The Alpha Roll--purpose and effectiveness?

houndlove

But if you have a different view of what dogs, that they are different from other animals in some way, then that is probably going to shake out in your training methodology.

True. And I don't really live with other animals, so I think you're right. I see dogs as somewhat "different" than other animals.** Simply because I like them more and relate to them better. We have cats, but I don't have much of a "relationship" at all with the cats. DH does. But I still do expect them to follow the rules here. Not to earn their keep, though. I'm the "adult" here and I brought these animals into my home and I am responsible for them, their behavior and their needs. SO I make sure that everything works together.

**I don't really think there's any objective difference between dogs and other animals. It's just that they are my chosen animal. I really have no need for any other kind of animal in my life, but I could have 20 dogs. So maybe that's part of the difference in my philosophy... Interesting.

 That is interesting and maybe we're on to something, though maybe not. I'm an animal person. All animals. I have cats and dogs (and I had cats long long long before I ever had dogs, and I will always have cats as well) because they're easier to care for (as far as finding resources for them, food, training classes, cost of items they need) but not because I view them as special or different from other animals. When there were wild turkeys in my back yard, I went out and observed them for as long as they let me. I'll basically sit around and watch any animal doing pretty much anything. I should have majored in zoology, honestly. Any encounter with any animal, for me, is really special. Even squirrels. If a squirrel were to come up and eat out of my hand, I'd be on cloud 9 for the rest of the day. I'm a big supporter of responsible quality zoological parks because I think the opportunity for humans to get close to and interact with non-human animals is really important, especially for young children developing their sense of empathy. I had to forcibly tear myself away from watching the sea lions be trained at the zoo a couple weeks ago. I could have quite literally watched all day. Going to the county fair when we were in Maryland was always about communing with the farm animals.

Parents, this is what happens when you raise your kid in front of PBS nature programs! My dad is a philosopher of science with his specialty in biology, so there are a lot of nature documentaries, nature hikes, trips to the zoo (with information and explanations of a way deeper nature than what is on the signs) and so forth in my past.  

I know this is off topic, but I think it's a really interesting subject and it may be at least part of why people have such different philosophies (and therefore why there's such a difference in our approach to raising dogs, even though we're both wonderful people.) But I was raised on a farm. I was surrounded by animals ... except for dogs. We had no dogs. I helped my dad shear sheep while you were watching PBS! LOL I helped my mom catch chickens for dinner. I rode horses and milked cows. I was immersed in animals of different sorts.

So, to me, animals represented sustenance. They were our helpers and our food. I always loved animals and was (and still am) fascinated by them and love to watch them, but I want my dog right there beside me, sharing the experience with me. So I do see them as different than other animals. They are companions apart from other animals, to me. I don't understand people who have snakes, lizards, birds and rats as companions. I just don't get it. They're cool and everything, and I accept that people love them like I love my dogs, but that just could_not_happen with me. I tolerate the cats. 

I wonder... Do the people who would alpha roll their dogs feel that they are "dog-only" people? Or were they raised around a lot of non-companion animals?   

houndlove

Now, causing a dog pain in order to perform a necessary medical procedure, or just by accident  really I don't think belongs as part of a discussion on rolling or pinning as either disciplinary or pre-emptive "dominance" gestures. Apples and oranges. 

My point being (in reference to causing your dog to fear you) a dog does not know your intent. Why would a dog being pinned as a disciplinary gesture become fearful of you but not for a medical procedure or grooming? All he knows is that he is been put and held in an unwanted position. The intent to the dog is "Apples and Oranges". It is the level of trust that matters. I agree that a new dog or rescue dog would very likely see you as scary if you tried to roll or pin them before or until that level of trust has developed.  Anyways just thought I would clarify even if it doesn't belong as part of this discussion.

FourIsCompany

I wonder... Do the people who would alpha roll their dogs feel that they are "dog-only" people? Or were they raised around a lot of non-companion animals?   

Great question 4! I personally do think there might be a link there. Lets see! 

Denise, I would argue that a dog that has lived with you for a while does know your intent. I think that mine does. I'm pretty sure my pet hare does, too. They seem to get clued into your behaviour.

