Willful disobedience

[stockdogranch]

I would say that knowing a certain rule but "not resisting temptation" could be defined as willfull disobedience.

Ok--I have a few more minutes now, so will give the example that taught me this lesson very well some years ago...I had a young well-bred stockdog, who, at 3-4 months knew what "that'll do" meant in a number of contexts. The one she had a hard time with was when we were in the pasture doing something that did not involve the stock--maybe fixing fences or a hose or messing around in the trailer. The sheep and calves would all be out grazing, with the calves generally at the far end of the pasture. I'd keep an eye on her, and see her thinking of sneaking off every once in a while. I'd remind her to stick near me with a "that'll do," and she'd come back and hang out for a while longer. But eventually, I'd forget to be vigilant, and would get too busy with my project, and next thing I knew, she'd be down with the calves. She knew how to get round them, but didn't know quite enough to gather them quietly and just bring them to me (which I would have allowed). So, of course, she could not (notice I didn't say "would not") call off the stock and come back to me, so off I would go, down to the other end to bring her back. Now, my dogs almost never wear their collars, and when I got to her, I could get her to lie down readily enough, but she just couldn't leave them. So I had to pick her up and carry her all the way back to the other end of the pasture, and she was getting pretty heavy by then. This happened on more than one occasion.

 

Was she doing something she "knew" she shouldn't? Absolutely. Did I get mad at her? That was my first reaction; in fact, the first few times she did this, I said she was "possessed." I was sure she was intentionally trying to be bad. Then I thought about it--she was exhibiting her keenness to get to the stock; after all, that's what she was bred to do. She was also extremely young. So while she "knew" right from wrong, she just wasn't capable of always doing the right thing...yet.

 

So, once I realized that she wasn't "trying to be bad," I looked at it as she simply was not able to resist temptation, given the situation and her age, maturity level, etc. So, rather than set her up to do the wrong thing over and over again, from then on when we were out in similar situations, I tied her up. If I didn't tie her up and she ended up out with the calves again--shame on me for putting her in a situation she couldn't yet handle. By the time she was 5 months old, she was rock solid, and could be let loose while we did miscellaneous things in the pasture. She didn't stop wanting to get to the stock, but I could call her off, no matter how far she was from me and how close to the stock she was.

 

l always be grateful to Trubble for teaching me this valuable lesson; since then, when a dog I am working with doesn't "do the right thing," I look at what I am asking, always bearing in mind what the dog knows, what it does not yet know, what it is capable of, and what it is not yet capable of. It has kept me from being angry/frustrated with a lot of dogs...

A

[BustopherJones]

In reading all the responses, I would have to align myself with RDM. We try to teach dogs to do many things that run contrary to their hereditary tendencies; they are, after all, basically domesticated wolves. Further, many of the behaviors we try to foster are unnatural for them. In a well-trained dog, we are fundamentally successful in countering instinct and natural behoavior. But the fact that a dog will on rare occasion revert back to what comes naturally cannot be viewed as "willful disobedeicne", nor can it be blamed on poor training. Sometimes, s*** just happens...

[ThunderHill]

The definitions of "obedience" I found all share a common theme: the trait of being willing to obey. "Willful obedience" is an oxymoron; the concept of "will" is already contained in "obedience." If "will" implies the quality of conscious choice, then it has to swing both ways. If the actor can choose TO obey, the actor can also choose NOT to obey.

 

Dogs aren't human, but neither are they machines. How many times have my dogs (in particular, the Australian Cattle Dogs and assorted terriers) chosen to give me the middle toe? No matter the known, immediate, present consequences, which instantly materialized as on all previous occasions?

 

Perhaps the ur-dogs opportunistically scavenged the discarded remnants of the forbidden fruit, as they followed Adam and Eve out of The Garden. Not that I believe dogs understand Good and Evil in the abstract; but they sure can understand that certain things are out of bounds, and yet worth the price of doing business.

 

The Inflammatory LizSinSCPA

[geonni banner]

Just for the record, by "willful disobedience" I don't mean that the dog is doing a behavior for the sake of "being bad," what I meant was a dog choosing to ignore a command for any reason, such as "I don't feel like it right now", to "but if I do this it will be worth getting in trouble for not doing what I'm told, (other that to avoid hurt or fear) that it has been trained and proofed for.

 

In my original case it was clear after reflecting on the situation and testing for a response, that my dog was inadequately trained not to go through a door until receiving a release command, and that she did what she did because in her mind there was no reason not to.

 

I happen to think that if a dog is thoroughly trained to do or not do something that the trainer should be able to rely on the dog respecting that training.

