gives the dog more freedom b/c he learns to behave!
I cringe every time I hear "postitive reinforcement." It's the dog controlling you. If you don't think there's such a thing as the dog pack with ranking, look at dogs interacting with each other! A growl at another dog so he will get away from the food bowl is, guess what? Negative reinforcement! The so-called "dominance method."
Again, not trying to argue with anyone. I know many people don't like this because they say training is a game and the dog won't want to play if you correct him, but let me ask: is it a game if the dog eats your chickens because he got into the pen somehow? If he gets hit by a car because he got out?
Please don't take this the wrong way. I am expressing my own opinion and everyone is entitled to their's, of course, but this is what I have learned from personal experience with my dog, who I love so dearly that I teach him this way to give him a happy life.

I take dog training very seriously and have tried more than one method. This WORKS. I encourage anyone who doubts this to check it out! Don't be held back by the words "dominance" and "command." Believe me, I thought it was mean to punish a dog at first but realized it was more cruel to keep my dog within all these boundaries than to teach him to obey me and give him well-earned freedom. He's still being taught, but we'll get there! I let my dog control me for a few years and wondered why he barked for his food and came for a treat only if he was in the mood for it (not often b/c he got so many!)
Like I said before, you are entitled to your opinion! Train your dog as you feel is best. This is the best method I personally have ever found and I just wanted to share so your dog can have more fun and freedom!

 

[DuckGirl77]

Oh, and I think it's good you have a choke chain! I have one and they are very effective! Happy dog training!

 

[dainerra]

!

if you think that "treat training" means that the dog is controlling you, you are doing it entirely wrong. Who doesn't want to work without getting paid? Who do you work better for - the boss that rewards your hard work or the one who brow beats you into obedience?
Many people, no matter what method they use, never actually progress in training. They use their method as a bandaid vs actually teaching the dog.
Reward training works fine. It builds a bond with your dog and makes you a team. I have been working in GSDs for several years and no one I know would even sell a puppy to a buyer who uses methods like you describe. If you did get a puppy and they found out later that you use these methods, they will remove the puppy from your home. And you'll likely be getting a bill for the rehab training that the puppy will get before being placed in a better home. Same goes for the malinois, dutchie, rottie, dobe and other breeders of large working breeds.

Positive training doesn't mean that it is "pure positive" yes, there are some few trainers that use that method but they are few and far between. The methods described by the people above are more commonly called "balanced training" Rewards for correct behavior and to to teach. Corrections to shape behaviors once the dog knows what is expected of them.

The step that most people skip (and leads to ideas like yours that you are simply bribing the dog) is phasing out the treats. While teaching something new, you reward frequently. Then you reward every 2-3 times. Then steadily increase the amount of obedience you are asking for before rewarding the dog.

 

[Chickerdoodle13]

I am familiar with Don Sullivan's methods and they are just as dangerous as those of Cesar Millan's. That is great the method works for you, but this could be due to a multitude of reasons. More than likely, your dog is incredibly patient with you. Many dogs will eventually get fed up with constant punishment and will react in aggression because it is the only option they have left. Studies of the social system of domestic dogs refute the pack belief. Dogs are not wolves. It has even been shown that wolves themselves do not necessarily act in a pack.

Punishment has its place and I am not against it when used responsibly, but I truly believe it should not be used in a training program more Frequently than positive reinforcement. I myself use a shock collar to prevent chasing of deer when my dog is off the leash. Yes, sometimes dogs will find something more rewarding than a treat, but not everyone can be expected to be perfect. However, in dog training it is important to understand this no matter the method of training used. The majority of my training is positive reinforcement, including the leave it command (which has prevented my dog from chasing chickens and DOES work). Repetition is the key.

Positive reinforcement does not cause a dog to be demanding and fat. If you feed your dog properly and use smart treat choices, he will remain a healthy weight (obese pets in America is a topic for another time). A treat motivated dog is a highly trainable dog. They are attentive and willing to learn. Positive reinforcement has been proven to be more effective in teaching new skills in many, many species, humans included. A dog that is not treat or food motivated can definitely be a challenge, but understanding behavior can help shape behaviors without using abusive methods. Training methods can and should be tailored to the individual dog.

