Willful disobedience

[juliepoudrier]

FWIW, I've also used the "last one" command, especially when playing fetch in the pond with the whole pack. I don't see that as punitive or controlling, though, but rather as a warning: game over, time to pick up our toys and go home.

 

And I do require things like bring it all the way to my feet. And in the case of kick ball, I also tell them to "get back" before I kick, mainly because I don't want to nail someone with the basketball, since I imagine that would hurt.

 

But if the dog doesn't bring the ball/pine cone all the way to me, then I can just keep walking and if the dog wants to later bring it all the way to me, we'll start to play again. I just don't end play by putting the dog in a time out because the dog decided not to bring the ball or whatever all the way back. I see nothing wrong with throwing training in as Ooky describes either--in that case the ball toss is clearly a reward for the dog for a job well done.

 

I certainly don't enjoy taking them on their walks in this extreme heat, or when it's pouring, or similar, but I figure I "owe" it to them because they do hang out and behave most of the time when I'm doing other stuff. I consider it a small sacrifice, no matter how much I might grumble, to make their lives a little happier, since they clearly don't mind the rain, heat, mud, etc., and they don't ask for a lot from me anyway.

 

Of course, then there's Willow, who runs ahead to the creek on our walks and proceeds to chew on a tree root while standing in the water. No amount of calling will get her to come out--you must have a ball or pine cone to throw to her, at which point she'll let go of the root, catch the object, and exit the creek. I guess not coming out of the creek is disobedience, but it's really no big deal to toss something to her, and at 13, I figure she's earned her eccentricities. The only bad thing is if I forget a ball, but usually the other dogs have dropped enough pine cones in the vicinity that I can find something to throw to her, lol!

 

(And y'all thought I was a mean old stockdog trainer! )

 

J.

[Root Beer]

There definitely is a big camp in agility that it’s always the handler's fault because it is either training or handling deficiency. I often felt that way, given some of the handling I saw. I definitely prefer that school of thought to the "He's blowing me off!" crowd and those who use punishment for mistakes in a game.

 

Oh, I do too. If it must be one or the other, blame the heck out of the handler and I won't quibble.

 

If it's a choice between "handler error" and "He's blowing me off", I'm going to say "handler error". Generally, people tend to be more forgiving about changing themselves than they do about trying to "fix" a dog that has been given the "blowing me off" label. Let me be clear - this is specifically in Agility contexts. I've seen things done to dogs who are supposedly "blowing off" the handler that actually end up making the dog, who is usually simply stressed or distracted or confused or has not yet learned a high level of focus, start to actively avoid the handler on course. That is one instance where I really see people temporarily forgetting that these are games and they are supposed to be enjoyable for the dog.

 

So, while I don't say that it's always the handler's fault and that sometimes it is the dog's independent choice, I'll go with that camp in this situation.

[juliepoudrier]

I'm sure this has been said before, but I always worry about blaming the dog ("he's blowing me off") because I have seen too many instances of the dog genuinely NOT doing that (e.g., a dog who has developed hearing issues, a dog working in pain, a dog who sees/understands something the handler doesn't). I'm sure there are times when the dog does simply blow the handler off, but at least in a working context, I've seen enough legitimate reasons for "blowing the handler off" that I try to look for reasons behind the behavior before ever blaming the dog.

 

J.

[Dixie_Girl]

I have to say I have enjoyed the different views this thread has generated. But getting back to the initial question, "Do dogs willfully break truly understood rules, or does rule breaking always indicate insufficient training?", I still gotta stand by my answer of yes. While playing ball is only a fun activity, some dogs take it way more serious. For some, doing stock work is a way of life, for others it is a weekend or monthly activity, which, IMHO, makes it the same as playing ball. We have dogs that are service dogs, we have SAR dogs, and of course the agility and fly ballers. All the dogs require training, some much more than others, some more fine tuned, and some of course simply require the dog to have an interest. But in each instance, it still requires the dog to understand what you mean and what you expect. And it still gives the dog the opportunity to refuse. I think some folks mistake a dog willfully "breaking the rules" with malicious thought on the part of the dog. But in the case of the dog alerting to the new lamb, the dog knew what the "right" thing to do was, and simply communicated such. Nothing malicious about it. I think sometimes we can over analyze things. We try to put things in either box A or box B. Sometimes there are lots more boxes, and while they may not be as full as A & B, certainly have a place. But if you have a dog that thinks, that is capable of reasoning out things, they will on occasion try to buck the system. It has been said, and quoted often, that a dog is the only creature on earth that will love you more than he loves his self. I don't know if this is true, if they equate love the same as us, but I do know that most dogs want to please their masters. But they do sometimes like to please themselves. It doesn't make them bad or untrained. It doesn't mean that all your training has gone down the toilet.

