Did You Dump the Dominance Theory?

Um, watching and observing dogs. I realized, then, that their whole lives (24/7) aren't really dedicated to nothing but dominance/submission acts, but a lot of  things--hmm, not too different from ours.

Yep--I'd say watching them showed me that. I've actually had a bona fide CM class that focused on dominance and submission, and on my dogs needing to submit to me as their leader. And yes, both dogs have graduated, too. I didn't realize it was a CM class until I reread my old trainer's  Web site and saw that CM's theories were the same ones he used, and that CM was his view of the ultimate dog trainer/behaviorist and the one he and his colleagues patterned their classes after. 

Our whole class was focused on energy, leadership, alpha rolls, yanking when they deserved it/needed it, praise through shoulder slaps, doing that hissing thing when they deserved it/needed it, and basically getting in their face and screaming at them when they deserved it/needed it.

So, I'd say by watching them and observing them--much like an amateur scientist would, I guess. Only then did I realize how much more complex they were, how little they really did focus on who's the alpha, etc. It's there, but not as much as I used to think it was/is.

Oops--I hope this post moves, too! Sorry. I'm so frazzled with packing up my whole house and keeping Ellie quiet that I missed your first line, Anne.

moving as requested

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

She says that animals that rely on force to maintain their status end up being tossed from the gene pool, because it takes too much energy to do so. 

 
Yeah humans can have a higher status by having and projecting the right energy and attitude, the pack senses that energy and know that member is confident enough to be the leader, he does not need to use any force at all
 
However, lack of force 100% is not possible, if not then a pack would be changing leaders every 5 minutes, i'm sure i am not the only one who have seen fights for a higher status or even for the highest status in a pack (and the opportunity of being the only one able to mate) on TV
 
Force does not mean aggressive, i need force to move a spoon an be able to eat but i am not aggressive to the spoon [], i need force to get up in the morning but i am not aggressive to the bed
 
Dogs are very intelligent, they know that if you step back by showing his teeth of if you step back by nipping then they will have more "freedom" of do whatever they want (i.e. staying in the couch or in your bed) and we know dogs are not an evil being trying to "plan" their next move but if they can stay in your bed for longer time by nipping you then they will do it (they are not dumb either)
 
Some behavior techniques are ONLY a copy of what the dogs do to themselves and yes, some dogs use force to eachother
 
Dominance is the same, does not mean aggression, means you know what you are doing and you are the one that can step up to the plate for the pack, if you are not good at "stepping up" then the dog will have to do it for the good of the pack, and that will bring other aspects that come with it (like setting discipline, boundries and limitations to other members of the pack including you)
 
Dogs need to feel they are going to be protected, dogs need that ther is someone who will guide them, dogs need an example to follow
 
Dumping the Dominance Theory is like dumping the Fatherhood Theory, you  have seen kids without parents figures and how do they end up, growing up without someone to set discipline, boundries and limitations for them

Actually, if you have ever watched dogs at play, you realize that dominance (sorry, I hate that word) and submission (appeasement) happens in a more fluid way than you think, and that it really is nothing more than communication.  Add a different dog to the mix, or take one away, and the whole dynamic can change in a heartbeat.
BTW, this thread was for people who have already dumped the dominance theory.  Just a friendly reminder to avoid confusion about the mispost into another section that Jaime has so promptly fixed for me.

I think what convinced me was just thinking about it logicaly for a sec. When I first got dogs, the main person who I respected as a 'dog person' had had working farm dogs for 40 years and what I was getting from her was dominance theory and the advice to read How to Be Your Dog's Best Friend as if it were the Bible. And I guess everything I'd sort of absorbed in general culture for the first 25 years of my pre-dog-owning life was mostly dominance theory though I didn't know that was what it was called at the time. Conrad, my second dog, is so naturally soft and submissive that we really didn't have to do much to get him into a "calm, submissive" state.

When I started volunteering at the local animal shelter, I wanted to learn more about how to help dogs of all kinds and they have a tiny little dog behavior/training library there for volunteers and on the recomendation of the volunteer director there I checked out the Culture Clash (all the training done with the dogs who need it there is positive). I am a huge skeptic and don't just believe everything I read because someone wrote a book and got someone to publish it (especially one that totally looks self-published and low-budget like The Culture Clash does!). But reading that book and thinking about it, about my experiences with all kinds of dogs, mine and others', it made just so much more sense than the theory I'd been working under before.

And I'm glad I read that before I got Marlowe because I'm not sure dominance displays would impress him too much. It certainly doesn't impress him much when other dogs do it. He walks away and ignores them and I'm sure he'd do the same to me. I was pretty flumoxed when I first brought him home because I'd never encountered a dog so unconcerned with social status. He wasn't status seeking, but he wasn't rolling over and submitting either. The only way to get through to him was to show him what I could do for him if he would do some things for me.

I had somebody once tell my my Walker hound (yep, that's for you, houndlove) was "dominant." I about died. Confident was the word I would have used. She wasn't afraid of anything, but dominant?