Perhaps I'm not going to change your mind, but I do hope you may think about reading Sophia Yin. She was an incredibly talented veterinary behaviorist who understood dog behavior on a deep level and had a mission to teach people gentle handling methods. I also hope you will take the time to read some of the behavior research that has been done in the last five years.

 

[Chickerdoodle13]

if  you think that "treat training" means that the dog is controlling you, you are doing it entirely wrong.    Who doesn't want to work without getting paid?    Who do you work better for - the boss that rewards your hard work or the one who brow beats you into obedience?     
Many people, no matter what method they use, never actually progress in training.   They use their method as a bandaid vs actually teaching the dog.   

Reward training works fine.    It builds a bond with your dog and makes you a team.    I have been working in GSDs for several years and no one I know would even sell a puppy to a buyer who uses methods like you describe.   If you did get a puppy and they found out later that you use these methods, they will remove the puppy from your home.    And you'll likely be getting a bill for the rehab training that the puppy will get before being placed in a better home.   Same goes for the malinois, dutchie, rottie, dobe and other breeders of large working breeds.     

Positive training doesn't mean that it is "pure positive"    yes, there are some few trainers that use that method but they are few and far between.   The methods described by the people above are more commonly called "balanced training"     Rewards for correct behavior and to to teach.   Corrections to shape behaviors once the dog knows what is expected of them.   

The step that most people skip (and leads to ideas like yours that you are simply bribing the dog) is phasing out the treats.    While teaching something new, you reward frequently.    Then you reward every 2-3 times.  Then steadily increase the amount of obedience you are asking for before rewarding the dog.     

Dainerra has given an excellent description of positive reinforcement training. I like the term "balanced".

I did have an issue with my dog being so focused when I had treats that it was hard for me to get her to go away. It took some work, but I was able to teach her a "no more" command which meant training was done and there would be no more treats. I tell you, ignoring a dog can be the worst punishment for many of them! They get the hint quickly. I saw amazing work done at a shelter with a click for calm program. The dogs in kennels would get a click and a treat for calm behavior and ignored for barking. Wouldn't you know, that shelter was pretty darn quiet when I visited! This only took a few weeks to do.

 

[DuckGirl77]

if you think that "treat training" means that the dog is controlling you, you are doing it entirely wrong. Who doesn't want to work without getting paid? Who do you work better for - the boss that rewards your hard work or the one who brow beats you into obedience?
Many people, no matter what method they use, never actually progress in training. They use their method as a bandaid vs actually teaching the dog.
Reward training works fine. It builds a bond with your dog and makes you a team. I have been working in GSDs for several years and no one I know would even sell a puppy to a buyer who uses methods like you describe. If you did get a puppy and they found out later that you use these methods, they will remove the puppy from your home. And you'll likely be getting a bill for the rehab training that the puppy will get before being placed in a better home. Same goes for the malinois, dutchie, rottie, dobe and other breeders of large working breeds.

Positive training doesn't mean that it is "pure positive" yes, there are some few trainers that use that method but they are few and far between. The methods described by the people above are more commonly called "balanced training" Rewards for correct behavior and to to teach. Corrections to shape behaviors once the dog knows what is expected of them.

The step that most people skip (and leads to ideas like yours that you are simply bribing the dog) is phasing out the treats. While teaching something new, you reward frequently. Then you reward every 2-3 times. Then steadily increase the amount of obedience you are asking for before rewarding the dog.