 

Not one of the dogs here would ever take food off the table, or counter. And, there is not one of them I would entrust guarding my food either.

[Little Bo Boop]

Just my two cents ;-) but it's been my experience that when dealing with Border Collies, they're just on a whole 'nuther level than other dogs, in the brains/behavior dept.

Just a little story about how their little brains can work ;-) My dearly departed Bob, was a wonderful dog, extremely smart, wonderful companion (he was not a working Border Collie) He did a lot of interesting thing's that would pertain to this discussion, but one in particular stands out in my mind. He must have been about 5 years old at the time, I lived in a small house, that backed up to a park. There was a running track that surrounded the park, and Bob and I would frequently take our walks out there. On this particular day, I decided to take a short run, and I didn't take Bob with me. He wanted to go in the worst way, but I told him no, I'd be back in a bit, and left him in the house. I was gone for maybe 30 minutes, came back in, Bob was laying( innocently) on the sofa ;-) I walked into my kitchen to get some water, (there was a window, over the sink, that looked out the back, and you could see the running track from there) I'm drinking my water, looking out the window, and i happen to look to my left, at some cookbooks that were stacked on the counter, I noticed they were wet I touched the 'water' smelled it, it was urine Bob had jumped up on my counter (now mind you, he'd never counter surfed in his life) I'm convinced ;-) looked out the window, saw me out on the track LOL and pissed on my books. In my mind there is no other explanation for his behavior, than he was pissed that I didn't take him with me, and decided he'd fix me ;-) I mean dogs just out of the blue don't just jump up on counters and pee on things...I'm convinced he did it on purpose. I always have to laugh when I think back about that incident ;-) I can just imagine him pacing around the house, all mad, then jumping up on the counter, seeing me out the window, and then letting loose ;-) Gotta love these dogs....LOL

[sweet_ceana]

I just came across the following article an immedietly thought of this thread:

 

Dog behavior breif article with links

 

I honestly cannot decide where I sit on this discussion. I have a question I would like to throw out there. If a dog shows frustration with what he believes is the person making a wrong decision is that "willful disobedience?" I'll give an example:

 

The first time I asked Poke to down on sheep he proceeded to look me straight in the eyes and bark and grumble at me for about two minutes. I can only call it him chewing me out. (The trainer found it hilarious, he downed for her no problem. ) After an old west stare down for two minutes or so he dropped to the ground. I didn't ask him to down again, I asked him the first time and didn't move or say a word until he complied. What would you classify that temper tantrum as? He was clearly choosing not to listen to a command he understood, he didn't try anything else to get me to "give him" the sheep (he wasn't looking for a solution), and being absolutely frustrated with me wasn't a very rewarding endeavor.

 

I would love to hear what people think about this situation.

[juliepoudrier]

SC,

On the surface of it, I would say that he didn't want to down for you because your timing was off or something similar. My students can have trouble getting obedience from their dogs when working while I have no trouble getting instant compliance to the exact same commands during the exact same work session. I think it's because the dog in the student's hands doesn't trust the student to do the right thing (properly time commands to retain control of the sheep) and so resist those commands (because instinct--control the sheep--overrides compliance when the dog lacks trust in the handler in that situation). This is especially evident in the case of a young/newbie dog with a newbie handler. Usually a fully trained dog will *try* to comply, even when the newbie handler is mucking things up with bad timing and the like. A dog who truly doesn't understand a command wouldn't respond to either trainer or student.

 

J.

[sweet_ceana]

I think it's because the dog in the student's hands doesn't trust the student to do the right thing (properly time commands to retain control of the sheep) and so resist those commands (because instinct--control the sheep--overrides compliance when the dog lacks trust in the handler in that situation).

