The Alpha Roll--purpose and effectiveness?

.:.

mudpuppy

The only poster who admitted to freely using puppy pinning insisted it was the foundation of the relationship with the dog-  a act of violence.

That's just not true. You're making that up. This is where that misinterpretation (and misquoting) thing can get you all screwed up. Here's what I said:

FourIsCompany

It's only one brick in the foundation of our relationship.

And I also said:

FourIsCompany

I have never and would never use "extreme violence" with my dogs for any reason.

So, you're drawing a picture in your head that is entirely fantasy. It's ok with me if you insist on believing that fantasy is true, but for the record and for others reading here, it is not.

I invite you to look up the word violence.

a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse.

I'm very clear on the meaning of both words, thank you, but definitions of words don't negate visceral reactions to them. 

Language is a complex and seductive thing - we all have favourite writers based largely on the way they write, the words they choose to use and the emotional response we have to sentence construction/word choice.  2 people can say the exact same thing in two different ways and we will, instinctively, prefer one of them.  If we get an uncomfortable feeling from a word, have a bad association with it or would just pick a different word with the same meaning given the opportunity, use of that word will affect whatever it is relating to. 

If a word, such as "boss" affects the mentality with which I approach my interaction with my dog in a negative way, I choose not to use it.  Doesn't bother me in the slightest if other people use it, if they don't have the same connotations with it that I do.  But the fact is, we ALL have positive and negative impressions with words, and that has absolutely zilch to do with definition.  

To relate this to the topic at and, both the phrases "alpha roll" and "puppy pin" are distasteful to me, and not because of what the individual words mean.   

mudpuppy

Only if you have baggage with the word boss.  I have the luxury of not having to work for bosses that use force or punishment.

the entire thread started off with the idea that the way you convince dogs that you are the boss is to use force, i.e. alpha roll or puppy pin. 

That's not an accurate characterization. The OP stated, "So I guess my question is what IS the big deal with the alpha roll?  It did not seem to change Jack's behavior for better or for worse."

Benedict

I'

Language is a complex and seductive thing - we all have favourite writers based largely on the way they write, the words they choose to use and the emotional response we have to sentence construction/word choice.  2 people can say the exact same thing in two different ways and we will, instinctively, prefer one of them.  If we get an uncomfortable feeling from a word, have a bad association with it or would just pick a different word with the same meaning given the opportunity, use of that word will affect whatever it is relating to. 

So true! Which is why I think it is sort of silly be arguing with each about the power of one word or another in our OWN relationships with our dogs, as we have different associations.

I share your distaste for alpha roll. I use OC techniques up the wazoo, but do not like to characterize my relationship with my dog in those terms, as it feels mechanical for me. Doesn't mean that people who like to think in OC terms have mechanical relationships with their dogs. 

Benedict

definitions of words don't negate visceral reactions to them. 

No, but providing the objective definitions can help to further clearer communication. So that you know I'm not speaking in the same context and with the same negative connotations that you obviously have about the words. I provide the definitions to highlight the emotionality that some people are connecting to the words and to make it clear that I do not intend these words as you are obviously perceiving them. I am using them in the emotionally neutral context.

Benedict

If a word, such as "boss" affects the mentality with which I approach my interaction with my dog in a negative way, I choose not to use it. 

And I support you in that. I would never suggest that you should use a word that you're not comfortable with.   

Benedict

But the fact is, we ALL have positive and negative impressions with words, and that has absolutely zilch to do with definition.

I disagree. An emotionally neutral definition has everything to do with positive and negative connotations of words. It's the central point, the common ground, the bare-bones, without-implication-or-association meaning of the word. It gives us both a place to start. A common ground.

You could use the term in your way and I could use it in mine all day and we'd never really communicate. But with the definition, and comparing our context to the definition, we can more clearly realize what the other is saying.  Hopefully.

FourIsCompany

I disagree. An emotionally neutral definition has everything to do with positive and negative connotations of words. It's the central point, the common ground, the bare-bones, without-implication-or-association meaning of the word. It gives us both a place to start. A common ground

There are no words that are universally neutral.  

Very existential... And true.

Am I really not getting my point across?

You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to, but as long as we keep in mind that the reality of which we speak is this:

We can communicate. You may not like potatoes and I do, but at least we know what we're talking about.

From alpha roll to potatoes. It's all here, folks!  

um, hello? the whole point of the alpha roll, or puppy pin, is to convince the puppy that mom is a) able to physically defeat the dog in a fight; and is b) willing to do it. Thus the whole relationship is based on the idea that if the dog is bad enough mom will physically defeat the dog in an act of violence.  Everyone concedes point a) but are too squeamish to move to point b)?  

so why bother to do it?   I personally don't think the "puppy pin" actually teaches the puppy anything. It's an unpleasant experience for dog and owner and has no purpose.

.:.

And someone else saying potato and meaning this:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ROFLMAO.

 Ixas, that's pretty much how it happens.

Reading all this back and forth crap is just that....crap...we can assume certain methods work perfectly for most dogs without issues....but, think about the person who rescues on a regular basis...how many folks do that?