I don't think we, as humans, can get away from the connotation of that word. What I see as dominant isn't what my dog sees as dominant.

Besides that, the only view of "dominance" I learned (up until mid summer) was "bully," as in the bully wins out. And displays of dominance were not the same as what I'd describe as confident. Yelling, yanking, intimidating are crappy renditions of dominance to me. (edit to say this) And yet, those bully displays were examples given to me of what dominace means.
 
I don't buy that being a leader means intimidation and pain. I don't buy that I can be a good leader and also lose my temper on/at my dogs, either. What good leader puts his/her dog into a situation where they're afraid? The two (good leadership and fear) don't work well together.  They're opposite each other.

ORIGINAL: nfowler

Besides that, the only view of "dominance" I learned (up until mid summer) was "bully," as in the bully wins out. And displays of dominance were not the same as what I'd describe as confident. Yelling, yanking, intimidating are crappy renditions of dominance to me.

 
Yeap thats another misunderstanding of what dominance really is and some other people decribe like you said as dominace to what really is only confidence, those misunderstandings about dominance are the onas that makes people think is a bad thing

But we do, too. A person takes with him/her all the words and associations throughout her life, and that word is constantly being defined and redefined as life experiences change. Dominance--that very word--will always be slippery as far as nailing down its true meaning.
 
So, even in a class setting--the instructor's interpretation of that word is not the same as each students--see where even more confusion comes into play?
 
 

ORIGINAL: nfowler

But we do, too. A person takes with him/her all the words and associations throughout her life, and that word is constantly being defined and redefined as life experiences change.

 
Which it does not mean is true, not because i could think that all Mexicans are landscapers it means they really are

You're funny! [] You remind me of myself a few months ago; unfortunately, you're too late to "save" me now with regard to the "dominant" theory.
 
Sorry.

I think it was seeing my late trainer and dear friend lose control and do something very not nice to a dog in a befuddled attempt to get him to "submit". He was on steroids for his cancer that made him very aggressive and shouldn't have been touching the dogs, but it was his mindset that he needed to hurt the dog enough to make him "submissive", that let him get out of control. What would happen to a clicker trainer jacked up on painkillers and steroids - feed the dog too many treats? [8D]

He passed away just a few months later and I started really listening to people who offered other methods. I was so disappointed that most stockdogs trainers who claim to be positive really just mean they'll only hit your dog with a plastic rake or a PVC pipe. []

I'd been going to clinics with Jack Knox for many years but two years ago I happened to go at the same time that I read both Patricia McConnell's The Other End of the Leash and Temple Grandin's book Animals in Translation. It was like someone had offered me the book in a language I could read - almost everything Jack was doing, suddenly because clear.

I saw he wasn't arbitrarily interfering or punishing, that he was looking for signs that the dog understood what he was asking. He wouldn't keep hammering if it wasn't coming, he'd step back to something easier and re-establish the trust, then move forward again. So simple. So darned hard to apply. [] But I'm working on it.

At about the same time I got Zhi and she taught me that sometimes a dog needs a different environment to work in, to get something. I couldn't get her to lie down - years ago I would have thought she was refusing because she was "dominant" or "pushy". I read a book on training little dogs that suggested putting the dog at eye level for certain scary behaviors like lying down. I put her on a chair, sat on the floor, and started training the down again. She got it in like three or four tries.

This got me taking a hard look at my training environment and remembering not to discount things like new sheep, a gate the sheep knew was open, the temperature or terrain around a pond, or tall grass. Just taking the whole "dominance" idea out of my vocabulary opens the door to consider factors like this much more readily.

Instead it's, "Am I making this easy enough? Is what I'm asking clear enough?" My friends say, "NO!" unequivocably to that, OK, something to work on. []

ETA: Umm, sorry, I just realized this was in the Obedience section. I DID have one thing about teaching the down. [8|]

Thank you for saying what I've wanted to! My turning point, too, was watching (and hearing) my dog make this sickening thud sound as her back hit the asphlat last spring. And because this is a public forum, I can't go into many details but I realized, then, that "dominance" to many people means "because I said so" and it means, too, that you live on the edge of losing your temper. Somebody lost his temper with my dog and hurt her--enough to push her to have orthopedic surgery way earlier than I thought she'd have to have it.

The last few months I've been moving way away from "dominance" and so many doors and avenues have opened up to me.
 
Life with dogs is good.

I used my experiences to tell me which "theory" is better.  If I were to try and use force (whether gently pushing my dog into a down or throwing him on his back that's using force) with Xerxes or Gaia I would destroy the trust bond I have worked too hard to build. 

Respect, if you watch my Pharaoh Hounds in action, is something that they earn from other dogs by utilizing and controlling space, access to preferred items, speed, and body position.  Why should I use force to accomplish with them what they do without the use of force?  And before anyone in particular would argue with this I can give specific examples, if anyone would care to hear them. 

I think it's too easy to utilize "The D0minance Way" rather than actually think through the situation.  To me it's like treating the wound without removing the knife from it.

[sm=2cents.gif]