 

That is exactly what happened, but does it count as willful disobedience? It would seem to me he looked at the two options and consequences and decided not to obey what he knew I was asking.

 

I am happy to say we don't have this issue anymore. Poke has taken pitty on me and I believe at this moment sees himself as the patient teacher.

[PSmitty]

My trainer told me not to worry the first few times about Jack not downing on sheep. She said he didn't trust me or the situation, and that he was more worried about losing his sheep. He is pretty good now with listening to me on sheep, but still much, much better with our trainer. He knows that SHE knows what she's doing. Unlike me.

 

ETA: I think a situation as you described is more like what Anna talked about earlier. Poke's instinct to do the right thing on sheep over-rode his desire to obey your command. Did he make a choice to not down? Yes, but it's hard to call that willful disobedience, at least in my opinion.

 

ETA again: I guess I should have read more...I pretty much echoed Julie's comments. That's ok, great minds and all...

[Root Beer]

I honestly cannot decide where I sit on this discussion. I have a question I would like to throw out there. If a dog shows frustration with what he believes is the person making a wrong decision is that "willful disobedience?"

 

My simple answer would be "no". The dog is, as you say, expressing frustration.

[flyer]

Geonni, here is a link to an article that explains much better than I ever could why I do not believe that dogs operate on a cognitive level of reasoning.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/my-pup...otion-and-logic

[geonni banner]

Geonni, here is a link to an article that explains much better than I ever could why I do not believe that dogs operate on a cognitive level of reasoning.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/my-pup...otion-and-logic

 

Thanks for the link. I read the entire article. However I don't much agree with it. I did just finish reading a book co-authored by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce called Wild Justice which I thought was excellent. He argues that the underpinnings for altruistic behaviors and various other things like selfishness, a predisposition to favor kin in sharing resources, and a sense of justice are hard-wired in several species of social mammals.

I've seen plenty of other published materials that supported cognitive reasoning in not only higher mammals such as chimps, dogs, cetaceans and even birds. It has been supported by my own experience of dogs, cats, parrots and yes, even to some degree in horses. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[flyer]

Thanks for the link. I read the entire article. However I don't much agree with it. I did just finish reading a book co-authored by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce called Wild Justice which I thought was excellent. He argues that the underpinnings for altruistic behaviors and various other things like selfishness, a predisposition to favor kin in sharing resources, and a sense of justice are hard-wired in several species of social mammals.

I've seen plenty of other published materials that supported cognitive reasoning in not only higher mammals such as chimps, dogs, cetaceans and even birds. It has been supported by my own experience of dogs, cats, parrots and yes, even to some degree in horses. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

I agree with so much Bekoff has to say since he sees canines as highly emotional beings, but yes, we can agree to disagree re: conscious thought processes. I think he is misinterpreting what he is seeing and I am with the critics who say he is anthropomorphizing.

[Pearse]

Dogs operate on an emotional energetic level. They do not reason things out so they cannot be willful.

 

I don't know that I agree with you that dogs don't exhibit reason.

 

Anna gave a good example early in this discussion, which I have also experienced with my working dog. She gave a dog, who is solid on his recall, a recall whistle. He refused the recall to go an mark where a ewe and lamb were laid down out of sight. That is evidence, to me, of weighing the consequences and making an informed choice. Ignore the trained response (recall) in favour of forcing the shepherd to come to the sheep in need of assistance.

 

I've seen it also in one of my wife's dogs who, if I throw her ball on the dining room table, will walk around the table and weigh her options; (stand on a chair, pull on the table cloth, stand on her hind legs, poke her nose between the table and the wall) before deciding which option is most likely to meet with success. This is a very deliberate process and she is clearly thinking about the possible outcomes and is almost always successful.

 

I've also seen it at trials. I've seen dogs who will ignore every "lie down" command from the lift to the fetch gates because they have learned that 150 yards (where the fetch gates are) is the limit of the distance their handler is prepared to run to enforce a lie down command, or dogs who will take a lie down at home, but blow ignore it at the trial because they know their handler will never leave the post.

 

 

To me, those are examples of reason.