 

Yes, it is genetically programmed into dogs to scavenge. But a dog which has been carefully, consistently and thoroughly trained to leave the garbage alone should reliably do so. There are exceptions of course - say the dog is put on a course of prednisone. This will ratchet a dog's appetite up to the point that it may be "driven" to go after the foil with roast chicken dripping you just chucked in the trash. In this case, a wise owner would make the trash inaccessible until the pred was out of the dog's system. This would avoid undermining the dog's training and prevent it from injesting potentially harmful substances.

 

But it is likewise a natural programming for a male dog to urine-mark his territory. But how many dog owners are willing to put up with Sitka pissing on the credenza? The dog's motivation is as strong to mark territory as it is to steal garbage, but some say "he can't help it" to one and "he wouldn't dare" to the other.

 

I think it more often comes down to what's important to the owner. When I ask my dog to sit, I don't care if she sits straight, sits facing me or sits on one hip. I'm not into competition obedience, so a straight sit is unimportant to me. On the other hand, it is important to me that the dog not run out a door and be lost, killed or injured as a result. So it is incumbent upon me to train carefully, consistently and thoroughly to attain 100% compliance - as nearly as possible. I don't think this will make my dog a robot. On the contrary, I think it will provide her with a lifetime of opportunities to "be a dog" and express her well-developed sense of humor at my expense. (Which she frequently does, to both her and my amusement - it's one of the things I love best about her!)

 

It has been my experience that the best and most thoroughly trained dogs actually have more opportunity to have fun, because they can be trusted to do as they are told in more situations. So they get to go more places and have more freedom, are more welcome in more situations and get greater approval from more people. (Some dogs don't care about the latter, but most enjoy the first three.)

[mbc1963]

I disagree, because you've left out one important difference between dogs and humans: the things we *expect* dogs to do and demand compliance for are largely arbitrary for the dog. Dogs do not ask other dogs to come when called, all trash / food items are fair game unless someone else has them between their paws and what canine would tell another canine "don't chase that bunny and I will ruin my food processor and stink up my whole house by making you disgusting liver brownies as a reward?"

 

If you eat the cake knowing it will make you fatter, you understand the relationship between caloric intake and your lazy, over indulging self so you make a clear choice.

 

Well, I think a lot of things we expect humans to do are largely arbitrary to US, too, not genetically programmed into us. Monogamy. Speed limits. Not smacking our neighbors' kids when they're being bratty. These aren't hard-wired into us; we're trained up in these behaviors from childhood, and even then, a lot of us fail utterly to honor the rules, or wish we could fail utterly. Do we blame the parents when a 35-year-old breaks the speed limit? Do we assume every failure of every grown child is the fault of the original trainer?

 

I see humans and dogs as mammals and, therefore, behaviorally similar animals. Again, I think the difference between us is largely in degree of sophistication. (And I think that probably the heightened sophistication we see in ourselves is as much imagined - because of our ability to only see from our own point of view - as it is real.)

 

Dogs don't ask other dogs to, say, pee in certain places. We ask dogs to follow human-centric behaviors because they're on our turf. But dogs are in a peculiar relationship with us - living with and being expected to understand rules of a completely different species. Take us out of the equation, and dogs DO expect other dogs to follow certain behaviors within a social structure. And they mess up, and there are dog scuffles to set things right again.

 

I've seen dogs far better trained than mine (herding dogs, largely) who are amazingly well-trained, and seem to never blow off their owners' commands. I've seen human children, too, who after a certain age are extremely reliable in their ability to do what others ask of them. But, I think the capacity exists in both humans and dogs to blow off whatever commands or rules or laws have been laid down by the existing social structure in order to seek some other, often short-lived reward. Think of all the love-struck politicians who've lost their careers for fleeting romantic thrills.

 

Dogs know what is expected of them, as do politicians. I do believe that age and experience make it far less likely that a dog (or politician) will make a bad call that rains down heavy consequences. But what a delightful world it is - where there's always the chance that someone will make one of those bad calls!

 

Mary

[eclare]

Dogs know what is expected of them, as do politicians.

 

Well, I'm not entirely sure that politicians don't believe that it IS expected for them to behave badly in their personal lives. Often people in powerful positions are given so much leeway when it comes to their personal failings that they come to believe that what they're doing is indeed, they way they are expected to act. A sort of "everybody does it, everyone expects me to do it, ok let's do it" type of thing. What they DON'T necessarily expect is to get caught.

 

Anyway, not sure that actually adds much to the conversation, but I do believe that our expectations of human behavior are a lot more complex than not breaking the well articulated rules. There are all sorts of unstated rules that we absorb, often without even noticing, that may be in direct conflict with our stated purposes.

