The Alpha Roll--purpose and effectiveness?

I think after several pages we came to the conclusion that alpha rolling/pinning is the same as gentling.........would you say that Dunbar's technique should be applied by a pro?

As to why Ron felt he needed to alpha roll several times hasn't been answered.

And, yes, I have used gentling/pinning before.

mudpuppy, Thanks for your opinion, but how do you know how dogs interpret the alpha roll?

mudpuppy

A seriously out-of-control dog needs training, possibly medication, not pinning

I would rather alpha roll a dog than drug my dog. If there's a problem, I want to deal with it, not give him drugs so it appears the problem doesn't exist. That's just treating the symptom so the owner feels better.

mudpuppy

Pinning a puppy who is having a temper tantrum may be effective in stopping the temper tantrum, but it teaches the puppy nothing.

I have 4 puppies who would disagree with you. Let's be honest here, none of us has any more knowledge than anyone else regarding a dog's interpretation and learning through these methods. It's all just our opinions. My experience (and many professionals';) tells me that a puppy learns a valuable life lesson from being pinned.

You don't have to agree with it or use it on your dogs, but to bait those of us who feel differently than you do about it with the emotionalism around words like "violence" and "dangerous" is not conducive to this discussion, in my opinion. The alpha roll, done improperly CAN be dangerous and I'm sure there are people out there who are violent against their dogs, whether or not they use the technique.

But like any operation, if done properly, it is neither inherently dangerous, nor is it violent.

FourIsCompany

Let's be honest here, none of us has any more knowledge than anyone else regarding a dog's interpretation and learning through these methods. It's all just our opinions.

FourIsCompany

But like any operation, if done properly, it is neither inherently dangerous, nor is it violent.

Please clarify...but aren't these 2 contradictory?  The whole point is, we don't know whether the dog views it as violent or dangerous.  If they do, it doesn't matter much how we view it.  

No, they are not contradictory. They are 2 separate issues:

1. When I said "if done properly, it is neither inherently dangerous, nor is it violent" I am not talking about the dog's perception. 

The operation isn't inherently dangerous - That means that, performed properly, the person won't get bitten. That's what most people have been talking about when they say that it's "dangerous". They say the handler will receive a bite. Secondly, the dog will not be hurt, either.
The operation isn't inherently violent - That means that, performed properly, there is no intent to harm or injure. And in fact, there is no emotion or energy outside of a calming  and caring energy.

2. When I said that "none of us has any more knowledge than anyone else regarding a dog's interpretation and learning through these methods", I clearly am talking about the dog's perception. It's true, we don't know exactly how a dog perceives it for sure. That's why it's up to each of us to decide whether or not we use the maneuver on our animals (or get a professional to do it). It's a personal decision each person has to make for themselves.

I know of cases where I think it was a good thing. The outcome, the result, was great. That's all we ever have to go on. The results. That doesn't mean I can read the dog's mind and know how he interprets it. 

Everything about this being violent and dangerous and emotional - they're all human concepts. That's why we have to form our own opinions and act accordingly.  Do the best we can.

To be clear, I'm talking about a roll as done by Cesar Millan, not the Monks' version.

snownose

I think after several pages we came to the conclusion that alpha rolling/pinning is the same as gentling.........would you say that Dunbar's technique should be applied by a pro?

As to why Ron felt he needed to alpha roll several times hasn't been answered.

And, yes, I have used gentling/pinning before.

Hold on, where did we decide that? I saw some people quite determined to see them all as the same thing and figured I should leave them to it. I most certainly do not think they are the same thing, though. For a start, Dunbar's 'gentling' is supposed to be for puppies only and only puppies that are throwing a tantrum or something similar. That's a wildly different thing to putting an aggressive adult dog on its side until it calms down. Adults and puppies are not just dogs. They're adult dogs and baby dogs. I might physically restrain a small child that's well beyond reasonable, but I would never try that on a human adult! No matter how mentally disturbed that adult might be. And even if the adult was somehow considerably smaller than me. It's not just about size, it's about respect and boundaries and what drives the behaviour. When a puppy or small child is throwing a tantrum, they might be tired or angry about being thwarted, but when an adult is in a similar state, it's usually driven by fear and is often a fight or flight response, which makes it far more serious. And then add in that puppies are usually quite resilient about being handled and don't have much in the way of a sense of personal space (compared to adults, that is), well... I dunno, I just think that puppies are generally unlikely to have much of a problem with that kind of handling, but a lot of adult dogs would, most especially if they are frightened and on the verge of a flight or fight response. I don't think you pinning or gentling means the same thing to puppies and adult dogs.

snownose

I think after several pages we came to the conclusion that alpha rolling/pinning is the same as gentling.........would you say that Dunbar's technique should be applied by a pro?

I'm also confused. I'm not sure we (if you mean we as a group) came to any conclusions. I certainly do not see them as the same thing at all. An alpha roll is a specific technique done under specific circumstances. As is Dunbar's. Very different sets of circumstances, and through very different means, and for very different reasons. I don't see them as the same thing as all, so I don't understand where you perceive the conclusion.

