Debunking Dominance

[Staranais]

I don't think she sounded pretentious at all.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Anita, did you intend to sound pretentious in that post and treat anyone who uses corrections as inferior dog trainers and imply they are not using their brains?

Just curious.

Did you read the bit in my post where I said I use corrections in some circumstances? Are you as concerned about the way people who don't use corrections are being stereotyped in this thread?

[Nekhbet]

I know that when people have posted on DOL about neutering to reduce aggression I've cautioned that it may well not have that effect. All I am saying is that chucking out a study because it studies neuters isn't reasonable. I would like to know more about neuters, and welcome studies on them.

and neutering doesnt really work in all cases - it can prevent sexual behaviors but will not defeat true dominant behaviors. The study was 'debunking dominance' not about investigating neuters. Even then you need an entire dog control group.

I mentioned nothing about positive training at all. I mentioned about overall attitudes towards dog not training methods. I have used non corrective techniques for dominance and aggression as well so that has nothing to do with what I posted before.

That aside, you do have to be careful not to crush spirit and shut a dog down and you can take control without doing that.

Thats all well and good but that is again breed dependant and some people mistake 'not crushing spirit' with allowing their animals to get away with blue murder. If your dog is so soft that one little raised voice from you 'crushes their spirit' then we should be looking at poor genetics and breeding creating weak nerved dogs. Yes training is horses for courses and you have dogs that are not physically challenging as they are not bred to be guarding breeds... But some breeds bred to push even people around will try you. Fact of life. I would never push a sight hound around they are not wired like that but a big male mastiff that plants himself in front of you teeth bared and ready to take a big bite - no treat or toy will fix that.

again my post was nothing about training methods or positive vs corrective if that is how you read it. It was about people attitudes towards dogs as a whole. Maybe we're getting too used to watered down dogs.

[corvus]

I found the paper interesting, but did have a few quibbles with their methodology. For example, it seems to me that a truly "dominant" dog won't necessarily continuously be engaging in the types of aggressive behaviours towards other dogs that the authors were measuring. The "dominance" of a truly dominant dog would presumably be understood by both parties and not need to be continuously demonstrated. For example, a submissive dog might not even bother to compete with a dominant dog for a resource, since it knows it won't get anywhere. The authors would have completely missed that as an "interaction", since there were no snarls and stares. So I'm not sure the researchers were actually measuring dominance, as we would understand it - I would suggest that they were simply measuring aggressive behaviour.

That's a good point, but to play devil's advocate, just because a dog knows he's gonna get beaten up if he tries to get that bone doesn't mean he no longer wants it. He'll look at it sideways and nonchalantly hang around and wait for the other dog to be finished with it so he can get his chance. I would imagine that some such situations result in no dominant signals at all even so mild as a stare, but I find it difficult to believe that most would go that way. IME, there will either be submissive or dominant signals at some point from someone. Usually it'd be as mild as eye contact or looking away, but that did fall within their dominant and submissive categories.

I think that dominance hierarchies is over-analysing dogs. Kelpie-i not only summed up dogs in that one paragraph, but every other social vertebrate on the planet and quite a lot not considered social. Except maybe advanced primates and some particularly clever birds.... But even then, that's the bare bones of it. But what would I know? I think hares and dogs have things in common.

Why can't we focus on creating predictable environments for our animals rather than controlling their behaviour? It's the same outcome, and the same approach, but the spirit of it is worlds apart. In my predictable environment, all my animals have a pretty good idea what I'm going to do next and they can do what they please about it. Rules don't have to be about controlling undesirable behaviour or what you want versus what your dog wants to get the results you want. They just need to be "If they do that, then this will happen next." OMG, no need for dominance hierarchies, vehement training method debates, or accusations about letting your dog "get away with things". Life would be so dreary!

