ALPHA (word discussion)

Of course, I agree, animals are social and exhibit behaviors that communicate status, intention, and bonding in their group. But even we humans didn't have "manners" or "rudeness" until later in our development of civilizations.

Things like bathrooms and plumbing, garbage collection, privacy, "treating a woman like a 'lady'", ... these were developed through the overlay of moral codes and practical social organization, arising from complicated and highly populated living arrangements (like the rise of agricultural settlements and later, cities).

If you spend time around people who have less interaction with such complicated social structures, it's easy to see how gestures are taken as simply practical, with so much less of the cultural loading we do here, in our very advanced society. In a community that lives closer to a tribal, survivalist mode, if a member with higher status comes in and waves someone off the seat so he can sit there, no one considers him rude, it's simply his right to do so. Rude might be refusing a gift or failing to honor your host.

Similarly, I've observed, a higher status dog may displace another for a dog bed, the sweet spot next to the human, the right to play with another dog. Sure, there are various reactions, and dogs get frustrated with each other, they resist or challenge, what have you. But none of them, I believe is kvetching to another dog, with "Well, I never! Did you see how Gracie just bumped me off the platform. How rude!" In that "Ouch my ego is so wounded" kind of way we humans do. []

Dogs, like people in simpler societies, accept that there is a hierarchy. It's expedient, it works, and there's other stuff to focus on. We complicated, neurotic people, with so much leisure time on our hands that we can spend hours a day pondering things that have no affect on our survival or the productivity of our labor, feel much differently about power.

The idea that a dog would perceive being physically moved as "rude" rather than simply as a human's "privilege" of being the boss, has no basis, for me.

ORIGINAL: corvus

I don't think anyone has accused anyone of abusing their dogs through excessive use of force lately. As I said in a recent thread, I don't like using force in particular circumstances and that's a personal choice. However, just because I and some other people don't like to use force doesn't somehow change the meaning of it. Force can be physical, but it can also be mental. I can force my dog to obey by putting on a stern tone. If I do anything that leaves my dog no choice, I've forced my dog. Sometimes I do leave her no choice, when her safety comes into it, and when she's breaking golden rules that have been set in stone since puppyhood.

Force doesn't have to be a bad thing, but let's be honest with what it does mean. When applied to another being, it means leaving no choice. If you physically push your dog off the couch, that's using force, even if it has no negative impact on your dog whatsoever. When I get my dog off the couch by looming over her, speaking sternly, and touching her lightly, I'm using force as well even though I'm not physically pushing her off the couch, because in her mind I've just used the signals I have developed to tell her there is no choice.

So, from my perspective at least, when you tell me you use force sometimes, I don't immediately assume that means you jerk your dog around on the leash and hang them or whatever. I think everyone here realises that there are times you need force. Where we differ is in when we decide it's one of those times and how much force is required. Just because some of us try to avoid it wherever possible does not mean we think anyone who doesn't do the same is somehow a bad dog owner and mean to their dogs. All it is is a personal style.

 
corvus this is why I believe debate is useless on these topics and will get us (or at least me) no where other than completely frustrated. Whether force is physical and abusive or whether it is energy, many see it as bad; the undertone is that it is a "lesser" tool, a more "unworthy" tool.
  I suppose a good example would be: if a primitive man were suddenly brought to life and was living in my garage, I might observe him start a fire by rubbing two sticks together and I may not view him as "stupid" but I would certainly see his methods as "archaic". I would of course show him a bic and would be amazed if after seeing this amazing method of fire starting he still continued to rub sticks together. I believe most on the "other" side feel this way. Abusive and archaic and there is a “better” way. I am tired of it. I use sides to describe this chasm, although I consider myself to be a positive trainer (and others on “my” side) and I do not see the methods divided by a huge chasm, but the other "side" seems to believe this.
 I do not see our methods as archaic, I get excellent results with my dogs and I gather from speaking with others that they do as well. I confess that I truly do not understand the people on the other side of the debate, and I have lost the desire to understand. I accept your methods, I find value in them mostly, and yet the manner in which you sometimes come across I cannot come to grips with or understand. The only portion of the methods that you (all) have stated that I disagree with as “bad” is the manner in which you refuse to accept anyone else#%92s method as worthy (for them).
  In all of my debates on this and other threads I have not sought conversion. I do not have a strong enough belief in the religion of dog training to work hard on converting others. I am happy to share methods and also happy for people to find their own ground on what works for them. I truly see the other “side” as almost a religion because of the manner in which it is conveyed.
  Now if someone came on the forum and posted that they were kicking and beating their dog in order to force it to submit, you would then see “religious fervor” come out. I would speak out on this and I would seek to make this person see why what they are doing to their dog is wrong and bad and that there are better ways to achieve their goal of a happy well adjusted (I was going to say balanced but I will not go there) dog. That is what many of you do now, with just the hint of trigger words.
 Someone mentioned that there is a “better” way for me to deal with my dog on the bed that is growling at me. How would you really know that the way is “better”? You have not met me, not my dog.  My way must be at least “somewhat useful” since the dogs in question have never once growled at me or family members and are more than willing to give up the couch, the bed or the chair when asked. We must be doing something right.
 Anyway, continue to think others and me as lesser beings, savages or simple, it really does not matter to me anymore. I truly did think that understanding was [possible and that if words could be defined perhaps we would see ourselves on the same side (I do) but I have better things to do than waste my time trying to convince strangers that not everyone in the world who might say the word “leader”, “pack” or “dominance” needs your form of religion and redemption.
 
