Using 'Dominance' To Explain Dog Behavior Is Old Hat

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.

macshadow

Desire to be alpha, desire for dominance, it conjures up the image of a dog in the corner plotting to take over rule in one fell swoop. When there is nothing at stake a "pack" of dogs will most likely be very passive towards each other, that doesn't mean there is not a pack structure.

"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".
For me those words are probably the most important on this forum.

I don't think anyone here would agree with the above "Teach the dog to be submissive with exercises" article.

cloudy day

helena.ryan wrote: »

Yes definately.

agreed

If they'd conducted a study using wild dog's v a large family pack of domestic dog's or even a pack of hounds, fair enough.

But the fact they used neutered males just makes me have no respect for that report whatsoever.

cloudy day

cowzerp wrote: »

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.

agreed

it seems the problem largely is a person's concept of dominance from their own human point of view, not that of dog's.

peasant

cowzerp wrote: »

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

I not only regularly but always object to dominating a dog, not just because the version of dominating in question may or may not contain traces of violence or brutality but because the dog doesn't know or understand dominance.

If the dogs' motive isn't to be "alpha" or "top dog" then its motive for undesirable behaviour must be something else. Identify the real reason and correct that.

And just to be clear: Of course you will find need to correct your dog from time to time ...be that with a simple sound or look or something more forceful, depending on the circumstances. Just don't correct it for non-existant notions of dominance that it doesn't actually have, but for reasons it actually understands.

cloudy day

macshadow wrote: »

Desire to be alpha, desire for dominance, it conjures up the image of a dog in the corner plotting to take over rule in one fell swoop. When there is nothing at stake a "pack" of dogs will most likely be very passive towards each other, that doesn't mean there is not a pack structure.

"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".
For me those words are probably the most important on this forum.

Agreed.

And to go back to my reference of sexual aggression with dog's. What's at stake is the breeding rights. Usually a submissive male will not challenge the dominant male as he just isn't a fit enough fighter to take him on, he has been taught from puppy hood who the BOSS is and he does as he's told.

When the Alpha male is too old and weak to defend himself he will be challenged, usually when they are on the losing streak they then give up and run away. This is also evident in other species, and any that live in a pack / herd are taught manners and respect from a young age.

Mostly it's about strength,determination and their psychological genetic make up, as they are all different.

I have a male samoyed who is not agressive, and a new addition, a boxer dog who is not agressive but the two together will fight. It's nature.

looserock

I actually agree with what I've read of the article, however its important to remember that just as some dogs have no desire to be dominant there are a lot who do, and very often these are the very large powerful ones.

I think anyone who owns such dogs would be very foolish and irresponsible not to establish their dominance over the pack.

peasant

Now here's another word we can argue about in this context:

AUTHORITY

I have natural authority over over my dogs, because I control the resources
(I can open the tin of food, they can't)

I have established authority over my dogs (they have learned that the game last longer when they relinquish the ball for me to throw it again)

Using natural and established authority I can then hopefully use that to influence them during training to do things which are against their immediate interest (come back when called even though there is an intersting scent) and establish certain behaviour through routine and repetition.

The above also often gets mistaken for "dominant" / "dominance"

macshadow

It's important to establish leadership (as you go). what will your dog learn by being taken aside for an exercise like that when he's just chilling out.

cowzerp

peasant wrote: »

but because the dog doesn't know or understand dominance..

So Dogs are stupid now? :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

of course they understand dominance, its what keeps packs stable and in control.

The study you showed is muck.

peasant

cowzerp wrote: »

of course they understand dominance, its what keeps packs stable and in control.

The study you showed is muck.

As far as the two of us are concerned, I think we just have to agree to disagree on this issue