And, I mean rescue dogs that are about to be put down or haven't had a chance for adoption for quiet some time...in my experience, dealing with dogs like that, one changes the usual protocol quickly......I am actually sick of hearing what should be done with this dog or that dog.....most folks on this forum apply a certain method and claim that if anything else is applied the dog suffers....horsecrap...how many dogs don't get adopted, get sent back, or put to death because, certain folks are afraid to go the extra mile it takes to convert a super difficult dog?

I may come across as harsh with some methods, but, I can honestly say I have saved dogs lives that might not have had a chance otherwise....

FourIsCompany

houndlove

I see it as a "I'm the Boss" vs. "We're partners"

 

It might just be another case of definition (Sorry to bring that up again). But when I think of partners (as I do in my marriage), we check with each other on important decisions. We don't do anything of great import without getting input and agreement from the other one. We cooperate, give and take, on an equal basis. Never would my husband say, well, I have the final word on this one, and neither would I. We may agree that something affects him more so he has the final word or that his expert lies in a certain area and vice versa, so we AGREE that he (or I) make a certain choice. 

My relationship with the dogs isn't like that. They make plenty of choices, but not without my consent. They live their lives under a framework of what I will allow and what I won't. So I guess it can be seen as a partnership, but certainly not what I would consider an equal one. To me, partner implies equal input in all important decisions. And around here, as regards the dogs, when it comes to important decisions, my word is the final one.

That's interesting, because I govern my relationships (or partnerships) all by the same central idea: If someone wants it more, they get it. So if my partner wants something more than I don't want it, he gets his way. If I am vehemently against something he wants to do and feel strongly enough about it to draw the line and say "no, I don't want you to do this", he backs off and lets me have my way. It's the same story with my animals. If they badly want to go and chew on power cords or run free, I can pretty much guarantee you that I will want them to keep safe and sound far more. They don't understand the implications of their actions like I do. Thus, it matters more to me and I get my way. Not because they discuss it with me and care that I really don't want them to do it, but because I want my way more than they want their way, and they will know that I mean to get my way by my tone and my body language and their history with me. If they want to do something I don't particularly like, I can offer them a similar alternative and usually persuade them to take that option, but if there is no alternative where we can come to a compromise, I win out because I care more than they do. So, the way I see it, it is a partnership. They do what they want and I do what I want, but if we collide on something, we work out who wants it more, just like I do with people, and I aim for compromises, just like I do with my human partner. My word is only final when I want it irrevocably more than my animals do, and then it's not about what I will allow and what I won't allow, it's about what matters to who and how much. It's the same thing, but a different perspective.

A few thoughts:

1. I admitted to using a puppy pin and I would do it again in the same circumstances. Now, you all probably know how uncomfortable I am with force. Very would probably be an understatement. However, with this particular pup it was an instinctive reaction to a very noisy, aggressive, and somewhat painful attack. I was very glad he was so small at the time. Like I said, he never challenged anyone in the family once he was out of puppyhood, but no one else, animal or human, was safe from him once he was an adult unless they managed to convince him on their own that they were okay. I've only met that one pup I've ever felt the need to pull that move on, but the fact that I did and it worked (although it didn't seem to make much difference to his aggression levels later in life, just his aggression levels towards me) shouldn't be pushed aside by the violence of the action. Yes, it was violent, even though I didn't hurt him. But it was that or let him learn that snarling and biting people got him what he wanted. I've only met one puppy that even thought of trying aggression at 12 weeks old, but it can happen. Nonetheless, I wouldn't do it on an adult. I don't think it's appropriate on an adult for the reasons I have already stated. I spoke to my mother about that pup and she said she had done the same thing to him only once when he had snarled at her and tried to bite her. He grew up adoring her despite that one act of violence. Sometimes, rarely, a dog forces our hand.

2. Are we really talking about dogs rescued from death row, here? I have my own controversial ideas about the costs of rehabbing aggressive dogs, but each to their own and that's a discussion best left off this thread. I thought this thread was about using alpha rolls on everyday kind of dogs with no serious emotional issues and no history of aggression towards humans. To me, that's a whole different ball game and a whole different discussion.

3. It doesn't take much for me to feel a sense of kinship with an animal that causes me to become emotionally attached to them in some way. They basically just have to look at me. In that action, they open their world to me and make me part of it, even if only for a moment. I've had brief brushes with wild birds I have come to particularly like, and I've felt sad when I found a dead animal I've never set eyes on before on the side of the road and imagined how terrifying or painful its last moments may have been. Maybe that's why I have difficulties separating the emotions I feel towards my pets and the emotions I feel towards other animals I don't know so well. My animals honour me by sharing their lives with me, so I return the favour by taking good care of them and we bond. But somehow I feel an echo of that when I peer in a rock crevice at a frog squished up safe in there and we lock gazes for a few moments. Or when a bird comes in and scolds me for being too close to the nest. Or when a wallaby pauses to stare at me, weighing up whether to watch or flee. The world is full of magical little encounters like that that make me very happy. My own animals are very special to me, but maybe I just know somewhere deep down that any animal would be so special to me and open their little worlds to me if life happened to bring us together like it has for my pets. My pets are still special on one level, but on another, they are no more special than any animal that invites me into their life. Does that make any sense at all?