[Dixie_Girl]

Most dogs I have encountered are very much thinking critters. Border Collies much more so than any breed I have been around. They copy behavior, they investigate anything we may be doing. They do the things they do because of all the thinking they do. The other day, I was looking for something, going through drawers, behind doors, etc. etc. Jackson and Skip following me the whole time. I am not saying what I am looking for except for the occasional muttering of where the hell is it? Jackson and Skip are searching with me. Sniffing, pawing, and nosing everywhere I went. When we get to the kitchen area, I watch Jackson get up on the counter with the microwave, and retrieved a ball! We had the few balls left stashed there because Hank likes to eat them! I had no idea Jackson even knew they were there. He had never attempted to get them before. But I was searching for something, and since hide and seek with the ball is a regular game, he just figured, that must be what I am looking for. He was thinking. And any being that can think, especially to the degree Border Collies can, can also be willfull. I don't believe they do it to piss us off, but just to see what they can get away with. They do not want us angry, but they do test the boundries. As they get older, they don't feel the need to test as often. And it is selective testing. No matter how good the garbage smells, the dogs have never gotten into it, no matter how long left alone. They never get into the dog food bag, no matter how empty their bowls. They never counter steal. And Skip very, very seldom ever blows me off. Jackson, well, he just KNOWS that one day, I will not punish him for not bringing the stupid ball back.

[ejano]

It's part of the enjoyment of having them -- seeing who is smarter on any given day (usually the dog in this house I'm afraid...your Jackson reminds me very much of Ladybug...she's got a tennis ball stashed in every room and knows where we hide them when "that will do Ladybug." And yes, she will presist because the drive to play with the ball overcomes the "that will do command" because surely we didn't mean forever....just five minutes or so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most dogs I have encountered are very much thinking critters. Border Collies much more so than any breed I have been around. They copy behavior, they investigate anything we may be doing. They do the things they do because of all the thinking they do. The other day, I was looking for something, going through drawers, behind doors, etc. etc. Jackson and Skip following me the whole time. I am not saying what I am looking for except for the occasional muttering of where the hell is it? Jackson and Skip are searching with me. Sniffing, pawing, and nosing everywhere I went. When we get to the kitchen area, I watch Jackson get up on the counter with the microwave, and retrieved a ball! We had the few balls left stashed there because Hank likes to eat them! I had no idea Jackson even knew they were there. He had never attempted to get them before. But I was searching for something, and since hide and seek with the ball is a regular game, he just figured, that must be what I am looking for. He was thinking. And any being that can think, especially to the degree Border Collies can, can also be willfull. I don't believe they do it to piss us off, but just to see what they can get away with. They do not want us angry, but they do test the boundries. As they get older, they don't feel the need to test as often. And it is selective testing. No matter how good the garbage smells, the dogs have never gotten into it, no matter how long left alone. They never get into the dog food bag, no matter how empty their bowls. They never counter steal. And Skip very, very seldom ever blows me off. Jackson, well, he just KNOWS that one day, I will not punish him for not bringing the stupid ball back.

[MrSnappy]

I dunno - my dogs never go in the garbage because the garbage is always in the can, and they aren't allowed to touch the can because I actively interrupted them for showing an interest in the can, had already taught a "leave it" command and attached those two directives together. But I am pretty sure if I spread the garbage out on the floor they would surely touch it, and because I don't think dogs generalize all that well, I think if I put them in a strange room with a tempting garbage can in it, they might in fact touch that particular can of garbage. I think there is a lot more proofing to be done because while humans may be expected to adhere to "arbitrary" rules they also have the capacity to analyze and justify, and I'm just not sure dogs have that capacity - and I think that often a dog who 'fails' to do what is expected of him is accused of being disobedient (willful), when in fact he is probably just not totally aware of all the many circumstances in which a particular command should be followed.

 

So if I didn't want my dogs to jump a babygate and eat a pizza I left on the ground, I would actively teach them not to do that, using a real live pizza, rather than assuming that because I said "don't jump the babygate" he understands that it means never ever, even if there is a super delicious pizza on the floor waiting for him and then calling him willfully disobedient because he obeyed his stomach, and his biological imperative, and ate that darn pizza.

 

That's not to say that I don't think dogs can learn to eventually generalize certain commands, or reliably mind them, given time, repetition and maturity - my dogs are remarkably obedient ('cept for the WooTWoo). But when they do something surprising to me that I "assume" they should know not to do, if I give it 10 seconds of my time to think it over, usually it's something they don't know and the only thinking being around who thought they knew it is me, because I made some erroneous leap in logic that a dog would never have made regarding whether or not they should know that thing.