Houndlove, once again, GET OUT OF MY HEAD! Geez, your last post is like you walked in there and wrote down everything you saw. I'm a zoologist and dogs are a hobby of mine. Animals in general are a passion. Dogs are just an animal that actually wants to spend time with me. I seem to fill my life with animals that don't especially want to spend time with me, so dogs are like a holiday where I can stroke soft ears, play, and generally interact for as long as I want to. But really, I can watch the most mundane animals all day. Pigeons interest me. Possums delight me. I still think kangaroos are cute and exciting. When I was in America I never got tired of squirrels and was taking photos of the wild ones when I was at the zoo. People looked at me funny.

I expect any animal I live with to live by my rules, but I'm flexible depending on the animal. One can't expect a rabbit to be as obedient and respectful as a dog, or one will be sadly disappointed. But I love them equally for the different perspectives they bring to my life, and that's why I try to be fair with my expectations and not hold them to any rules I think they will find unreasonable. I want to live with them, not against them. I think the main difference is that dogs will show aggression more often than other animals, and it's more serious when they do. If my puppy bites me deliberately hard, it's harder to deal with than when my rabbit bites me. Neither are allowed to bite me, but the rabbit tries it once and when I ignore it, gives up, but the puppy might try repeatedly and with increasing aggression.

The fearlessness of humans that dogs have had bred in to them cuts both ways, doesn't it? They're more likely to aggress for the very same reason that they are so fun to live with and so highly trainable: they are not hardwired to be afraid of us.

That's why wolf/dog hybrids can be so very very dangerous. In the right (or wrong) genetic combination, the total fearlessness of humans paired with the squirreliness and nondomesticated nature of wolves can be a very bad combination indeed.

But yes, corvus, you're in my head too. Having cats and dogs as pets is like being in my own nature show. They're animals that I can actually approach and interact with and have that deep relationship with that I crave. 

FourIsCompany

probe1957

He will alpha roll himself when he wants his belly scratched. 

 

Just because I'm picky ... but by definition, doesn't the term "alpha roll" imply that someone or something (the alpha) is taking the action of "rolling" the dog into submission? Isn't an alpha roll a dominance display? If a dog goes into a submissive position on his own, I don't consider that an alpha roll. It's just a submissive display. As opposed to a dominance display, which is what an alpha roll is. I could be wrong, I'm just asking.  

Nope, not wrong. Submission offered up freely is not the same thing as dominance taken by force. And it's much better, too.

houndlove

mudpuppy

so here we hit the real "divide" in dog training- those who think dogs should obey because "I'm the boss" and those who think dogs should happily work for a living and to earn privelages and extras. 

 

I think mudpuppy is right and it's why I think that while on the surface many of our arguments have to do with methodology or one technique versus another, at it's heart I think there is a philosophical divide based on how we see dogs on a really fundamental level. I see dogs as just animals, like any other, and as I'd never expect a cow or a chicken or a killer whale to work with me because I'm just the boss, I also don't really expect that out of my dogs. But if you have a different view of what dogs, that they are different from other animals in some way, then that is probably going to shake out in your training methodology.
 

 Hmm. Any room for the middle ground? I don't see dogs as "just like" any other animals.  It is theoretical and in no way proven, but theories that humans and dogs co-evolved speak to me.  As do the scientific studies that dogs seem to be uniquely suited to understanding human communication.  Better than chimps, better that really young children, better than wolves.I love cats, and I love them because of their catness,  Which is different than dogness.  Yes, we're all animals.  People too.  But ethology is funky and fun stuff.  We have similarities, and differences. My all time favorite thing to do is read about the differences between people, chimps, and bonobos. (Yes, I iz nerd).

But .... I only expect my dogs to listen to me because they find it in their best interest.  Stability is a best interest.  Food, shelter, and ridiculous amounts of belly scratches are also on the best-interest scale.  But I'm also the boss.  I have to be.  Dogs are powerful predators.  A dog without training and guidance is at best a nuisance, at worst a trip to the hospital (or morgue). I work hard to be someone worth listening to. A dog who doesn't think I'm worth listening to is not a dog I can live with.  I'm a loud person, and opinionated, but I'm not at all into telling other beings what to do in a serious way.  I do it when I have to, and err on the side of live and let live. 

I should be asleep.  Smack me with a newspaper.
 

This is very interesting.....