  It really sounds to me as if some of you have difficulty with authority, and maybe you just hate all appearances of authority and you interpet everything you do with your dogs in that manner.It is important to not project our human feelings about "bad bosses", "dislikd presidents" and "authortative parents" into our dogs lives. They are dogs and they need structure.

I truly do not understand the people on the other side of the debate, and I have lost the desire to understand. I accept your methods, I find value in them mostly, and yet the manner in which you sometimes come across I cannot come to grips with or understand. The only portion of the methods that you (all) have stated that I disagree with as “bad” is the manner in which you refuse to accept anyone else#%92s method as worthy (for them).

 
And every person here that you describe as being on the "other side" came from your place. Every one of them, without exception, used the traditional methods of force and greater force to get compliance. They have been there, done that. And have found greater results with the +R. And environmental management. It's not a desire to not appreciate or devalue your approach. It is a desire to show you that they were there once and here is where they are now, some after not only changing their ways and finding it effective, but some actually do this for a living and have seen the results 100's to 1,000's of times.
 
But there are some differences of personality, too. Some have a better diplomatic touch than others. Such is the variety of life.
 

And every person here that you describe as being on the "other side" came from your place. Every one of them, without exception, used the traditional methods of force and greater force to get compliance. They have been there, done that. And have found greater results with the +R.

 
This is the crux of it I think ron.  This is why some come across the way dgriego describes.... without intending it, there is a "that is so last century" feel to the posts.  I am aware of it in my own as well, no matter how I try to re-word my posts. 
 
There are probably some who have progressed FROM R+ TO a greater use of force, pack theory etc.  But not as many, I suspect.  I think CM is the most high profile trainer at the moment (and I do see him as a trainer, not a behaviour specialit, but thats ot) who uses the latter techniques.  And he too is, unless I am very much mistaken, learning and evolving and moving towards techniques that are gentler and gentler and more and more hands off.

Unfortunately, many of those who have been "converted" and gone with their "crossover" dogs into the "positive" light, still have dogs with behavior problems which are managed with food and avoidance. Many of these dogs do not have good social skills, are neither comfortable or stable outside of strictly controlled environments, and are not safe, stable members of society.

There are plenty of dog owners and trainers who have found the "positive only" philosophy lacking in balance and enough tools to address all aspects of living with a dog as a social being, and have returned to a more natural and common sense approach, along with a more complete tool-box.

My dog was an insecure, unsocialized wreck when I got her at 18 months old from the shelter. She has never bitten me, another dog, another person, or animal. She is now a stable, balanced dog who excells at working with messed up and aggressive dogs.

It always amazes me that those who use the word "science" the most, are the ones who use emotional arguements, misinformation, and extreme examples.

Operant conditioning has four quadrants, not one or two. Operant conditioning is not the grand theory of everything involved with living with a dog as a social being.

Read through enough dog boards, blogs, and dog sites each day for three years, and you get a feel for what's working, who's dogs are safe, stable members of society, and who is in denial.

Now, are we off topic, or what? [] 

Now, are we off topic or what?

edit - nevermind. im out. [8|]

I have nothing further to contribute to this thread, I am glad that you have found the light. Others will continue to stumble around in darkenss with our miserable mistreated pets.
 
 
  pray for us brethren

if you read my posts you would see that I have not attempted to defend the notion of Alpha dogs. I believe in the very first post I stated "IMO dogs do have a social order and positions within that social order and depending on the circumstances and the dog these positions fluctuate. " .

 
My mistake and well said.
 

Geez, you try to make things good with people and put yourself in their place and you get told you're being snooty and superior and trying to convert them? What else can one do to try to facilitate understanding and sympathise with those who feel they've been wronged?? Now I feel like I'm the one that doesn't understand what the hell is going on. Think I haven't been told that my dog is unbalanced and mentally unhealthy before because I try to avoid force? I have, and in much stronger and more certain ways than have happened in these latest threads. I got offended too, which is why I'd never pass judgement on another forum user's methods unless they were plainly barbaric.