 

I have this friend who is forever saying in agility practice that her dog "should know not to do" this or that thing, but the dog keeps doing it and she keeps getting angry about it. Do I think the dog is trying to piss her off, or doing it because he thinks it's super fun to do what he shouldn't be doing? No way - her dog has no clue what she wants, so he does what works for him in that scenario. She actually does call him "willful" - I think he's just remarkably confused. But no amount of telling will get her to understand that she is confusing her dog. Come to think of it, perhaps she's the one being willful ;-)

 

RDM

[Brad]

I certainly believe they can be wilfull. My dogs go to the lake a lot, and they play and swim, and then we leave. Mostly. One day, Rig decides he isn't leaving, and as a dog that never goes in past his paws, he ran into the lake and sat neck deep in the water smiling at me. A stern command to come made the smile grow. He knew darn well that he should come, as he does every other time. Except this time, he made the decision that he was staying. Disobedient or greater reward to me is the same. He knew what was expected and chose to do otherwise. And I know he knew, because the look on his face as I walked into the lake fully clothed showed it all

[geonni banner]

I dunno - my dogs never go in the garbage because the garbage is always in the can, and they aren't allowed to touch the can because I actively interrupted them for showing an interest in the can, had already taught a "leave it" command and attached those two directives together. But I am pretty sure if I spread the garbage out on the floor they would surely touch it, and because I don't think dogs generalize all that well, I think if I put them in a strange room with a tempting garbage can in it, they might in fact touch that particular can of garbage. I think there is a lot more proofing to be done because while humans may be expected to adhere to "arbitrary" rules they also have the capacity to analyze and justify, and I'm just not sure dogs have that capacity - and I think that often a dog who 'fails' to do what is expected of him is accused of being disobedient (willful), when in fact he is probably just not totally aware of all the many circumstances in which a particular command should be followed.

 

RDM

 

Ok, ok. The garbage CAN, dustbin, pail, receptacle. The container in which garbage is usually stored in the average kitchen/bathroom. I think that's what most people mean when they say "the garbage." In the case outlined: My garbage can. In my house. That's what I meant by "the garbage." OK?

[Ooky]

Very interesting discussion! I agree with several posts on this thread, or parts of them. But I think as someone said, the real argument being had here is what does the term "willful disobedience" mean to each of us?

 

Malicious intent: This could be implied by the term, as best pointed out by the teenager example. I don't believe dogs exhibit this at all, at least not the way you'd understand this as applied to humans.

 

Free will: The term willful implies free will, which some people don't believe non-human animals to have. I do, and I bet many of us here do as well. But beyond that philosophical discussion, I think this gets to what Anna's saying about dogs that are too immature, overstimulated, or just reacting to their instincts and therefore just do whatever against-the-rule behavior. I don't think that ever instance of not following the rules comes down to only lack of enough training (although a LOT of it does) or the dog not being able to resist (although I see a LOT of that too in Odin when he has lost his brain). I think there can be testing of limits that is willful in the sense of free will, as well as the type of gauging of risk-vs.-reward that Mary describes. I agree with a lot of what Sheena says, but I do believe the "opportunistic" in opportunistic canines DOES apply - meaning sometimes they will take an opportunity that is presented to them if they think they will gain a good enough reward by doing so. E.g. counter-surfing in a dog that knows not to - the dog who is trained not to may still take something if the opportunity is there, and I think this can be because of free will and not lack of self-control. Understandable? Yes! Malicious? No! Opportunistic? Yes.

 

Forethought: I think this is the trickiest one. Willful disobedience implies some level of forethought and "planning to be bad" to me. I DON'T think dogs are ever spending all their time, or even lengthy (>10 sec) amounts of time trying to undermine us and plotting disobedience far in advance. But to act without any forethought is essentially simple reaction to stimulus - similar to the free will discussion above but slightly different because here the dog could still have free will - I only react one way, but I can choose whether to or not to react. Dogs do simply react to stimulus sometimes too, but when they have their wits about them, I think there can be a momentary forethought - basically again what Mary describes as the weighing of risk vs. reward. To believe otherwise (never any forethought) places them in the same category as insects and C. elegans to me, and I have much more respect for canine thought processes than that!

[rushdoggie]

RDM's points aside, my point was less about people and dogs making conscious logical decisions to do something they are told not do, and more to do with the emotional component of disobedience for disobedience's sake. ...

 

They don't choose to disobey simply to p*ss us off. They disobey because they don't want to do what you want them to do.

 

Yes, this...

[geonni banner]

Yes, this...

 

I usually assume that this is the case, or, of course, the whole not-clear-on-the concept thing. When I was a kid I sometimes did stuff that I knew would "get me a lickin'." But if the thing I wanted to do was enough fun I'd chance getting caught and do it anyway. It never occurred to me that a dog would disobey to be malicious. I don't think I've ever known of a malicious dog. Except maybe Cujo. Oh wait... that was rabies. And he wasn't a real dog.

[MicheleS.]

