Using 'Dominance' To Explain Dog Behavior Is Old Hat

peasant

finally ...an article from a reputable source that spells it out:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090521112711.htm

excerpts:

Dr Rachel Casey, Senior Lecturer in Companion Animal Behaviour and Welfare at Bristol University, said: “The blanket assumption that every dog is motivated by some innate desire to control people and other dogs is frankly ridiculous. It hugely underestimates the complex communicative and learning abilities of dogs. It also leads to the use of coercive training techniques, which compromise welfare, and actually cause problem behaviours."

"Sadly, many techniques used to teach a dog that his owner is leader of the pack is counter-productive; you won’t get a better behaved dog, but you will either end up with a dog so fearful it has suppressed all its natural behaviours and will just do nothing, or one so aggressive it’s dangerous to be around.”

tallus

Surely as pack animals, they need to know where they exist in the pack hierarchy so they can act accordingly ?
Not really a dog person tho, so I'm more than open to correction.

peasant

tallus wrote: »

Surely as pack animals, they need to know where they exist in the pack hierarchy so they can act accordingly ?
Not really a dog person tho, so I'm more than open to correction.

Unfortunately, the complete scientific study is not available (not for free anyway), so the bit from the article will have to do:

The study shows that dogs are not motivated by maintaining their place in the pecking order of their pack, as many well-known dog trainers preach

and from the abstract of the complete article:

In the present study of a freely interacting group of neutered male domestic dogs, pairwise relationships were evident, but no overall hierarchy could be detected

My name is URL

This always seemed pretty obvious to me, from seeing my dogs through the years come and go and get to know one another.

It's easy to explain an older dog getting aggressive at a younger pup when you use dominance as a factor, there's far more to it than that.... mostly how it's raised, and it doesn't help when owners/trainers have this notion of dominance either because alot of them play up to that idea and the dog is doomed to fulfill it, through no fault of it's own

cowzerp

Some breed types are more domineering than others, these can be dangerous if they decide they want to rule the roost, i,ve a rottie and he knows im boss and is an angel, dogs like rotties cant be the boss or thats when trouble arises..

Dogs are not people so dont act like we do, some people cant accept that though..

If bothered i could dig up a study that said what i believe so that study means squat..

tallus

peasant wrote: »

Unfortunately, the complete scientific study is not available (not for free anyway), so the bit from the article will have to do:

I was kind of hoping to hear your own opinion on it tbh.

peasant

cowzerp wrote: »

...he knows im boss...

...Dogs are not people...

What exactly has the one got to do with the other?

Of course dogs aren't people, nor should they be treated as such. But treating them as dogs (and not wrongly as some kind of sofa-wolf with a hidden desire for world domination) would be a good start for becoming their true leader and not just "boss", boss

My name is URL

cowzerp wrote: »

Some breed types are more domineering than others, these can be dangerous if they decide they want to rule the roost, i,ve a rottie and he knows im boss and is an angel, dogs like rotties cant be the boss or thats when trouble arises..

Dogs are not people so dont act like we do, some people cant accept that though..

If bothered i could dig up a study that said what i believe so that study means squat..

Boss is one thing. I have a boss, he doesn't dominate me but I know I have to do as he says or I won't get my weekly 'treat' =p

Dominance is associated with fear mostly. Is your dog 'afraid' of you? I doubt it, he respects you and sees you the provider of food and care

peasant

tallus wrote: »

I was kind of hoping to hear your own opinion on it tbh.

My own opinion on this subject is that this article is correct.

I (we) have three dogs and I can't make out any hirarchy among them, nor can I find evidence of dominant behaviour. One dog takes the lead on one certain task, another on a different one while I try to be their leader in everything.

I believe that leadership (of dogs) has to be earned rather than forced, established rather than surplanted and constantly re-newed rather than re-enforced.

You have to work with your dogs (not against them) for them to willingly work with you.

