Did You Dump the Dominance Theory?

Yeah, you know getting rid of that whole "battle of wills" aspect of being with my dogs was just such a weight off my shoulders. I hated training because it meant engaging in this warfare with my dog, trying to "make" him do things and having to punish if he didn't. And just like Becca said, it was so easy to just scream "DOMINANT DOG!" and not look at what I was asking and how I was asking it to see if maybe I was asking too much or not being clear. There was no room in my view for a dog to make a mistake. Dogs "disobeyed" because they were trying to be dominant, not because they were confused or scared or anxious or distracted. 
 
Now, I don't even really like to use terms like "command" and "obey" when it comes to the dogs. It implies something that I'm not real comfortable with at this point. These are living, autonomous beings with feelings and personalities, and I don't like the implication that they're my slaves or that I want them to be.  

What single thing convinced you that there was a better way?

I got convinced there was a better way when I started reading up on positive ways to train a dog and Willow's personality changed from leary of me and almost biting me to following me all over, waiting at the door for me when I wasn't home and just generally being a great friend and "kid". 

It's a shady thing, you know. I would hesitate to say the dominance theory is wrong, exactly, just not very applicable to dogs. I worked for a year on a small bird known for being ridiculously bold and aggressive. One of my females I feel fairly confident would have pecked my eyes out if I hadn't been wearing a broad-brimmed hat. She'd fly up under it, but couldn't get close enough without battering her wings against my hat brim. Additionally, when you think that only the dominant wolf pair in a pack get to breed with the support of the pack, well, that's a very intense selection pressure on 'dominant' animals. It would be worth it to be a bully, for example. Just like my little bird was the star of my study in getting 4 clutches all the way to fledging and never losing a baby as long as they were in her care from being insanely aggressive.

All those selection pressures are no longer present in domestic dog populations, and in fact, would often be selected against by humans. So, what made people think it was necessary to 'dominate' your dog and force it to submit in the first place is kinda beyond me. I guess we do what we're told and some of us still retain the dregs of the similar selection pressures that acted upon us as social primates as the ones we see described in the so-called 'dominance theory'. I guess dominant and aggressive humans probably did well getting their genes passed on as well, as it's a good way to display strength and fitness.

My opinion has always been that dogs don't seem to NEED to be dominated. They're so desperate not to get into trouble they can be quite silly. If I shout at someone, even myself, my dog comes sooking up to me just in case it's her I'm angry with. I've never hurt her out of spite or some misguided need to put her in her place, and she's a beautiful, emotionally balanced dog. I just flat never believed all that stuff about going through the door first and leading during walks and all the rest. I lead during walks from behind. I say we go this way and my dog comes racing back and corrects her path if she chose a different one.

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.

Zhi does the same thing. She actually gets a dog to liking her and wanting something from her, then she'll get the dog to behave the way she wants by offering or with holding that thing. Dogs like her because her language is very clear and her timing is always right. She weighs ten pounds but she rules the house and every new dog that comes here (even screwy ones, and there's a lot of screwy BCs []). She couldn't possibly do that by force.

I haven't figured out how to do this with my stockdogs. I'd have to improve on Jack's method to the point where I could do without being She Who Says No, and it took him thirty five years of training dogs under the greatest dog trainers ever, to figure out his method. So I have to do a certain amount of pushing around, to keep their reaction to me sharp. I've been playing with it with my guard dogs, however, where I don't need split second reactions.

I know of exactly 2 times in Zeus's life of my losing patience with him.

At the time, I was into the dominance theory due to watching too much tele.

I scruffed him  during these times.

One day I reached out to do something to his collar and he flinched.

That was the end of it for me.

Like Houndlove said most beautifully....These are living, autonomous beings with feelings and personalities, and I don't like the implication that they're my slaves or that I want them to be.

"Dominance theories" abounded when I got my first dog.  My whole family and most of my friends were telling me I needed to show him "who's boss", I needed to punish him when he got things wrong or he wouldn't respect me.  It took the fun out of owning a dog.  Training was a real chore and there were plenty of "battles of wills" where I either felt I had to punish him (and then felt guilty because it didn't resonate with me) or where I didn't punish him and then felt guilty because everyone had me so convinced it was detrimental to his training and well being in the long run.
 
In reply specifically to OP: the thing that convinced me there was another, better way?
 
Monty Roberts.
 
Spiritdogs, I love the way you emphasised the difference between control and leadership.  Nuff said IMO.

Is weird, you talk about dogs actually dont need to be dominated or about dumping dominance theory but in another threads you talk about letting the dogs to "work it out" and set the hierarchy themselves in the pack, you talk about helping one of them to be in a highest level by feeding first and i dont know what else
 
So how those dogs reach that higher hierarchy over the rest of the dogs if is not dominance? do they just flip a coin and decide right there? do they have a vote and the one with more votes wins? OR actually they are dominant to eachother to show who is more confident and has better leadership?

Dogs have a natural hierarchy amongst themselves and we humans should not try to change or define that.  However:  We! Are! Not! Dogs!  We cannot accurately or safely mimick nearly all of the physical body language and vocalisation that a dog has at his or her disposal. 
 