I prefer personally not to compare dogs to humans because dogs aren't people. Dogs don't see it as getting paid, IMO, but rather as what they get as pack leader. Have you ever seen a dog push another dog away from a food bowl? A primary need is food, and giving alot of food to a dog when he asks by sitting or another way is submitting to him. If a dog begs for food and you teach him that he'll get a treat for sitting on his bed instead of begging, he is getting what he wanted. Maybe not people food, but food, nonetheless.
Could you please give an example of someone not progressing in training b/c they aren't using positive reinforcement? If you don't think "negative reinforcement" works, I would advise you to check out reviews for Don's method and the testimonials on theperfectdog.com . You may see what I mean.
I'm not sure why they would not sell a puppy to someone who uses Don's methods. IMO, a person who truly loves their dog will train him in such a way that he will not disobey and thus has a very low chance of being hurt because he didn't listen. Yes, the dog needs discipline to learn you're the pack leader and he must obey but, IMO, this is love. This is what it means in my mind to be a caring dog owner. I'm not saying someone who uses treats to train doesn't love their dog, but I don't know what's wrong with someone else training their own dog this way. It's not abuse. It's control. It's love.
I don't believe you can be equal with your dog because that's not how a dog thinks. You may think you're equal, but the dog sees it differently. Someone has to take control.
When I got my dog, I wanted to train him with treats and punish him only when necessary. I wanted to be best buddies. My dad taught the dog that he (my dad) was the leader. Result: the dog obeyed my dad, but not me. There were times I wished my dad was there to tell the dog to obey because he always listened to my dad. Now, the dog obeys me, too, because he sees me as over him. It isn't detrimental to his spirits; he actually is happier because I am able to do more with him since he obeys, compared to his previous stubborness.
What type of corrections are you talking about? Ignoring or actual, physical corrections?
Believe me, I didn't always use treats. Sometimes I would, but the dog only obeyed if he saw a treat in my hand. If he didn't like the treat, he wouldn't obey.

I am familiar with Don Sullivan's methods and they are just as dangerous as those of Cesar Millan's. May I ask how familiar? Have you seen the DVD or just the website? I am only slightly familiar with Cesar Milan and as far as I know, Don's methods are better ... That is great the method works for you, but this could be due to a multitude of reasons. More than likely, your dog is incredibly patient with you. This method works for many, others, too! I encourage you to check out theperfectdog.com and the testimonials and reviews on that website and amazon (reviews of dvd and collar). Actually, my dog is not patient. He has bitten before, and, although he knew not to when I started using Don's method, when I was teaching him the down command (a submissive position. My dog started listening even better once he learned to obey this command.), he actually opened his mouth as though to threaten me to stop correcting him when he didn't listen. A firm tap on the nose made him close his mouth (voluntarily) and obey. IMO, the reason he was aggressive like this (it was mild, he didn't actually get as far as biting me) was because he wants to be the leader. I know my dog, and I can see how he controlled me. Here's an example of his manipulating: I taught him the command "come." Now, eventually, I started only giving treats sometimes when I called him with this command, but I always gave him treats when I whistled. Whistling was "backup" for me because I wanted to have something to do if he ran away. So, when I needed him to come inside, I would say "come." He only obeyed if he wanted too, i.e., he hardly ever obeyed. He would wait till I whistled to come to ensure he got a treat. Of course, I picked up on this and stopped whistling for him. Instead, I would go outside if he didn't come when I said "come," and I would take his collar and lead him to the house. But, seeing himself as the lead dog, he balked. He is very heavy and I would have to grab his collar on both sides and literally drag him to the house and half-lift him up the steps. Physically challenging, and impossible for a weak person, which I am not, thankfully. If his owner had been a weak person, he would have stayed outside as long as HE wanted. He thought he was leader. Plain as that. Now, he was more responsive if I put a leash on him because I had, a few years before, done some work with a choke chain, but, seeing himself as leader, he would resist that if he wanted to. I was crossing the street on a walk with him this past winter and he decided, in the middle of the road, to stop and try to go back across the way we came (he didn't want to go home!) I was not going to give in because we were going to go where I led him, not wherever he wished. While I was trying to get him to come, a plow truck came our direction. Thankfully, people don't drive fast on our road in the winter! I grabbed his collar and pulled hard to drag him to the other side. That could have had a bad result b/c he thought he was leader. Many dogs will eventually get fed up with constant punishment and will react in aggression because it is the only option they have left. IMO, the dog acts aggressively because he is trying to keep the owner from getting command. It is the only option they have left, yes, and it is what they would do to another dog threatening their position as leader. They are not biting because they have been hurt, but because they are trying to tell the owner "No!" Studies of the social system of domestic dogs refute the pack belief. Watching dogs interact shows there is a leader, a dominant dog. No matter what studies say, it is obvious some dogs have higher ranking and some have lower ranking. Pushing another dog away from a bowl of food is a dominant move. Growling at a lower dog when they try to get the lead dog's food, all this shows there is a dominant lead dog. Dogs are not wolves. It has even been shown that wolves themselves do not necessarily act in a pack.