I really wonder how much forethought there is to my dog sneaking loot out of the garbarge. I'm pretty sure she knows she's not allowed but something is making her disregard what she knows she's not allowed to do. I don't know if she's thinking about the consequences.

You can bet that if I really don't feel like dealing with her trash looting from the garbage can, I will double-check that the lid is either closed or she gets the look which lets her know she better get the heck away and stay away. I am aware of potential injuries from the garbage can contents and those are the times when she'll get the look or the can is emptied.

If I thought the garbage can looting was a huge problem, I would spend more time making sure she stays away at all times. But hey, she listens when I need her to and I manage her. That's how I deal with it.

One thing I didn't want was her stealing off the table or the counters. This was a dog who would actually jump up on my kitchen counters to hunt for food, like a cat! Unbelievable! Well that stopped after I once pulled a pizza crust out of her throat, taking it back like it was mine.

So really, I don't know what drives her to disregard what she knows ticks me off. I really think she's an opportunist, definitely not malicious.

 

Interesting discussion and I really like Ooky's explanation. That makes sense to me.

[eclare]

It never occurred to me that a dog would disobey to be malicious.

 

And yet there are soooo many people who believe this. It's the old "My dog pooped on my bed to get back at me" trope.

 

At the risk of starting an unfortunate Cesar Milan blow-up, I think there's an element of this belief wrapped up in the whole dominance mindset. Of course, dominance is a word that also has a variety of meanings, but I think a lot of people who buy into dominance training would say that when their dogs disobey they are being willful - as in, they are actively attempting to establish a hierarchy that is contrary to what the handler wants.

 

I would argue, and I think most here would agree, that this behavior is more about the dog's uncertainty about what is expected of him - a clear training failure. I keep thinking about that one episode of Victoria Stilwell's show where a couple had a young husky that was devoted to the husband but absolutely terrorized the wife. Certainly there was a dominance issue there, but it was more that the dog was somehow being reinforced that his status in the house was superior to the wife's. The dog clearly believed that it was his job to keep the wife in check. So, yes, he was being willful in the sense that he was exhibiting unwanted behaviors that were directed at a specific person. Many people would view this as malicious. "Oh, he doesn't like the wife. He wants to put her in her place." Well, yes, he does want to put her in what he believed was her place, but only because he had been inadvertantly taught an incorrect hierarchy.

[geonni banner]

And yet there are soooo many people who believe this. It's the old "My dog pooped on my bed to get back at me" trope.

 

At the risk of starting an unfortunate Cesar Milan blow-up, I think there's an element of this belief wrapped up in the whole dominance mindset. Of course, dominance is a word that also has a variety of meanings, but I think a lot of people who buy into dominance training would say that when their dogs disobey they are being willful - as in, they are actively attempting to establish a hierarchy that is contrary to what the handler wants.

 

I would argue, and I think most here would agree, that this behavior is more about the dog's uncertainty about what is expected of him - a clear training failure. I keep thinking about that one episode of Victoria Stilwell's show where a couple had a young husky that was devoted to the husband but absolutely terrorized the wife. Certainly there was a dominance issue there, but it was more that the dog was somehow being reinforced that his status in the house was superior to the wife's. The dog clearly believed that it was his job to keep the wife in check. So, yes, he was being willful in the sense that he was exhibiting unwanted behaviors that were directed at a specific person. Many people would view this as malicious. "Oh, he doesn't like the wife. He wants to put her in her place." Well, yes, he does want to put her in what he believed was her place, but only because he had been inadvertantly taught an incorrect hierarchy.

 

 

 

My dog really dislikes my last next-door neighbor. She, for a long time put down her head, hackled up and growled when she saw him. Now, my dog has fearfulness/reactivity issues, but this is different. She does not like him. I moved upstairs in my building partly because of this. And I know why she does not like him. He "introduced" himself to her by coming to my screen door and standing right by the door and staring at the dog without speaking. I had had her for only a few days, and she had come out of a bad situation. She was spooked by his silent scrutiny, towering over her, (He's a big guy) and she went off. Thank doG for screen doors. I really think she might have bitten him.

The other reason - and an even more potent one, is that I myself dislike, distrust and have some fear of this guy. (Another reason I changed apartments.) I take responsibility for Sugarfoot's reaction to this guy. She's picking up on my negative feelings about him and acting like a dog acts. I don't blame her, punish her or try to convince her that he's OK - I don't think she'd buy it because I don't. I manage her carefully when he's around - either she's on a leash (outside) or there's a door between them (inside).

I am the manager of the building so I do have to have some contact with him. And I have tried to put myself in the most positive frame of mind that I can honestly manage when dealing with him. Sugarfoot is becoming less reactive in general, and so is somewhat better when he comes to drop his rent check. Now she merely stays back and stares suspiciously at him.