The dog - leader relationship still isn't a democracy though ...rather a benevolent dictatorship.


also my own opinion, although almost two years old:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055139999

bushy...

peasant wrote: »

Unfortunately, the complete scientific study is not available (not for free anyway), so the bit from the article will have to do:

Bit pointless really if you haven't read the whole article .

peasant wrote: »

and from the abstract of the complete article:

In the present study of a freely interacting group of neutered male domestic dogs, pairwise relationships were evident, but no overall hierarchy could be detected

The highlighted text makes it seem to me they were looking for signs of :

an overall heirarchy in a group of freely interacting neutered male domestic dogs

peasant

bushy... wrote: »

The highlighted text makes it seem to me they were looking for signs of :

an overall heirarchy in a group of freely interacting neutered male domestic dogs

Well yes, they were looking for a "pack hirarchy" in a "pack" of dogs ...which happened to be a "pack" of neutered males. Conventional theory would have it that among any grouping of dogs after a while you would find a rigid structure with the "top dog" at top and the "underdog" at the bottom ...which is exactly what they didn't find.


In case you're now going to tell me that a random group of neutered males isn't a "pack" and therefore couldn't possibly display pack mentality ...well, neither is a human family with x amounts of dogs ...so no need for a pack / dominance theory there either.

tallus

peasant wrote: »

My own opinion on this subject is that this article is correct.

I (we) have three dogs and I can't make out any hirarchy among them, nor can I find evidence of dominant behaviour. One dog takes the lead on one certain task, another on a different one while I try to be their leader in everything.

I believe that leadership (of dogs) has to be earned rather than forced, established rather than surplanted and constantly re-newed rather than re-enforced.

You have to work with your dogs (not against them) for them to willingly work with you.

The dog - leader relationship still isn't a democracy though ...rather a benevolent dictatorship.


also my own opinion, although almost two years old:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055139999

Sounds fair enough mate.
It's a very interesting subject. I sometimes watch the dog whisperer and it's a very good programme. His methods are always driven by showing the dog it's place in the family group. I guess you could say he's showing the dog it's place in the "pack".

peasant

don't get me started on little Cesar, I despise that man with a passion

cloudy day

To be honest in my opinion if they are basing the study on a bunch of neutered males then it's a load of rubbish

Nuetered males are not obviously natural and they will not show innate natural behaviour due to suppression of the chemical that cause aggression.

Same as difference between a stallion and a gelding.

Yeah Ceaser Milan takes daddy round when he's retraining dog's. TBH it took me a while to figure out how he was doing it. Until I realied he's neutered. Hello, i wonder what would happen if he wasn't.

There is always dominance issues with entire adult males that have mated with bitches.and this leads to aggression if there is no submission - as ageneral rule, Aggression may only show itself when tere is a bitch in season but ut can also show itself in the form of jealousy between the dogs when around the owner.
some bitches also show these signs of dominance/aggression to some other bitches, usually if the victim bitch is submissive there won't be a fight. If two dominant aggressive females go head to head there is always a fight.

what number constitutes a pack 5 ? 10?

A pack is a family unit scenario. Bitches, young and a dog.

How can you call a bunch of neutered pets a pack. Tosh.

that's my opinion, based on experience.

At the end of the day it depends largely on personality. Dogs are individual beings and dhould be treated as such.

Anyone agree or disagree.

My name is URL

cloudy day wrote: »

How can you call a bunch of neutered pets a pack. Tosh.

that's my opinion, based on experience.

At the end of the day it depends largely on personality. Dogs are individual beings and should be treated as such.

Anyone agree or disagree.

My gut tells me that the overall result wouldn't be much different. There would be pack mentality and even Alphalistic (new word =p) displays I guess. But I'm not sure that 'dominance' would not* be the main instigator of such tendencies.

A sense of place ≠ domination imo,

it = belonging & ease of living.

macshadow

The problem with these "scientific" study's is you can only draw conclusions from what you include in the study. Neutered males probably with full stomachs, anyone know where the phrase fed up comes from?
Dogs don't need to dominate when nothing is at stake, they are driven to it IF it serves a purpose, aggression cannot exist without instinct. Aggression on it's own has No purpose.

Morganna

cloudy day wrote: »

To be honest in my opinion if they are basing the study on a bunch of neutered males then it's a load of rubbish

Nuetered males are not obviously natural and they will not show innate natural behaviour due to suppression of the chemical that cause aggression.

Same as difference between a stallion and a gelding.

Yeah Ceaser Milan takes daddy round when he's retraining dog's. TBH it took me a while to figure out how he was doing it. Until I realied he's neutered. Hello, i wonder what would happen if he wasn't.