Punishment has its place and I am not against it when used responsibly, but I truly believe it should not be used in a training program more Frequently than positive reinforcement. I myself use a shock collar to prevent chasing of deer when my dog is off the leash. Yes, sometimes dogs will find something more rewarding than a treat, but not everyone can be expected to be perfect. The dogs behaved much better with Don's system than I have ever seen a treat-trained dog behave. No chasing cats; they come even if they're playing with another dog; they won't pull on a leash, even if there's another dog they would like to see; I could go on. However, in dog training it is important to understand this no matter the method of training used. The majority of my training is positive reinforcement, including the leave it command (which has prevented my dog from chasing chickens and DOES work). It's great that your dog responds! I taught my dog with negative reinforcement and I am absolutely positive he will never chase a chicken again. Repetition is the key.

Positive reinforcement does not cause a dog to be demanding and fat. If you feed your dog properly and use smart treat choices, he will remain a healthy weight (obese pets in America is a topic for another time). True, but many dog owners do not understand this, and many dogs disobey and, may I say, require so many treats that it is very unhealthy. An occasional biscuit is best, and that's what I do. A treat motivated dog is a highly trainable dog. Depends, IMO. If he wants a treat more than he wants something else, then yes. A dog that learns not to jump from being trained w/ treats has not learned not to jump. He has learned that if he sits instead, he gets something better than jumping, but he may still jump if he's not hungry or if his owner bought the wrong brand of treats and he knows it (I mean this in a joking manner, although it could happen.) They are attentive and willing to learn. Positive reinforcement has been proven to be more effective in teaching new skills in many, many species, humans included. I do teach my chickens, ducks, fish, and birds with positive reinforcement. My dog is different. I am his leader, and it must be that way if I want to control him. A dog that is not treat or food motivated can definitely be a challenge, but understanding behavior can help shape behaviors without using abusive methods. Training methods can and should be tailored to the individual dog. Yes, but IMO, all dogs share some basic thinking and can be taught with the method I use.

Perhaps I'm not going to change your mind, but I do hope you may think about reading Sophia Yin. Thank you! I checked out her website and do not agree with her methods. Yes, it teaches the dog to sit, etc, but a dog that is trained with treats does not respect humans, but thinks of them as food-carriers, and will not obey every time. What if it's very important that the dog obeys and he decides he's rather have something else than the treat? The point of training is not that your dog will come for show, but will come when necessary, like when he's after a squirrel who is running through the neighbor's precious flower garden. In this case, he probably wouldn't come for a treat. He would obey, though, if he was trained that you are the leader and he had to obey, no matter what. She was an incredibly talented veterinary behaviorist who understood dog behavior on a deep level and had a mission to teach people gentle handling methods. I also hope you will take the time to read some of the behavior research that has been done in the last five years. I will, but please keep in mind that today, many dogs disobey. Years ago, many dogs listened. Just because the method is old does not mean it's bad. New methods absolutely did not work for my dog, and there are many dogs even worse than mine.

Dainerra has given an excellent description of positive reinforcement training. I like the term "balanced".

I did have an issue with my dog being so focused when I had treats that it was hard for me to get her to go away. It took some work, but I was able to teach her a "no more" command which meant training was done and there would be no more treats. I tell you, ignoring a dog can be the worst punishment for many of them! They get the hint quickly. I saw amazing work done at a shelter with a click for calm program. The dogs in kennels would get a click and a treat for calm behavior and ignored for barking. Wouldn't you know, that shelter was pretty darn quiet when I visited! This only took a few weeks to do.