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Thats all well and good but that is again breed dependant and some people mistake 'not crushing spirit' with allowing their animals to get away with blue murder. If your dog is so soft that one little raised voice from you 'crushes their spirit' then we should be looking at poor genetics and breeding creating weak nerved dogs. Yes training is horses for courses and you have dogs that are not physically challenging as they are not bred to be guarding breeds... But some breeds bred to push even people around will try you. Fact of life. I would never push a sight hound around they are not wired like that but a big male mastiff that plants himself in front of you teeth bared and ready to take a big bite - no treat or toy will fix that.

again my post was nothing about training methods or positive vs corrective if that is how you read it. It was about people attitudes towards dogs as a whole. Maybe we're getting too used to watered down dogs.

I did read it that way, my apologies. Glad to hear you're not talking about training methodology but attitude. In that case I would agree, plenty of people on all points in the spectrum have unreasonable attitudes about what dogs can and can't do and should and shouldn't do.

The point I am trying to make is that it is not just people on chintz sofas serving up the dog's cooked dinner on bone china that have unreasonable attitudes, it's also people with a big chip on their shoulders who insist that their dogs have complex deductive reasoning powers and punish the hell out of them for not living up to uncommunicated standards. Those people do crush spirit and need to have the excuses they use to do it removed. I don't think the study supports either position tho' - it is just challenging some dominance theories. That is not the same thing as advocating no guidance for a dog at all.

I agree with you that the public does unreasonably expect a watered down dog that does not bark, pee, shit, or get sick and which self-trains and reads minds. It's up to us to educate them that such a dog is not fair, possible or indeed a dog. It's part of what I consider my challenge, because while my breed is not physically threatening, it's still an ancient breed that is not easy for Joe Public. It bothers me that it is harder to find homes for them because people want a dog, but don't want a dog that requires effort.

[Nekhbet]

pretty much - i'm still in awe how many people are suprised when their dog behaves like a 'dog'. Humanising too creates an attitude now that we can 'reason' with our dogs to sort out problems. Dogs need leadership and clear training not a therapist *sigh*

I too see medication being dished out willy nilly to cure 'behavioral problems' ... some stemming from shitty breeding others from people not accepting their dog is a *gasp* canid with primal needs that require fulfillment that is more then a couple of cheap toys and the odd walk around the block.

MOST dogs are not for joe public. Big pushy breeds are not something that should have been spread far and wide but now the attitude is that a dog must fit into society or its a bad dog - not the fact the owner was a moron in the first place for getting a breed not suitable ... how many kelpies, cattle dogs, GSDs, rotties, staffies, beagles, labs etc are in the pound for expressing their genetics? I cringe when I see a working dog penned up in a backyard doing nothing and the owners not seeing that its blatantly not suitable for suburbia. My family is from Europe and you had the little toys for pets, everything else had a job or some sort of working home - herding, guarding, hunting etc. My Aunt had 30+ dogs of varying breeds and the workers were trained to work (GSDs etc) while the rest were mostly danes/newfys - all went on a run at the side of a bicycle at least once a day.

Training methodology - as I said horses for courses. Different methods work for different dogs. But people on both side of the fences can have unrealistic and downright dangerous attitudes. I've seen PP trainers with a better grip on reality then some more 'old fashioned' trainers and vice versa.

Why can't we focus on creating predictable environments for our animals rather than controlling their behaviour? It's the same outcome, and the same approach, but the spirit of it is worlds apart. In my predictable environment, all my animals have a pretty good idea what I'm going to do next and they can do what they please about it.

Because life is not 100% predictable. If you glue a dog into a routine and something happens what then? They have to be flexible to a point. My dogs know what I mean explicitly and if I have to go off for a day or three leaving them in the hands of my partner they know that whoever is caretaker is to be listened too. Begrudgedly but listened too You're lucky if you find non confrontational dogs that are not pushy. I guess I'm too used to hard headed working dogs that will push everything and everyone around them - pet dogs are easy peasy hehehehehe.