There is always dominance issues with entire adult males that have mated with bitches.and this leads to aggression if there is no submission - as ageneral rule, Aggression may only show itself when tere is a bitch in season but ut can also show itself in the form of jealousy between the dogs when around the owner.
some bitches also show these signs of dominance/aggression to some other bitches, usually if the victim bitch is submissive there won't be a fight. If two dominant aggressive females go head to head there is always a fight.

what number constitutes a pack 5 ? 10?

A pack is a family unit scenario. Bitches, young and a dog.

How can you call a bunch of neutered pets a pack. Tosh.

that's my opinion, based on experience.

At the end of the day it depends largely on personality. Dogs are individual beings and dhould be treated as such.

Anyone agree or disagree.

I agree with what your saying

bushy...

peasant wrote: »

Well yes, they were looking for a "pack hirarchy" in a "pack" of dogs ...which happened to be a "pack" of neutered males. Conventional theory would have it that among any grouping of dogs after a while you would find a rigid structure with the "top dog" at top and the "underdog" at the bottom ...which is exactly what they didn't find.

How do you know ?

You are going on a second hand bit from an article

peasant wrote: »

Unfortunately, the complete scientific study is not available (not for free anyway), so the bit from the article will have to do

Red_Marauder

I have access to the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour that this article appeared in through my job. Obviously for reasons of copyright it can't be posted up here but if anyone is interested in reading it, I'd be happy to mail it (is that allowed?)

One academic paper does not overturn a very well established understanding of canine behaviour. Like others have pointed out, this study clearly has problems with it. Dominance is an aspect of animal behaviour that transcends many species - the mere human included - and cannot be readily dismissed or disregarded.

Whispered

It appears that the words "dominance" and "submission" carry the same meaning for some as "bully" and "weak". A dog is a dog and is a lot happier when treated as such.

I've always agreed with comments about Cesear, but I recently borrowed a book and I have to say he comes across a lot better than he does on the TV programme.

cloudy day

Thanks Morganna

How does logic manage to go out the window all the time in relation to animals ? especially dogs.

Guy's. Look at natural pack orders in the wild. Wolves wild dogs. there is always a hierarchy top dog, leader, boss,

Alpha = boss = control = dominance.

and so on down to the underdog.

sometimes even one is pushed out of the pack

Dogs will also show dominace over bitches.

peasant

cloudy day wrote: »

Nuetered males are not obviously natural and they will not show innate natural behaviour due to suppression of the chemical that cause aggression.

So, according to you aggression is now purely sexually motivated. Remove the hormones and it's gone?

With all respect ...but that's balls .
Neuterd dogs still can and will display aggression over food, over other resources, out of fear, in self defence, to protect others, etc


also, from the summary of the study:

Abstract
The term “dominance” is widely used in the academic and popular literature on the behavior of domestic dogs, especially in the context of aggression. Although dominance is correctly a property of relationships, it has been erroneously used to describe a supposed trait of individual dogs, even though there is little evidence that such a trait exists. When used correctly to describe a relationship between 2 individuals, it tends to be misapplied as a motivation for social interactions, rather than simply a quality of that relationship. Hence, it is commonly suggested that a desire ‘to be dominant’ actually drives behavior, especially aggression, in the domestic dog. By contrast, many recent studies of wolf packs have questioned whether there is any direct correspondence between dominance within a relationship and agonistic behavior, and in contrast to wolves, hierarchical social structures have little relationship with reproductive behavior in feral dog packs. Nor do the exchanges of aggressive and submissive behavior in feral dogs, originally published by S. K. Pal and coworkers, fit the pattern predicted from wolf behavior, especially the submissive behavior observed between members of different packs. In the present study of a freely interacting group of neutered male domestic dogs, pairwise relationships were evident, but no overall hierarchy could be detected. Since there seems to be little empirical basis for wolf-type dominance hierarchies in dogs, the authors have examined alternative constructs. Parker's Resource Holding Potential (RHP) appears to be less useful when applied to domestic dogs than to other species, although it has the advantage of incorporating the concept of subjective resource value (V) as a factor influencing whether or not conflicts are escalated. The authors propose that associative learning, combined with V, can provide more parsimonious explanations for agonistic behavior in dogs than can the traditional concept of dominance

highligts by me


The way I understand this, this study says the following:

-To use the term "dominant" correctly is to describe a property of a relationship (in behavioral science) but not to describe or explain aggressive behaviour
- The desire or trait to "be dominant" does not exist ...dogs do not go out to dominate others, they do not fight for dominance but for other reasons
- Aggression does not equal and has nothing to do with dominance but exists for other reasons.
- Teaching dog owners to dominate their dogs (in this case dominance wrongly meaning aggressive supression again) is doing more harm than good

stevoman

I dont know to be honest.