I think something I said several pages ago might be being misinterpreted...:

Benedict

snownose

Benedict

The dog could be submitting in that instance, saying "ok, you win this time because it doesn't matter enough to me"...that isn't changing the dog's overall view of his relationship with his owner, just picking his battles.  At worst, the logical result is that the dog is biding his time until something DOES matter enough not to submit, and injuries happen.

 

Couldn't that be said about Dunbar's "Gentling" technique?

 

Yep.

I wasn't saying that the 2 are the same thing...only that regarding my example, the same could be said for both.   

FourIsCompany

I would rather alpha roll a dog than drug my dog. If there's a problem, I want to deal with it, not give him drugs so it appears the problem doesn't exist. That's just treating the symptom so the owner feels better.

I'm pretty sure Mudpuppy is talking about those dogs where medication MAY indeed be necessary. She said "possibly", pointing out that there are some, and in fact there are a lot unfortunately, of dogs in this world who biologically have something wrong with their brains. Whether it is problem in hormones, neurotransmitters, or genetic fearfulness (which causes a physiological change in the body with glucocorticoids, including cortisol, and usually has to do with dopamine and serotonin levels as well). For these dogs, there IS no alpha roll, or counter conditioning, or behaviour modification that on their own will change behaviour. Dogs are absolutely no different in people in that way, that they too are afflicted by biological problems that require medications. Just like people who have bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia, or many with depression, require medication, there are dogs that innately require medication in order to thrive, and to deny them that in way of "leadership" is only abuse. Leadership alone will not change this type of dog's behaviour. It's not about treating the symptom, with a lot of these dogs it's treating the problem itself so that other behaviour modification techniques can work.

FourIsCompany

You don't have to agree with it or use it on your dogs, but to bait those of us who feel differently than you do about it with the emotionalism around words like "violence" and "dangerous" is not conducive to this discussion, in my opinion.

It has nothing to do with being "emotional". To a lot of people, it is looked at as a dangerous and violent procedure, whether it is done properly OR improperly, if there is a right way to handle a dog like that. Period, and there is plenty of evidence as to why people come to that conclusion. Just like I think choke chains, prongs, and e-collars are a form of violence, as are scruff shakes and striking a dog. The fact that you use them doesn't mean we shouldn't say what we think of them, and why we think they should not be used. It comes back down to differences in beliefs. Many of us think they are violent, and we have good reasons to back that up. If you use some of these things, and are proud of using them, then you really shouldn't care if we think they are violent. I think violence and dangers in techniques are VERY conducive to any discussion revolving how we treat our dogs, though, and if we are going to talk about how we treat our dogs, people will have to face that some people will call these violent techniques. I will never "not" call it violent just to appease somebody, because I think alpha rolls are quite a violent way to treat a dog, when one is doing an actual alpha roll. So as such, I will refer to them as being a violent maneouvre.

Kim_MacMillan

there is plenty of evidence as to why people come to that conclusion.

Can you show me some of this evidence? I would really like to read up about it.

Kim_MacMillan

Just like I think choke chains, prongs, and e-collars are a form of violence, as are scruff shakes and striking a dog. The fact that you use them ...

Excuse me. I don't use ANY of those. It's not a fact at all.

Kim_MacMillan

If you use some of these things, and are proud of using them, then you really shouldn't care if we think they are violent.

I don't use them. And I don't care that you think they are "violent", whatever that means to you.

Dog psychology does not equate to "training".

And, I submit that psychology is psychology in many ways, regardless of species.  Are you going to tell us that "dog psychology" does not include learning theory, motivational theory, operant conditioning, classical conditioning, Premack principle, etc.????

snownose

I think after several pages we came to the conclusion that alpha rolling/pinning is the same as gentling.........would you say that Dunbar's technique should be applied by a pro?

As to why Ron felt he needed to alpha roll several times hasn't been answered.

And, yes, I have used gentling/pinning before.

I think YOU came to that conclusion.  I, and quite a few others, did not. 

Why is it that any method that isn't completely babying to the dog considered "violent"?  I see violence as kicking, pushing a dog down a flight of stairs, etc. 

.:.

.:.

FourIsCompany

Excuse me. I don't use ANY of those. It's not a fact at all.

No no no, the "you" being described was a hypothetical person, not you specifically. Sorry, I should have been more clear there.

FourIsCompany

I don't use them. And I don't care that you think they are "violent", whatever that means to you.

Again, I was referring to a hypothetical you. And I know you don't care that I think they are violent, but people who are learning about them, and who want to learn about all perspectives of them, will care. And I will continue to say that I feel they are violent, because to me, they are. And violence should be pretty straightforward, I'm not sure there is any definition required for that, it's pretty much a stable definition across places.

willowchow

Why is it that any method that isn't completely babying to the dog considered "violent"? 

I don't think that anybody is saying that anything other than babying is violence. I think babying, as in molly coddling, could be a form of abuse in itself. I specifically stated certain things that I said are violent. There are lots of other things people have talked about here that I don't consider violent, even though I wouldn't do it myself. Better not to take a mile when given an inch. See it for what was said, try not to look into it too far. I mentioned specific things that come to mind that I consider violent. That's all.

willowchow

I see violence as kicking, pushing a dog down a flight of stairs, etc. 

As do I. But violence goes far beyond the "obvious", and in talking about violence you have left out psychological and emotional violence here as well, commonly occurring in domestic violence.