The quiet conflict over the canine mind

Not long ago, just a few years, there was a popular school of thought regarding dog training - it was widely thought that dogs, being naturally pack animals, responded best to their owner behaving as a pack leader. Jan Fennell was a popular supporter of this way of thinking, and after reading her books and seeing her work with dogs, it all made sense to me. Bruce Fogle and the late John Fisher also added their support, among others, and it suddenly seemed possible to end the problems of "problem" dogs everywhere. I studied for a Higher Certificate of Cynology (dog studies) during this time, graduated with distinction, and was happy that I at last understood what was going on in dogs' heads.

Then came a backlash. Research over decades has pointed to the fact that dogs are long removed from their lupine ancestry. They are not wolves, and so should not be expected to behave like a wolf pack, when they have evolved in a human environment, the newer way of thinking claimed. John Fisher even did an abrupt turn-around in his work. During this time, I studied for a BSc in Applied Animal Behaviour and Training, in which we were taught to follow this school of thought. If I'm honest, I wasn't entirely comfortable with that. I could accept the leadership method of dog handling (incorrectly labelled "Dominance Theory") because it was totally about communication, feeling, relating to another species on something near its own level. Now I was expected to abandon that for something that seemed almost clinical in its approach - socialisation methods, training techniques and reinforcement schedules. And when I looked at the behaviour of the dogs belonging to the people who were teaching this, I wasn't impressed.

And now the two worlds have collided. I've just been reading an article from the San Francisco Chronicle, in which leading dog trainer and behaviourist Ian Dunbar is claimed to be disparaging of the work of Cesar Millan ("The Dog Whisperer"). Millan is reviving the old leadership way of thinking and achieving some very good results, while Dunbar has used reward-based training for many years, again with very good results. So which one is right?

I believe there's a place for both. In my opinion, a dog is still a pack animal in a human pack, and it needs to have a secure pack structure with a capable leader. Not all dogs want to be "top dog", but they all benefit from knowing who the "top dog" is - and in an ideal world, the owner should be in that role. Without a leader, a dog is forced into a position where it feels it has to look out for itself, and that's never a good thing. So yes, I fully subscribe to the belief that leadership is essential for dogs.. but I also recognise the value of good socialisation and training.

In fact, so does Cesar Millan - I recently saw an episode of his TV show where he was called in to a Dalmatian pup that was a fire station mascot, running rings around the firemen. He taught them how to treat the dog like a dog, then when it was calm and manageable, called in a professional trainer to teach the dog a trick that it could perform on school visits (a demonstration of "stop, drop and roll"). He doesn't claim that his method is a recipe for a perfectly trained dog, just a recipe for a balanced dog.. and then training can add to that in a really positive way.

So I guess I'm flying in the face of "modern" dog trainers by saying that I'm returning to my leadership way of thinking. But I'm taking my training knowledge with me, because the two schools together can be a powerful combination.