From experince of having to train a gundog for the field i need complete control over the dog at all times and this means that i have to be the dominent one and this cannot be questioned by the do at any times. I need the dog to drop on command of a whistle, stop exactly when it is told to and return exatcly when it is told to.

In these cases the dog is fighting its natural instincts to chase a hare for example or run over to sheep to give chase and on no accounts can i let the dog do this. i think the dog HAS to know who is boss and will not question it espeically in the field.

peasant

stevoman wrote: »

i think the dog HAS to know who is boss and will not question it espeically in the field.

Semantics, Stevoman, but very important semantics.

Replace "boss" with "leader" and we're getting there.

This whole hirarchy/dominance/boss way of explaining dog behaviour is just too simplistic.

Assume for a moment that the study is correct and that dogs do not have an alpha to omega hirarchy and no interest in establishing one either ...establishing yourself as "alpha" with conventional methods would therefore be quite pointless.

It still does achieve results though ...but not because we're "alpha" but because during our attempts to become "alpha" the dog was clever enough to pick up what was expected of it by means of routine and repetition.

If, for example, you insist on being the first through the door every time, your dog will eventually pick up on that and give you the right of way ...but not because it has accepted you as "boss" but it simply has learned what is expected of it.

Now, to stick with the example, if you had rewarded the dog every time for letting you go first instead of holding it back and aggressively forcing your way to the front of the queue ...don't you think it would have learned quicker and you could have saved yourselves some nasty scenes at the door?

cowzerp

peasant wrote: »

Semantics, Stevoman, but very important semantics.

Replace "boss" with "leader" and we're getting there.

This whole hirarchy/dominance/boss way of explaining dog behaviour is just too simplistic.

Assume for a moment that the study is correct and that dogs do not have an alpha to omega hirarchy and no interest in establishing one either ...establishing yourself as "alpha" with conventional methods would therefore be quite pointless.

Nobody said that just been the leader solves everything, but it does make for a more balanced happy dog, The assumption is just that an assumption, dogs in the wild are well known to have hierarchy or else its chaos-same applies in domestic dogs when there is many, 1 that does not fall into line gets attacked and put in its place.

From the way you talk about dogs you seem to think there part of our species, there not. so therefore they dont act the same as us..

peasant

cowzerp wrote: »

dogs in the wild are well known to have hierarchy or else its chaos-same applies in domestic dogs when there is many, 1 that does not fall into line gets attacked and put in its place

Well, this study (and some others) says differently

cowzerp wrote: »

From the way you talk about dogs you seem to think there part of our species, there not. so therefore they dont act the same as us.

Where have I said that? When have I said that? Proof, please !

Of course dogs don't act the same as us ...they just don't act according to the old hat theory of dominance either.

anniehoo

I have access to the full paper so if anyone wants a pdf/word copy send me a PM!Attachment not found.

EDIT: uploaded pdf copy here hope it works

cowzerp

peasant wrote: »

Where have I said that? When have I said that? Proof, please !

Of course dogs don't act the same as us ...they just don't act according to the old hat theory of dominance either.

In most your posts when your speaking down to people for using techniques such as Cesar Milan's etc.. anyone who reads your posts know this and im not going digging them up, i know i shake my head most the time when i read your posts, it makes me dizzy TBH.

Who said dominance solves everything? thats where your going wrong, you take people up as if thats all that they think matters, The lack of Leaders with little dogs is a big reason why most of them are little feckers-big dogs tend to be treated the way i treat mine and are less prone to hissy fits etc..

there is also attention, love, affection etc to be added to the list..

peasant

cowzerp wrote: »

Who said dominance solves everything? thats where your going wrong, you take people up as if thats all that they think matters, The lack of Leaders with little dogs is a big reason why most of them are little feckers-big dogs tend to be treated the way i treat mine and are less prone to hissy fits etc..

there is also attention, love, affection etc to be added to the list..