I think some folks here are being a little too sensitive. The way I see it, and I've said this before, is that everyone is trying to reach that place of zen with their dogs where everything is going along swimmingly and you feel great about your relationship. I don't know about everyone else, but when I find that place of zen, I want to tell other people about it. Not because I think they'll find zen in the same place and I want to push them there, but because I love where I'm at and I want to share it, and maybe some people who are looking for zen will get some ideas from my experiences and find their way there faster. I want people to understand that I'd thought I'd found zen and discovered there was a whole other, deeper level and now I'm somewhere even more amazing. When and if I ever get past this platform of current zen, I'll sure want to share that, too.

After this debate, which has left me feeling a little deflated, I'm entertaining the idea that I must be in a better (yes, I mean BETTER) place than some other people are because they seem so defensive and offended by my very mention of my place. It's almost as if they fear looking beyond their own place in case they find somewhere better and have to change.

ORIGINAL: dgriego

I have nothing further to contribute to this thread, I am glad that you have found the light. Others will continue to stumble around in darkenss with our miserable mistreated pets.


pray for us brethren

 
Is any of this sarcasm directed at me?  Why do you feel preached at?  What makes you feel that perhaps ron or myself also feel preached at by YOUR way of speaking?  I am done with this thread.  This comment alone is enough to put me off, but it is just the latest in a line of narrow, snarky messages that has just soured this topic for me.
 
Would just like to add, corvus, great post and I agree with you... again.

ORIGINAL: dgriego

corvus this is why I believe debate is useless on these topics and will get us (or at least me) no where other than completely frustrated. Whether force is physical and abusive or whether it is energy, many see it as bad; the undertone is that it is a "lesser" tool, a more "unworthy" tool.
I suppose a good example would be: if a primitive man were suddenly brought to life and was living in my garage, I might observe him start a fire by rubbing two sticks together and I may not view him as "stupid" but I would certainly see his methods as "archaic". I would of course show him a bic and would be amazed if after seeing this amazing method of fire starting he still continued to rub sticks together. I believe most on the "other" side feel this way. Abusive and archaic and there is a "better” way. I am tired of it. I use sides to describe this chasm, although I consider myself to be a positive trainer (and others on "my” side) and I do not see the methods divided by a huge chasm, but the other "side" seems to believe this.
I do not see our methods as archaic, I get excellent results with my dogs and I gather from speaking with others that they do as well. I confess that I truly do not understand the people on the other side of the debate, and I have lost the desire to understand. I accept your methods, I find value in them mostly, and yet the manner in which you sometimes come across I cannot come to grips with or understand. The only portion of the methods that you (all) have stated that I disagree with as "bad” is the manner in which you refuse to accept anyone else's method as worthy (for them).
In all of my debates on this and other threads I have not sought conversion. I do not have a strong enough belief in the religion of dog training to work hard on converting others. I am happy to share methods and also happy for people to find their own ground on what works for them. I truly see the other "side” as almost a religion because of the manner in which it is conveyed.
Now if someone came on the forum and posted that they were kicking and beating their dog in order to force it to submit, you would then see "religious fervor” come out. I would speak out on this and I would seek to make this person see why what they are doing to their dog is wrong and bad and that there are better ways to achieve their goal of a happy well adjusted (I was going to say balanced but I will not go there) dog. That is what many of you do now, with just the hint of trigger words.
Someone mentioned that there is a "better” way for me to deal with my dog on the bed that is growling at me. How would you really know that the way is "better”? You have not met me, not my dog.  My way must be at least "somewhat useful” since the dogs in question have never once growled at me or family members and are more than willing to give up the couch, the bed or the chair when asked. We must be doing something right.
Anyway, continue to think others and me as lesser beings, savages or simple, it really does not matter to me anymore. I truly did think that understanding was [possible and that if words could be defined perhaps we would see ourselves on the same side (I do) but I have better things to do than waste my time trying to convince strangers that not everyone in the world who might say the word "leader”, "pack” or "dominance” needs your form of religion and redemption.

It really sounds to me as if some of you have difficulty with authority, and maybe you just hate all appearances of authority and you interpet everything you do with your dogs in that manner.It is important to not project our human feelings about "bad bosses", "dislikd presidents" and "authortative parents" into our dogs lives. They are dogs and they need structure.

Welcome to the club [8D], not only me but a couple other people here have been where you are right now, we realized that a long time ago and think exactly what you just said, it does not matter if you use oranges and apples to explain it

ORIGINAL: ron2

And every person here that you describe as being on the "other side" came from your place. Every one of them, without exception, used the traditional methods of force and greater force to get compliance. They have been there, done that. And have found greater results with the +R. And environmental management.