 

We used to think that animals did not experience emotion. Almost everyone here would likely agree that this is not the case. I suspect that we will change our attitude towards animal intelligence in a similar way as we learn more about the ability of animals to plan, use logic, use tools, and to communicate. We are, after all, animals ourselves and not as different from other living creatures as we would like to believe.

 

Pearse

[geonni banner]

We used to think that animals did not experience emotion. Almost everyone here would likely agree that this is not the case. I suspect that we will change our attitude towards animal intelligence in a similar way as we learn more about the ability of animals to plan, use logic, use tools, and to communicate. We are, after all, animals ourselves and not as different from other living creatures as we would like to believe.

 

Pearse

 

Yes

[mbc1963]

Yes

 

Yes here, too.

 

Again, levels of sophistication are different - but I think that all social mammals (and probably many non-mammals) have similar ways of working out the world. Our human ability to set long-term goals and find ways to achieve them is, indeed, very sophisticated. Dogs could never plan and execute, say, the interstate highway system. But that doesn't exclude them from a canine thinking and reasoning ability - we've all seen our dogs solve problems in a novel way.

 

Many of the reasons people are giving for dog bevhavior not being "willful disobedience" could also be used to explain children's temper tantrums. "They're just expressing frustration. They're choosing to do something that's more fun for them." Yes, a cranky teenage girl can take the equivalent of dog-grumbling to extraordinary heights, but to me, it's just a more sophisticated expression of the exact same feeling. "I want X. They don't want me to have X. I'm going to get X anyway. Harumph!" We're all just mammals, trying to get what we want in the world.

 

Mary

[flyer]

I don't know that I agree with you that dogs don't exhibit reason.

 

Anna gave a good example early in this discussion, which I have also experienced with my working dog. She gave a dog, who is solid on his recall, a recall whistle. He refused the recall to go an mark where a ewe and lamb were laid down out of sight. That is evidence, to me, of weighing the consequences and making an informed choice. Ignore the trained response (recall) in favour of forcing the shepherd to come to the sheep in need of assistance.

 

Or the recall cannot in this instance over-ride the dog's magnetism to the prey which is even more preyful (edited after JP's post down below) and I don't mean in an I'm going to kill and eat this sense as our dogs have been domesticated. Simply that it is drawn powerfully to the downed ewe and lamb. Much like going after the sheep that splits off.

 

 

I've seen it also in one of my wife's dogs who, if I throw her ball on the dining room table, will walk around the table and weigh her options; (stand on a chair, pull on the table cloth, stand on her hind legs, poke her nose between the table and the wall) before deciding which option is most likely to meet with success. This is a very deliberate process and she is clearly thinking about the possible outcomes and is almost always successful.

 

Or perhaps the dog is feeling out the most OK way of getting something from a place it is not supposed to be. The table top.

 

 

I've also seen it at trials. I've seen dogs who will ignore every "lie down" command from the lift to the fetch gates because they have learned that 150 yards (where the fetch gates are) is the limit of the distance their handler is prepared to run to enforce a lie down command, or dogs who will take a lie down at home, but blow ignore it at the trial because they know their handler will never leave the post.

To me, those are examples of reason.

 

We used to think that animals did not experience emotion. Almost everyone here would likely agree that this is not the case. I suspect that we will change our attitude towards animal intelligence in a similar way as we learn more about the ability of animals to plan, use logic, use tools, and to communicate. We are, after all, animals ourselves and not as different from other living creatures as we would like to believe.

 

Pearse

 

Simply suggesting another way to interpret.

 

FWIW, I do not for once think a dog is any less than a human being because it does not reason. Humans can take a lot of lessons from animals, IMHO. Intellectual intelligence can be highly over rated.

[Root Beer]

"I want X. They don't want me to have X. I'm going to get X anyway. Harumph!"

 

Or perhaps - "I don't understand X. They won't help me understand X. They want something and I don't know what it is. I'm going to show them that I don't understand. Harumph!"

 

[Ooky]

Could not agree with Pearse more.

 

To be honest, I am not impressed with the "energy" theories of dog behavior and training. Not that I don't think they are sometimes correct or a good way to train. But the explanations I've read seem very sloppy to me, and hand-wavey. I don't always think the energy-based explanations given by Behan and his followers are as scientific or as evidently provable as people seem to presume when touting them. In the PT article, a few quotes bugged me:

 

So when people tell me dogs have the ability to reason, I say, "Hold on, let's try to understand their emotions first before we start giving them intellectual faculties."