I have heard of the ignoring method and tried it for my dog with his barking. The main problem was he barked for food. Ignoring him didn't work. He really enjoyed barking, and we had to feed him eventually. Now, I have seen a dog trainer teach a dog the command "shh." She waited til the dog was quiet, then praised and gave him a treat. (Fyi, this was not my dog.) I tried something similar, but here's what my dog did. He would bark to get us to say "No barking," and he knew we would eventually give him a treat when he was quiet. In this way, positive reinforcement had a detrimental effect. With the command collar, he learned not to bark for food in 2 days. I was amazed! I will add that feeding him at an earlier time would not have stopped the problem because he would finish one bowl of dog food and bark for another. He was not starving, he got two cups a day and more (to make him quiet) and treats (to make him listen) and sometimes table scraps (which go to the chickens now.) He was very lazy. I will say his laziness and weight problem were partially due to the type of food he got, and I have a much better kind now, but he certainly wasn't starving, he was being a pig!

My point is, positive reinforcement will get your dog to sit, and come, and not jump, and maybe even not pull on the leash, but the dog won't respect you, and thus he will not always listen, and you will deal with more behavior problems than if you simply teach the dog you are boss. Don's method is not cruel. It mimics what a mother dog does to her pups and how real dogs interact in the real world. I hope no one gets the wrong impression on how I teach my dog. I don't do alpha rolls, and I don't shove my way out the door in front of my dog, although he does wait for me to go first out of respect. I don't beat him. I would never pull his command collar for no reason. I put the collar around my own neck and pulled to see what it felt like and it doesn't hurt unless you pull really hard (actually I didn't pull really hard, but I know it would hurt at some point. The more compliant the dog is, the less force you must use when you give the jerk.) It's only uncomfortable. When you're not pulling the collar, it's not uncomfortable and doesn't irritate the dog (unless of course, you put it on too tight, but Don says how to size it in the video.) Personally, I think treat training is mean because the dog could very well not obey and suffer for it by being hit by a car or lost after chasing a deer. You can't really trust the dog and he controls you because you are not controlling him.
This is my take on dog training. You don't have to agree. I would like to hear more about what other people do with their dogs. If I see that another method is better than mine, I will use that method instead, although it is unlikely I will find another method I like and that works. Don's method teaches the dog to obey no matter what, even if they're not on a leash. I like that. I want my dog to have the freedom and fun I think he deserves.
Happy dog training everyone!

 

[dainerra]

part of being a "pack" is that each dog gets something from the relationship. Dogs know that humans aren't dogs so trying to prove yourself dominant over them is pointless. They know that you are a different thing even though they are willing to be a "family" with other species.

Some dogs, many dogs, won't work for food. But all dogs will work for something. For my dog, that is toys. He couldn't give too flips about treats but he'll do anything for a ball.

For the ignoring method, you aren't doing it quite right. Yes, barking is a self-rewarding behavior. So ignoring isn't the best method for teaching a dog to not bark. Instead, you put it on a command. Teach the dog to "speak' Barkers will quickly catch on to that. Then you teach a "quiet" command. I use "enough" for that. You can then reward or punish as needed with that command.

For those who spout the dominance command, it works simply because 99% of dogs are so forgiving. They will do whatever is necessary to appease you. They don't understand why you keep threatening to kill you - that is the only time a dog forces another dog into submission! - or why you have these random (in their eyes) rages. They forgive you so that you will continue to let them be part of the pack. A truly dominant dog? Try one of those methods and they will send you to the ER. We are physically weak and delicate. No match for a dog in a fight. Plus, many of those methods involve putting yourself in even closer adversarial position to the dog.

The dominance theory has long ago been debunked. The scientist who did the research has recanted. Most trainers who used the methods have recanted. Yes, some dogs need a heavier hand than others but that doesn't mean that it means that dominance theory works.

I would invite you to go visit a working line GSD or even better a malinois. Try that "bite them on the ear" method and let me know how it works for you. I suggest that your medical insurance be up to date and you have aride waiting.