And some others have been there too and realized that the techniques they were using from the beginning work better than +R. Been there, tried that. Different techniques work better for different people

ORIGINAL: Chuffy


Is any of this sarcasm directed at me? 
             no not really, pretty much all of it was directed at someone else, due to comments about "seeing the light" , and "a better way" and that can be picked up if the entire thread is read.
 
 Why do you feel preached at? 
                                   This to is obvious if you read the entire thread.
 What makes you feel that perhaps ron or myself also feel preached at by YOUR way of speaking? 
 
I do not recall at any time stating that my way is "better" or that yours is "using force", "darkness (opposite of "the light"). One of the main reasons I posted thsi topic was to try and define words that cause devision.
 
 I am done with this thread.  This comment alone is enough to put me off, but it is just the latest in a line of narrow, snarky messages that has just soured this topic for me.
 
  Well at least we feel the same way, so I suppose in some manner we have found some common ground, thus the thread was not wasted effort.Normally I would apologize, I do not as I again feel that my comments have much truth to them. I do apologize that you feel they were directed at you personally. That is only true if you feel your way is better than everyone else's.

 I would like to clarify how I feel about the "other" side. I do not feel the need to apologize nor have I requested one, nor do I expect one. Debates are where people argue opposing beliefs. One cannot expect warm fuzzy feelings when engaged in debate.
  I have stated in this thread and others that I do not personally believe there is that great of a difference between us (people engaged in the debate) and I still feel that many of the words or terminology used causes more division than actual methods.
 I would also state that I respect everyone who takes the time to try and teach, train and develop a relationship with his or her animals (dogs specifically). Everyone, that includes every last single one of you that have posted in this thread and it includes those posting in others, from the most experienced professional (like Spirit) to the guy who is just looking for help on how to get his dog to not poop on the rug. I cannot stress this enough. Notice please that I clarified the word relationship, which effectively cuts anyone out that is abusing there dog in order to achieve results.
 I have and do feel very frustrated trying to communicate to some of you, and I also feel that at times the gap just widens where I had thought for a moment it was shrinking but that does not lessen the basic respect that I have for you as someone who cares about dogs or is seeking to learn more about dogs.
  To me your methods lack balance. In my life, in my household, with my dogs, I would feel “unbalanced” operating under the strict assumptions that you guys operate under and I feel my household would fast become a wrecking yard for out of control dogs. But I have not stated that my way is “better” for you. I have not suggested that you go and find some balance or that you “should” do it my way as “I have seen the light!” I am very happy to say that I can greet each and every one of you with a profound “Go forth and train your dogs in the manner that works for you, in the manner in which you believe and that you have found to be successful.”
 All I would ask is that no one abuse or injure their dogs, and I have not garnered one hint that anyone in this thread would ever condone that approach.
 

Of course, I agree, animals are social and exhibit behaviors that communicate status, intention, and bonding in their group. But even we humans didn't have "manners" or "rudeness" until later in our development of civilizations.

This is absolutely untrue. Even the most primitive human societies have incredibly complicated social structures and well-established ideas about what is rude and what is not. And being "rude" is not taken lightly in any society-- I'm not talking about eating with the wrong fork, I'm talking about serious rudeness. I suspect you could travel the world and get quite similar reactions from everyone if you go around running up to complete strangers and giving them a big smacking kiss on the lips, or spitting in people's faces for no apparent reason. Really inappropriate social behaviors. You might even end up dead from engaging in such behaviors.
 

Similarly, I've observed, a higher status dog may displace another for a dog bed, the sweet spot next to the human, the right to play with another dog.

 
yes, but they don't do it by force-- have you ever seen a dog walk up to and grab another dog by a body part and physically drag the other dog off a bed?  The submissive dog agrees to move in response to a request or possibly a threat from the dominant dog.  

The idea that a dog would perceive being physically moved as "rude" rather than simply as a human's "privilege" of being the boss, has no basis, for me.

 
The number of people who report being growled at or bitten when engaging in this activity strongly suggests you are wrong.
Dogs certainly understand the concept of "rude": some dogs act very rudely towards other dogs, and may, as a consequence, get growled at, snapped at, or even firmly thrashed-- nothing to do with dominance, all about bad manners. Humans very often act in ways that dogs consider to be "rude"; most dogs get desensitized to it and accept it, but you go around doing "extremely rude" things to dogs and after a while you're probably going to get "told off" by a dog. "extremely rude" includes hugging dogs, staring in a strange dog's eyes, approaching a strange dog directly from the front and patting his head, physically removing possessions from a dog, physically removing a dog from a possession.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

yes, but they don't do it by force-- have you ever seen a dog walk up to and grab another dog by a body part and physically drag the other dog off a bed?  The submissive dog agrees to move in response to a request or possibly a threat from the dominant dog.  

What would happen if the submissive dog does not move if the dominant dog did the request?