 

Why must it be either/or? Emotions shape and inform our own thought processes, and are not always easy to separate. Why wouldn't it be similar in other animals?

 

The truth is, dogs can't be obedient or disobedient because even though it's something they're exceptionally good at, dogs themselves don't know what the concept of obedience means. They only know that when their emotions are aligned with their owners' desires they "feel" like doing what their owners want them to. That's all.

 

This is ignoring the other side, in my view. I am 99.9% sure that Odin's emotions are NOT always aligned with my desires. Case in point, rolling in a dead seal carcass. But he will leave it because he knows he is to "leave it" if I say to. What does "feel like doing" something mean anyway? I am pretty sure he "feels" like rolling in the seal. But overall, he trusts that when I say not to, it's better for him not to based on what he's learned about being with me (rewards/release of pressure when he does what I want, corrections/pressure when he doesn't). Again, you can boil this all down to emotions if that's the way you a priori seek to define it, but again I ask, what is the real difference between emotions and non-verbal thoughts? I don't think that line is distinct or easy to define.

 

Many of the reasons people are giving for dog bevhavior not being "willful disobedience" could also be used to explain children's temper tantrums. "They're just expressing frustration. They're choosing to do something that's more fun for them." Yes, a cranky teenage girl can take the equivalent of dog-grumbling to extraordinary heights, but to me, it's just a more sophisticated expression of the exact same feeling. "I want X. They don't want me to have X. I'm going to get X anyway. Harumph!" We're all just mammals, trying to get what we want in the world.

 

^^great point, Mary!

[DeltaBluez Tess]

Tess had a case of possible willful disobedience. I sent her to get the flock out of my huge pasture, The sheep came and I saw Tess halfway up the field, sitting. I called her and she laid down. I called her again, gave some flanks and she looked HARD at me, and didn't move.

 

"SH*t", I thought...she is hurt bad and can't move so I BOLTED up the field. Of all of my dogs, Tess is the most obedient.

 

She was fine. She was licking a rejected lamb that was too weak to move.

 

The look in her eyes was "Christ, about time you got up here"

 

She wasn't going to move and leave the lamb behind. All of my other dogs would have left it. All the way down and back to the house, she nuzzled the lamb and he began to follow her. She slept with it also. The lamb grew up and is now a pet...often they will look at each other, as if they remembered the past, and he will then tuck in with the sheep. As he was growing up, he would look for Tess when she was tied up in the field and lay next to her.

 

 

I don't know if it was willful disobedience but it was doing the right thing.

[bcnewe2]

She wasn't going to move and leave the lamb behind. All of my other dogs would have left it. All the way down and back to the house, she nuzzled the lamb and he began to follow her. She slept with it also. The lamb grew up and is now a pet...often they will look at each other, as if they remembered the past, and he will then tuck in with the sheep. As he was growing up, he would look for Tess when she was tied up in the field and lay next to her.

 

 

I don't know if it was willful disobedience but it was doing the right thing.

 

if that was willful disobedience then I like it!

 

Mick did the same once. We named the bottle lamb Ramora (after the sucker fish) the lamb bonded to him like her momma. He usually didn't mind and when he did, he'd give her a nudge just like a momma ewe. It was halrious to watch that little lamb go on outruns with Mick. I think he was embarassed. Or what ever the equivilent in dog thought!

[juliepoudrier]

She was fine. She was licking a rejected lamb that was too weak to move.

By Flyer's reasoning above (in response to Pearse's post) perhaps Tess just thought that little bit o' lamb dinner was more important than listening to you.

 

Flyer,

FWIW, how is a dog who refused a recall in order to alert the human to a downed ewe and lamb choosing prey over obedience? If prey were the choice, was the dog thinking "if I ignore the human, it will go away and then I can eat the ewe and lamb?" That's what it seems your reasoning would lead to. Why isn't it just as possible that the dog thought "If I ignore the human it will come to investigate and find this ewe and lamb"?