 

The dog is not malicious - she is getting signals - both from him and me that she should be wary and/or protect herself. To me, it would make about as much sense to correct her for her attitude toward my neighbor as it would to give a kid a big stick and point at a puppy, then yell at him for hitting the puppy. Now that would be malicious!

 

So I just make sure she cannot get at him when he's around and work on her reactivity/ fearfulness issues the rest of the time. I figure the more times he comes to drop his rent and nothing bad happens, the more positive - or at least not negative experience she will have to balance against past experience. It seems to be working. We encountered him a few days ago and she even managed a tentative wag. Good puppy! (Yes, she was praised for this positive response, though I was aware that I had mixed feelings about it. Fortunately, she was looking at him, not me, and so didn't see that! )

[Dixie_Girl]

And yet there are soooo many people who believe this. It's the old "My dog pooped on my bed to get back at me" trope.

 

At the risk of starting an unfortunate Cesar Milan blow-up, I think there's an element of this belief wrapped up in the whole dominance mindset. Of course, dominance is a word that also has a variety of meanings, but I think a lot of people who buy into dominance training would say that when their dogs disobey they are being willful - as in, they are actively attempting to establish a hierarchy that is contrary to what the handler wants.

 

I would argue, and I think most here would agree, that this behavior is more about the dog's uncertainty about what is expected of him - a clear training failure. I keep thinking about that one episode of Victoria Stilwell's show where a couple had a young husky that was devoted to the husband but absolutely terrorized the wife. Certainly there was a dominance issue there, but it was more that the dog was somehow being reinforced that his status in the house was superior to the wife's. The dog clearly believed that it was his job to keep the wife in check. So, yes, he was being willful in the sense that he was exhibiting unwanted behaviors that were directed at a specific person. Many people would view this as malicious. "Oh, he doesn't like the wife. He wants to put her in her place." Well, yes, he does want to put her in what he believed was her place, but only because he had been inadvertantly taught an incorrect hierarchy.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but Jackson refusing to bring me the ball on occasion has nothing to do with him NOT knowing what I want. He knows exactly what I want. He makes a choice to not bring it. He's not stupid. He doesn't do it to piss me off. Christ, this dog would turn himself inside out before having me angry at him. And I suppose if I corrected him the same with this behavior as I did, say, in staying out of the garbage he would stop doing it. The thing is, I want him to think, and I want him to excercise the results of that thinking. It makes them smarter, IMO. But I pick my battles. Bringing the ball back or not is not something that is harmful or that big a deal. When he doesn't do it, he gets put in the house for a few min. and then gets to play again. But the things that are important, like not leaving the yard, even with the gate open, and me going back and forth hauling in groceries, that is important, and it is followed 100%. Naturally, if a dog does not know what you want of them, they could not be expected to do so. Skip likes to sleep on the bed with me,,,,,,sometimes. But there have been times he didn't and I did. I would have to call him up several times before he finally does. That is willful disobedience. He simply did not feel like getting up on the bed. Had nothing to do with training, or not knowing what I wanted of him. He just plain didn't want to do it.

 

The thing is, they are intelligent, highly developed, thinking creatures. They aren't robots. And some days, they just wanna say no.

[Brad]

And some days, they just wanna say no.

 

Exactly!

[The Good Shepherd]

Mick is a living, walking example of willful disobedience. He knows when he's doing things he shouldn't do.

 

For example, if he's going to steal something out of the trash, he'll walk past me, trying to hide it and acting like a feral little coyote or something. This is the #1 sign, he's carrying something he shouldn't. He nearly almost always gets caught, but if he just trotted past like he wasn't up to anything bad, he'd likely manage to get away with it.

 

That sounds just like my Bandit . I knows that the trash under the sink is "off Limits" but he will still sneak into it! If he is in the act and hears me coming he will whip around and sit with this: "I am a good boy" look .

Geeeeesh - how I love that little stinker

[eclare]

I'm sorry, but Jackson refusing to bring me the ball on occasion has nothing to do with him NOT knowing what I want. He knows exactly what I want. He makes a choice to not bring it. He's not stupid. He doesn't do it to piss me off. Christ, this dog would turn himself inside out before having me angry at him. And I suppose if I corrected him the same with this behavior as I did, say, in staying out of the garbage he would stop doing it. The thing is, I want him to think, and I want him to excercise the results of that thinking. It makes them smarter, IMO. But I pick my battles. Bringing the ball back or not is not something that is harmful or that big a deal. When he doesn't do it, he gets put in the house for a few min. and then gets to play again. But the things that are important, like not leaving the yard, even with the gate open, and me going back and forth hauling in groceries, that is important, and it is followed 100%. Naturally, if a dog does not know what you want of them, they could not be expected to do so. Skip likes to sleep on the bed with me,,,,,,sometimes. But there have been times he didn't and I did. I would have to call him up several times before he finally does. That is willful disobedience. He simply did not feel like getting up on the bed. Had nothing to do with training, or not knowing what I wanted of him. He just plain didn't want to do it.