You have me very confused now.

How exactly do you treat your dogs? What concepts do you use?

Whispered

I have to say I've always found pesants posts very informative and helpful.

I think people just have different ideas on dominance. My idea of it is that every member of a family has to respect the others for the family to run smoothly. Same in packs. A leader is there to reinforce this respect. Not bully the dog. Being the dominant one in your home is not about pushing the dog around, just about having him live by your rules, respecting, in so far as possible, his "doggyness".

If you see dominance as being the idea of browbeating the dog into submission (as many so called dominant owners do) then I completly see why you would disagree.

cowzerp

helena.ryan wrote: »

I have to say I've always found pesants posts very informative and helpful.

I think people just have different ideas on dominance. My idea of it is that every member of a family has to respect the others for the family to run smoothly. Same in packs. A leader is there to reinforce this respect. Not bully the dog. Being the dominant one in your home is not about pushing the dog around, just about having him live by your rules, respecting, in so far as possible, his "doggyness".

If you see dominance as being the idea of browbeating the dog into submission (as many so called dominant owners do) then I completly see why you would disagree.

I see it the way you put it, Peasant posts about how bad Cesar Milan is and how his way is the only way, very patronising to be honest.

I dont bully my dogs, but i,ve a very large rotty who was jumping up on everyone, i got a spray and spray him everytime he goes to jump up, 1 day and it was 90% stopped, i,ve a young baby so cant have my dog jumping up on the baby, he's too big, Peasant would chastise me for that for example..

Whispered

In saying that my own dog ATM is pushing his boundaries big time. No respect what so ever. :mad: All well and good talking about it online. Different story when I go to put it into practise.

peasant

cowzerp wrote: »

I dont bully my dogs, but i,ve a very large rotty who was jumping up on everyone, i got a spray and spray him everytime he goes to jump up, 1 day and it was 90% stopped, i,ve a young baby so cant have my dog jumping up on the baby, he's too big, Peasant would chastise me for that for example..

cowzerp, you're mixing up your metaphorical apples and oranges.
Whether it's ok or not to use a spray as a training aid is a totally seperate discussion (in the above case I would probably use water spray myself as you need an immediate learning success)

This topic is supposed to be about something completely different, I'll just re-post the quotes from the first post

Dr Rachel Casey, Senior Lecturer in Companion Animal Behaviour and Welfare at Bristol University, said: “The blanket assumption that every dog is motivated by some innate desire to control people and other dogs is frankly ridiculous. It hugely underestimates the complex communicative and learning abilities of dogs. It also leads to the use of coercive training techniques, which compromise welfare, and actually cause problem behaviours."

"Sadly, many techniques used to teach a dog that his owner is leader of the pack is counter-productive; you won’t get a better behaved dog, but you will either end up with a dog so fearful it has suppressed all its natural behaviours and will just do nothing, or one so aggressive it’s dangerous to be around.”

cowzerp

them qoutes dont really prove anything, there easily said and i can say training a dog does not necessarily make them better behaved etc..

You just came by a study that mentions what suits you and posted it, as i said earlier-there is thousands of silly studies that can prove all sorts of nonsense!

bushy...

peasant wrote: »

This topic is supposed to be about something completely different, I'll just re-post the quotes from the first post

Pointless imo posting 2 short quotes from an article you haven't read because it supports your posts

peasant wrote: »

Unfortunately, the complete scientific study is not available (not for free anyway), so the bit from the article will have to do

macshadow

OP can you list the many techniques used to teach a dog that his owner is leader of the pack.

faceman

I also dont subscribe to some of the dominance teachings. every breed of dog is different tho and every dog is different again. Dogs have personalities too which affects training.

My current dog was trained without the need for any negative discipline or negative dominance techniques. It was all positive reinforcement. this included having to toilet train him later than normal as he was ill as a puppy and couldnt hold on to the toilet.

My dog Rua is trained to a competent level and he's 11 months. I dont have him jumping through hoops yet or anything but he is house trained and obeys your basic commands (with one exception!)

In summary if we can train dogs without the need for negative training uses then I dont see why we should use techniques that offer nothing but negative training methods.

