I believe that I misrepresented my point of view. Typing is not my forte, and sometimes thoughts and ideas get lost in the typing. I only type about 6 words a minutes, so it's pretty easy for my brain to overload my fingers.
A dominance only approach will not work. If an animal, dog, horse, cat, whatever, is working out of fear, you have a ticking timebomb on your hands. Behavioral issues are going to arise.
I do not make a conciese effort to adopt the dominance approach. My approach is a quick, firm correction, followed by a positive based lesson/training session. Always ending with lots of pets, sometimes cookies, or playtime. All lessons end up on a fun note. I believe that if my dogs are clear as to what is, and is not, acceptable behavior, they are more clear as to the their expectations for behavior.
Vizsla's, in my experience, do not respond well to the dominance based philosophies of training. They need to feel that they are an interactive partner in the relationship. I'm not looking for an obediance machine, that's an easy goal to achieve. I need a gun dog that will work with me and for me.
This doesn't mean that some lessons will not be firmer than others, and this is where folks are inserting the term dominance, which is not a term I use. A dog needs to obey a command and some are more important than others. You have to be fair though, and ask yourself, have I presented a picture that is clear in the dogs mind, or am I making him/her figure it out on his own, which is an undesirable place for the dog and the handler.
A an example,t he come, whoa and stay commands have to be rock solid in a gun dog for both success afield,and the dogs safety. They can't obey these commands out of fear, or only out of the lure of a treat. These commands have to be followed because they believe there is no other recourse than to obey, nor do they want to disobey them. they have to be instilled into their basic behaviors without question.
I follow them,and they follow me. It's a relationship. When afield, they lead and I follow, but their safety is my hands.
Vizsla's are very communicative dogs, and dogs use their mouths to communicate. I understand this and expect them to grab, and nip and play fight until they get a little maturity. They just do it. I don't consider it bad behavior, or resource guarding, another term I disagree with, I just consider it part and parcel of growing up.
A stern admonishment of "no bite", a gentle shake of the muzzle, and then go back to playing and they eventually learn how to play better. They are very athletic dogs that play hard and get pretty excited, so I feel it is up to me to control their excitement level when I get down on the floor and wrestle around with them. If I get them wound up and they use their teeth, well some of that is on me until they get some age behind them. I actually will purposely get them a little wound up, just so I can instill this behavior in a controlled enviorment, and still end up with play time and treats.
Now with regards to actual biting and not nipping or resource guarding, or mock fighting, but actual threatening with intent to bite, that is different altogether. If I get to this point, and I only have once with one dog. It means I missed something along the way. I missed the opportunity to instill the correct behavior. Unfortunately though it had to be immediately and decisively corrected. It may seem that I only went over the top, but I also had blood work done and a vet exam performed to ensure that there was nothing medically causing the behavior.
Every firm session ended on a positive note, he was allowed to have either the bone or a treat, but he knew that actual, real biting was only going to result in a bad experience.
I want a 2 year old to be able to safely take anything out of a dogs mouth without a dog even entertaining the thought of a threat, or bite.
It takes both a soft and firm approach. Neither is the cure all for every issue.