 

I know that if think I might be missing a sheep and I send Twist after it (just send her out, no sheep in sight) and she doesn't come back, there's a reason for it--in my case usually that the sheep has gotten tangled in the briars and can't move. Her way of alerting me to come, is to not come back herself.... I don't think prey drive has anything to do with it. She knows she's supposed to bring the sheep to me, and if the sheep can't move then she will wait for me to come and sort things out.

 

J.

[PSmitty]

Yes here, too.

 

Again, levels of sophistication are different - but I think that all social mammals (and probably many non-mammals) have similar ways of working out the world. Our human ability to set long-term goals and find ways to achieve them is, indeed, very sophisticated. Dogs could never plan and execute, say, the interstate highway system. But that doesn't exclude them from a canine thinking and reasoning ability - we've all seen our dogs solve problems in a novel way.

 

Mary

 

Yes, this.

[flyer]

By Flyer's reasoning above (in response to Pearse's post) perhaps Tess just thought that little bit o' lamb dinner was more important than listening to you.

 

Flyer,

FWIW, how is a dog who refused a recall in order to alert the human to a downed ewe and lamb choosing prey over obedience? If prey were the choice, was the dog thinking "if I ignore the human, it will go away and then I can eat the ewe and lamb?" That's what it seems your reasoning would lead to. Why isn't it just as possible that the dog thought "If I ignore the human it will come to investigate and find this ewe and lamb"?

 

I know that if think I might be missing a sheep and I send Twist after it (just send her out, no sheep in sight) and she doesn't come back, there's a reason for it--in my case usually that the sheep has gotten tangled in the briars and can't move. Her way of alerting me to come, is to not come back herself.... I don't think prey drive has anything to do with it. She knows she's supposed to bring the sheep to me, and if the sheep can't move then she will wait for me to come and sort things out.

 

J.

 

 

Oh no, no, no, no. I don't mean prey in the sense of eating. I mean in it's energy sense. It is simply more attractive. Much more attractive.

[geonni banner]

QUOTE(Pearse @ Jul 28 2010, 02:39 PM) *

 

I've seen it also in one of my wife's dogs who, if I throw her ball on the dining room table, will walk around the table and weigh her options; (stand on a chair, pull on the table cloth, stand on her hind legs, poke her nose between the table and the wall) before deciding which option is most likely to meet with success. This is a very deliberate process and she is clearly thinking about the possible outcomes and is almost always successful.

 

 

 

Or perhaps the dog is feeling out the most OK way of getting something from a place it is not supposed to be. The table top.

 

Simply suggesting another way to interpret.

 

FWIW, I do not for once think a dog is any less than a human being because it does not reason. Humans can take a lot of lessons from animals, IMHO. Intellectual intelligence can be highly over rated.

 

How is that different it terms of process? In each interpretation the dog is still weighing factors - that is, "thinking it over." In one case it's, "How best to get that ball down?" In the other it's "How best to stay out of trouble while getting that ball down?" Cognition is defined as: the process of obtaining knowledge through thought, experience and the senses. Thought is the past tense of think, which among other things, is defined as to use the mind to form connected ideas about someone or something.

We know that dogs can think. eg.: Dog wishes to escape from fence. Dog looks carefully at a group of objects placed before the fence, and deliberately approaches the lowest, deliberately moves on to the next highest, until he clears the fence, and then takes a similar descending route to get down. The dog clearly thought about what he would do before attempting to do it.

A non-thinking route would be to run the perimeter of the fence randomly try to force, dig or climb it's way out, without attempting to work it out in advance.

So to my way of thinking a dog can think. And if the next time the dog finds himself chucked into the same yard, he gleefully bounds over the set of obstacles to effect his escape again, then we can safely say he has gained the knowledge (of how to escape the yard) through thought, experience and his senses.

Since this scenario can happen, has happened, and was seen by me to happen, I draw the conclusion that the dog is capable of cognition.

 

Reason is defined as: (verb) think, understand and form judgments logically. Logic is defined as: the science of reasoning. If you follow/ agree with the above analysis, then you can see that the dog, in fact, reasoned his way out of the fence. Ergo, a dog can reason. He may not be able to do higher math, (although it would seem that he does have a start on geometry) or plot world domination, but he can think about things appropriate to his species.