Whispered

But therein lies the confusion. For me dominence is not about negativity or punishment. A lot of people see the word dominant and straight away think of someone bullying their dog and pushing it around for the sake of it.

macshadow

helena.ryan wrote: »

But therein lies the confusion. For me dominence is not about negativity or punishment. A lot of people see the word dominant and straight away think of someone bullying their dog and pushing it around for the sake of it.

+1
I suspect everyone here feels the same, it's a pity peasant has such a low opinion of the readers of this forum.

faceman

helena.ryan wrote: »

But therein lies the confusion. For me dominence is not about negativity or punishment. A lot of people see the word dominant and straight away think of someone bullying their dog and pushing it around for the sake of it.

To be fair, generally speaking most posts discussing dominance on forums refer to many negative techniques for training.

cowzerp

faceman wrote: »

To be fair, generally speaking most posts discussing dominance on forums refer to many negative techniques for training.

There made nagative by the my dogs a baby brigade.
anyone i know that practises what i mean by dominance dont harm there pets at all and have nice balanced animals..and there easier to train too as there eager to please you when they look up to you.

peasant

bushy... wrote: »

Pointless imo posting 2 short quotes from an article you haven't read because it supports your posts

The article I linked to is a journalistic summary of the scientific article that can't be posted due to copyright reasons. But the summary as such is fair game for quoting, isn't it?

macshadow wrote: »

OP can you list the many techniques used to teach a dog that his owner is leader of the pack.

As, according to this scientific study, dogs do not "think" in what is conventionally called "pack hirarchy / alpha-omega pecking order" it is quite pointless to use techniques that make you leader of the (nonexistent) pack.

helena.ryan wrote: »

But therein lies the confusion. For me dominence is not about negativity or punishment. A lot of people see the word dominant and straight away think of someone bullying their dog and pushing it around for the sake of it.

Lots of current dog trainers/ training books use "dominance" in exactly that way though. According to them it is the dogs' main desire to be "alpha" of whatever grouping it might find itself in and your job as its owner is to beat it in the race to the top, often with very questionable methods.
If we can accept the findings of this study that the dog has in fact no such desire for dominance, we can then focus on much more effective training methods rather than worry about our "top dog" position all the time.

Like in the thread about anthropomorphism the other day we have take great care though in defining words and concepts correctly and then all use the same definitions, so that we all know what we're actually talking about.

Whispered

faceman wrote: »

To be fair, generally speaking most posts discussing dominance on forums refer to many negative techniques for training.

Yes I agree, a lot of them do. But that doesn't make it right. Dominance is a part of nature IMO.

Dominance is evident in human relationships too - a relationship between a teacher and her students. The teacher, if she is a good one, will have control of her class without having to resort to punishment or bullying. The students will respect her. That teacher is dominant over her class.

Again I can see that a lot of people don't see the word dominant in the way I do and I 100% agree that it is wrong to constantly feel the need to "get one up" on your dog or constantly assert yourself and show who's boss. Also the idea that your dog is trying to be "alpha" is silly. It's not like he's sitting there plotting your downfall

faceman

cowzerp wrote: »

There made nagative by the my dogs a baby brigade.
anyone i know that practises what i mean by dominance dont harm there pets at all and have nice balanced animals..and there easier to train too as there eager to please you when they look up to you.

Sorry Im new to this particular forum so Im not familiar with everyone's postings here etc.

faceman

helena.ryan wrote: »

Again I can see that a lot of people don't see the word dominant in the way I do and I 100% agree that it is wrong to constantly feel the need to "get one up" on your dog or constantly assert yourself and show who's boss. Also the idea that your dog is trying to be "alpha" is silly. It's not like he's sitting there plotting your downfall

It sounds to me that some of us are on the same page but our definitions of dominance differs.

peasant

helena.ryan wrote: »

Dominance is evident in human relationships too - a relationship between a teacher and her students. The teacher, if she is a good one, will have control of her class without having to resort to punishment or bullying. The students will respect her. That teacher is dominant over her class.

I think some more nitpicking with words has to be done there to be clear.