 

The thing is, they are intelligent, highly developed, thinking creatures. They aren't robots. And some days, they just wanna say no.

 

 

You wrote this in response to my last post and I'm afraid I don't really understand how it relates. I absolutely agree that there are some things dogs know they should do that they don't do because there's no incentive for them to do it. RDM and others have better elaborated on this point.

 

My statement related only to the idea that some people believe that dogs do some things with malicious intent. I disagree with that belief.

 

My dog really dislikes my last next-door neighbor. She, for a long time put down her head, hackled up and growled when she saw him. Now, my dog has fearfulness/reactivity issues, but this is different. She does not like him. I moved upstairs in my building partly because of this. And I know why she does not like him. He "introduced" himself to her by coming to my screen door and standing right by the door and staring at the dog without speaking. I had had her for only a few days, and she had come out of a bad situation. She was spooked by his silent scrutiny, towering over her, (He's a big guy) and she went off. Thank doG for screen doors. I really think she might have bitten him.

 

I think your dog's reaction to your old neighbor is different than her general fearfulness issues only that it has a specific target. But you yourself explain that he scared her the first time she met, so it makes sense that her dislike of him stemmed from that initial fear (combined with your own distrust of him, which is certainly transferred to the dog, reinforcing her own belief that your neighbor is a threat). Again, this is different than what I was talking about, which was the idea that some people believe that dogs who misbehave in any way are doing so because they want to assert their dominance. This seems very similar to the idea of malicious intent, which is not something that most of us believe a dog is capable of.

[geonni banner]

My statement related only to the idea that some people believe that dogs do some things with malicious intent. I disagree with that belief.

I think your dog's reaction to your old neighbor is different than her general fearfulness issues only that it has a specific target. But you yourself explain that he scared her the first time she met, so it makes sense that her dislike of him stemmed from that initial fear (combined with your own distrust of him, which is certainly transferred to the dog, reinforcing her own belief that your neighbor is a threat). Again, this is different than what I was talking about, which was the idea that some people believe that dogs who misbehave in any way are doing so because they want to assert their dominance. This seems very similar to the idea of malicious intent, which is not something that most of us believe a dog is capable of.

Agreed! It just made me think of Sugar's aversion to the guy and the attendant grumbling and hackling. People unacquainted with Sugarfoot often mistake her anxiety-generated bluff-barking as malicious. And nothing could be further from the truth. (Although I have no illusions that if her anxiety reached a critical level that she would not bite. Alas! The law, the bitten party and the public in general rarely see the distinction between a defensive bite and an aggressive bite.) Knock wood, she has never been placed in a position that made her feel she had to bite. Her issues are being addressed, she does much less bluff-barking, and is beginning to see that the world is not entirely peopled by monsters!

[Flamincomet]

When I'm playing catch or any kind of game with my dogs, and they do things such as lay down and not bring the ball, or not taking the tug anymore, I see that as a sign that *I* have pushed the dog too hard, and they are trying to tell me something. Not that they don't want to, but that they CAN'T. Dogs aren't robots, and I view our relationship with them as very similar to people (but IMO better in most ways, lol). If you were playing football with a friend, and you threw the ball and they didn't catch it but instead stood there breathing heavily, stooped over, sweating, would you get annoyed at them? Would you demand they go get the ball right now, throw it back and THEN they can take a break? Or would you understand, oh, they are tired, lets take a break! Dogs are certainly not malicious, and humans are, so why do we treat dogs worse than we treat humans? I think dogs deserve so much more respect and credit than we give them. Despite being completely different species, they have figured out amazing and very clear ways to communicate with us, we just need to listen to and trust them more!

[Root Beer]

Isn't it also insane to tell an opportunistic carnivore that they can't eat trash, or tell a dog that it can't lift its leg on its own territory, which just happens to include the stove? It's all nuts ... to the dog. We should really be giving them a lot more credit for trying to work with us, rather than assuming they are trying to undermine us.

 

I know this is waaaay back in the discussion, but I wanted to say - very nicely said!!

 

Last week at camp, I was playing frisbee with Dean and Speedy was running around with his own frisbee, as is our custom. I was throwing the frisbee up a hill and suddenly the person who was camped at the top of the hill let his Border Collies out. This was a lot of Border Collies - about 10 I'm thinking. Speedy dropped his frisbee and stood there - mesmerized - as the Border Collies swirled around him, doing their thing. The look on his face was one of pure joy. He did nothing - just stood there and took it in.