Dogs do not need to be "dominated" by their human owners in order to be well behaved, socially acceptable members of society.  (By "dominated" I mean that they do not need to be forced into submission.)
 

So how those dogs reach that higher hierarchy over the rest of the dogs if is not dominance?

I refer you back to my post about Zhi. Zhi is a freak of genetic engineering, not a natural dog. To assume a leadership role in my pack, she cannot resort to any kind of force. She has her own brand of "positive reinforcement" which she uses to get what she wants. Her needs are similiar to mine for household dogs - she wants them to respect her space and food, play when she wants them to, be nice when playing, and wait for her signal that something is to be barked at. In a normal pack hierarchy, she'd be lunch, not the leader. I never let her get into a scrap with another dog - her legs are the size of your pinkie and her throat is nine inches in diameter. It would be highly dangerous for her.

I watch her carefully and learn from her because we have similiar communication problems - to the dogs, we are equally freakish and easily eluded. We can use our relationship with the dogs to create a bond of trust whereby they are confident in our leadership.

Dogs, in spite of opinions to the contrary, don't only operate within the pack paradigm. They have lots of other motivations which fall outside the pack model, and which we can more effectively use to our advantage.

ORIGINAL: espencer

Is weird, you talk about dogs actually dont need to be dominated or about dumping dominance theory but in another threads you talk about letting the dogs to "work it out" and set the hierarchy themselves in the pack, you talk about helping one of them to be in a highest level by feeding first and i dont know what else

So how those dogs reach that higher hierarchy over the rest of the dogs if is not dominance? do they just flip a coin and decide right there? do they have a vote and the one with more votes wins? OR actually they are dominant to eachother to show who is more confident and has better leadership?

 
Dominance in dogs is somewhat fluid, and if you don't watch them carefully-and if you don't know what you're looking for you'll never see it.  Play initiation is another marker of dominance:  which dog initiates and which dog terminates play.  Body language during play. 
 
There is a difference between the "Dominance Theory" as it is practiced by certain dog trainers and the ways that dogs establish dominance and show dominant traits amongst and between themselves.  Sighthounds will use speed, maneuverability, body positioning, possession of high value items and other demonstrable techniques to show the other dog that the other dog is of lesser status.  There is no vote.  However Xerxes is clearly more dominant than Gaia outside:  he's more maneuverable, faster and stronger.  She acknowledges this and lets him perform the role of an alpha outside.  OTOH inside the house, where speed, strength, and agility are not necessary, Gaia rules the roost and is more dominant.  She uses the same techniques that he uses except for speed and agility to establish this.  Therefore their roles are fluid depending upon location.
 
I'm sure that others would tell you that their dogs have taken on different status roles at different times...no voting, no aggression, just communication.  Since we don't speak "dog" we sometimes don't catch the subtle clues that dogs read like BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS.
 
 

Ok so we are having different perspectives about what "dominance" really is, maybe the name of the thread should be changed to "do you force your dog to be submissive?"
 
For me dominance means leadership, just like when another dog is being dominant he is looking for leadership and setting rules, boundries and limitations, if you are the one setting those rules, bourndries and limitations then you are the dominant one, so as you can see even +R people are dominant
 
If by "forcing your dog into submission" your mean "alpha rolling" then no, i would not do that, only a professional can and only as last resort
 
We dont need to be dogs to be able to communicate to the dog what we want, of course we dont have a tail and we cant move our ears so we cant mimick 100% the body lenguage, however animals (including dogs) comunicate to eachother more by the energy (or attitude) you project, you can have the best confident body lenguage you want but if inside you are nervous you wont fool any dog on earth, cats can make understand a dog who is the boss in the house and they are not dogs either, you know what i mean? is the attitude you project the one that the dogs pick up and tells them what you are and what you want, you dont need a tail and moving ears
 
 

espencer, I have to agree.
We are hinging our responses on one word " Dominance".
 
To me, it means leadership, control of my dog world and so many other things.
I don't push my dogs to the ground, there is no need for that.
 
 

ORIGINAL: snownose

espencer, I have to agree.
We are hinging our responses on one word " Dominance".

To me, it means leadership, control of my dog world and so many other things.
I don't push my dogs to the ground, there is no need for that.

I find it interesting that two of you who have expressed an appreciation for CM's methods of "leadership" now say that there is no need to push a dog to the ground (yet he does that), and that for you "dominance means leadership", which is what a lot of positive trainers assert.  The reason most of them dislike the word "dominance" is that it does, at least for them, imply a method of training that relies on coercion or force, however benign.  So, does this mean that you guys also share a desire to be leaders to your dogs, but not by those means?  If so, perhaps you are ready to take additional steps along the journey of reading and observing even more about dog behavior and if so, that's really a good thing.  I believe that leadership implies a presence that encourages dogs to follow even though they are not forced.

I also mentioned many times that my dogs are not beyond the usual training.
 
 

ORIGINAL: snownose

I also mentioned many times that my dogs are not beyond the usual training.

Even if you had a dog that was a problem, that doesn't mean you couldn't address it with operant conditioning, so I fail to see how that makes any difference.