Dominant: the opposite of submissive (like in the teacher/pupil example) or the opposite of reccessive (like in genetics)
Dominance: the desire to reach a higher status and the often brutal or ruthless means used to achieve that goal

helena.ryan wrote: »

Again I can see that a lot of people don't see the word dominant in the way I do and I 100% agree that it is wrong to constantly feel the need to "get one up" on your dog or constantly assert yourself and show who's boss. Also the idea that your dog is trying to be "alpha" is silly. It's not like he's sitting there plotting your downfall

Thanks

Whispered

peasant wrote: »

I think some more nitpicking with words has to be done there to be clear.

nitpicker!

peasant wrote: »

Dominant: the opposite of submissive (like in the teacher/pupil example) or the opposite of reccessive (like in genetics)
Dominance: the desire to reach a higher status and the often brutal or ruthless means used to achieve that goal

But if a teacher is dominant over her class, could you say that she has dominance over the class? (I'm not disagreeing with you BTW, just confused at how the words mean 2 totally different things)

peasant wrote: »

Thanks

You're welcome

cowzerp

peasant wrote: »

Dominance: the desire to reach a higher status and the often brutal or ruthless means used to achieve that goal

Your added on bit does not have to be there, that again is using the meaning to suit you.

thats why it says often and not always!

peasant

helena.ryan wrote: »

nitpicker!

But if a teacher is dominant over her class, could you say that she has dominance over the class? (I'm not disagreeing with you BTW, just confused at how the words mean 2 totally different things)

Maybe the teacher is a closet dominatrix

I don't think that you can be dominant "over" something ...that's dominance. Dominant is just an adjective. I always think of genetics. A recessive gene isn't recessive because the other one is dominant over it ...they just are recessive or dominant ...no conscious act or effort required.

But what do I know ...I'm not a linguist nor is English my first language, so I might be wrong altogether.
As long as we can all agree that "advice" like this is a heap of steaming dung, then I'm happy:

Teach the Dog to Be Submissive With Exercises
The following simple dog training exercises will reinforce a human's role as the pack leader, while helping the dog to feel comfortable with a submissive role. These exercises may not be well-received in the beginning and the dog may struggle or resist. In fact, some dogs may lash out with aggression and these are cases where a professional dog trainer should be consulted.

Stand straddling the dog, with the dog's head facing forward. Place your arms around the dog, just behind the front legs and lock your fingers together under his chest. Lift the dog's front legs up off the ground, for a few seconds at first, and then gradually increase the amount of time. If the dog resists or struggles, interrupt with a firm "No!" or "Tsst!" Some dog trainers prefer to growl, but this should only be done with dogs who are not exhibiting aggression toward humans.
Once the dog is comfortable with exercise 1, move on to this exercise: Place the dog into a "down." Flip the dog onto his side and maintain a hold on his scruff with one hand and place the other hand on the dog's rib cage and maintain eye contact. Speak sharply with a "No!" or "Tsst!" if the dog struggles. Once he relaxes, speak soothingly and rub his rib cage area, slowly moving toward his belly. Once the dog is comfortable doing this exercise while on his side, advance by flipping the dog onto his back and performing this same exercise.
Never allow a dog to challenge your authority. If a dog snaps, growls or acts dominant (i.e. mounting or humping a human's leg) this must not be ignored - the situation must be handled calmly and with the authority of an alpha. Flip the dog onto his back, grasp the dog's scruff and make eye contact, while firmly saying "No" or "Tsst!" at any inappropriate feedback. The dog will calm and submit, and only then can he be released. The dog must then be ignored for a period of five to ten minutes following the incident, thereby discouraging inappropriate behavior as an attention-seeking method.
In addition, dog owners should always maintain a position that's physically, ahead of or above the dog while re-training a dominant dog who believes he is the alpha. When walking out the door or while out on a walk, the dog must not lead - he must be at the owner's side. During the training process, the dog must not sit on the couch or sleep in the human alpha's bed - he must sit or sleep at a level that's below the alpha (i.e. on the floor or in a dog bed.)The dog also must not eat before the alpha - his dinner must be served after the alpha eats.

Whispered

peasant wrote: »

As long as we can all agree that "advice" like this is a heap of steaming dung, then I'm happy:

Yes definately.

cowzerp

Training like that was never discusses on here so its irrelevant and you know thats not what we mean by dominance, now your trying to dig yourself out of your hole that you dug yourself..

you regularly object to dominating the dog when in most cases its not in the way you make out, like the qoute above..

its simply letting the dog know there is certain ways to behave and your its leader who will not be happy with the behaviour.