 

I was about to head off somewhere, so I called him. He looked at me, but did not move. He looked to me, and then shifted his gaze back to sight of the Border Collies which, to him, was clearly as incredible as watching a glorious sunset into the water of the ocean would be for me!

 

I let him stay there and take it in for a bit.

 

Was he technically "willfully disobedient". Yes. He chose to stay put rather than come when called, which he is very reliable about doing normally.

 

Was he trying to undermine me in some way? No. Nor was this a training hole, nor a lack of clarity on my part. This wasn't about me at all. I don't consider his choice "wrong" in any way. There was something quite fulfilling about that moment for him. Something that was all his. Something that went beyond obedience or training. He wasn't "blowing me off" or "disobeying". He was doing something that was meant a lot to him.

 

It was rather beautiful, actually, to see him get such delight out of just standing there watching those Border Collies. It was clear that he just wanted to be there for a bit and he would be along when he was ready. After a few minutes he came down the hill and life went on as normal.

[geonni banner]

Quote: Root Beer

 

"Last week at camp, I was playing frisbee with Dean and Speedy was running around with his own frisbee, as is our custom. I was throwing the frisbee up a hill and suddenly the person who was camped at the top of the hill let his Border Collies out. This was a lot of Border Collies - about 10 I'm thinking. Speedy dropped his frisbee and stood there - mesmerized - as the Border Collies swirled around him, doing their thing. The look on his face was one of pure joy. He did nothing - just stood there and took it in.

 

I was about to head off somewhere, so I called him. He looked at me, but did not move. He looked to me, and then shifted his gaze back to sight of the Border Collies, which to him, was clearly as incredible as watching a glorious sunset into the water of the ocean would be for me!"

 

"I let him stay there and take it in for a bit."

 

"Was he technically "willfully disobedient". Yes. He chose to stay put rather than come when called, which he is very reliable about doing normally."

 

Sounds like Speedy was really enjoying watching the other dogs playing. I love watching dogs watching things that fascinate them.

 

That said, I may have to disagree with your analysis of the situation. This is why. And I want to try to avoid semantic pitfalls, so I will give my definitions of the terms I’m using.

 

“Formal recall” often simply referred to as a recall. A specific command which means, “Come here, now, in as near as possible in a straight line, and make it snappy.” The way I issue a formal recall is in a serious voice, predicated with the dog’s name. As in “Sugarfoot, come!” I don’t repeat it. If I don’t get compliance I walk the dog down. I don’t yell unless distance makes it necessary.

 

“Invitation” usually issued in a chirpy tone of voice. Usually phrased as “OK, let’s go” or “C’mon, you” etc. It means “OK, time to move on. Wrap up the bush sniffing and come with me. Yes, you can make a slight detour to check out the approaching mop-dog, but don’t take all day about it.” An invitation can be issued more than once without “penalty.”

It may seem like a lot for a dog to infer from a phrase, or even a few different phrases, but I have never had a dog that didn’t get it, and in pretty short order.

 

Was he trying to undermine me in some way? No.

Absolutely agree.

 

Nor was this a training hole, nor a lack of clarity on my part.

 

This I might disagree with, depending on your usual expectations of a dog answering/ refusing a recall – if what you issued was a recall and not an invitation. If it was a formal recall, the dog was disobedient.

 

This wasn't about me at all. I don't consider his choice "wrong" in any way. There was something quite fulfilling about that moment for him. Something that was all his. Something that went beyond obedience or training. He wasn't "blowing me off" or "disobeying". He was doing something that was meant a lot to him.

 

It was rather beautiful, actually, to see him get such delight out of just standing there watching those Border Collies. It was clear that he just wanted to be there for a bit and he would be along when he was ready. After a few minutes he came down the hill and life went on as normal.

Perhaps it would have been less “rather beautiful” if there had been a bus heading in his direction. Which is why I strive for the (ultimately unattainable) 100% recall. Also, I don’t usually issue a formal recall unless I really need one, or am doing refresher training. I am content to issue an invitation and let the dog be a dog and enjoy her life when I don’t need immediate compliance.

 

I have a friend who uses the phrase “Fluffy, come!” When she wants the dog to come to her. If the dog dithers or ignores her, she gets louder, repeats, and then resorts to, “NOW!” to which the dog usually responds by motoring promptly to her owner - albeit with a certain look of concern on her doggy face. To me, what she has done is make “Fluffy, come!” an invitation, and “NOW!” a formal recall. Unfortunately, she will issue her invitation several times with increasing impatience so the actual recall comes off as being punitive. This is a bit dicey for me, as it seems likely to decrease the dog’s willingness to respond promptly to a formal recall. Since I regard the formal recall as one of the more basic tools to keep my dog alive in dangerous situations, I tend to keep it rather sharp.