I think it's possible to have a middle ground in that regardless of the similarities or differences between dogs and other animals, dogs are unique by dint of proximity and numbers.  If it were more common for us to have cows or killer whales as pets, we'd be on orca.com or bovine.com discussing this same divide in philosophy.  It just happens that because we have evolved to domesticate dogs that they, in some senses, drew the short straw.  What other animals in such sheer numbers have had to become not only domesticated, with all of the unnatural behaviours that entails, but also develop unending patience with their human companions while we constantly question ourselves and each other on the best way to handle that domestication? 

I personally am inclined to agree with Cressida - if animals that are beyond our capacity for physical control can be trained (go to Sea World!) then an animal I can physically control does at the very least deserve the opportunity to choose to cooperate with me.  I think it's a pervasive attitude with everything in our lives in this day and age that just because we can, we should.  I can roll my dog, I can inflict discomfort to make him walk at a heel, I can pinch his ear to indicate displeasure (popular in traditional gun dog training)...but should I?  Is the fact that I am physically capable of those things a good enough reason to deny Ben the right to choose?  I don't think so - not for me.  Now, my attitude might be different if Ben made different choices - ones that made him incompatible with life as a pet in a relaxed environment  I got Ben as a puppy and he was a blank slate, so I haven't had to make decisions about handling a dog who made seriously destructive or dangerous choices...but I guarantee I'd give any dog in my care the opportunity to make those decisions, even just once, while I observed and decided what to do next. 

As I said above, dogs are unique, but only because we have made them so.  Subtract that from the equation and they are no different from any animal we haven't domesticated, or couldn't control.  None of us here are personally responsible for the domestication of dogs, but we choose to perpetuate it and that means accepting what has come before....it means having a bigger consciousness, beyond ourselves, about our responsibilities.  I speak only for me, and for my interactions with MY dog, when I say that it strikes be as being the height of arrogance to say, though action if not words "my species made your species what you are, I'm the boss and I will force you".  It smacks of enslavement...of denying my dog the one thing he really has left - his own mind and his ability to choose.  That mind, and those choices, would be very different if he were not domesticated, but having the capacity is very possibly the only thing he has in common with his wild ancestors.  Taking that away from him makes him something else...not a dog...just a furry creature who shares my house. 

Benedict

I speak only for me, and for my interactions with MY dog, when I say that it strikes be as being the height of arrogance to say, though action if not words "my species made your species what you are, I'm the boss and I will force you".  It smacks of enslavement...of denying my dog the one thing he really has left - his own mind and his ability to choose. 

Owie-owie-ouch-ouch! LOL

I hope I am not being seen as saying that  "my species made your species what you are" because nothing is further from the truth. I stand in awe of dogdom. If I took credit for what my species has done, I would kill myself right here and now.

However, I think there might be some emotionalism attached to the simple phrase "I am the boss and will force you to obey my rules." I believe that all any of us means when we say that is -- You will not poop in the house, bite me or others, tear up my belongings, jump on the furniture, chew through the walls, dig to China, eat my food, etc... For me, what my dogs DO do is really up to them. They DO choose within certain constraints and I'll bet a million dollars that we all have very similar constraints. In fact, I'm positive you all would be surprised at how lenient I am with my dogs and how many choices they do make for themselves.

It may sound to you as though I think my dogs are slaves, but I submit that's because of the perception you are adding to the words "boss" and "force" instead of being based on any kind of reality. I also submit that each one of you is the boss over your dogs and you make the rules in your household and force your dogs to follow them, the same as I do. It's the subjective meaning you attach to the phrases I use that have me looking like some kind of dictator or tyrant.

And did I say, "ouch"?!  

Ummm...anyone who doesn't fall into the category of dog owners that I was referring to with my statements (and I do know some, I live across the road from one) really doesn't need to be offended what I said.  If it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't matter, does it?  I never said it applied to anyone specifically or generally on this board, I was merely discussing the idea of physical force, as a response to Cressida's post.   

Benedict

This is very interesting.....

I think it's possible to have a middle ground in that regardless of the similarities or differences between dogs and other animals, dogs are unique by dint of proximity and numbers.  If it were more common for us to have cows or killer whales as pets, we'd be on orca.com or bovine.com discussing this same divide in philosophy.  It just happens that because we have evolved to domesticate dogs that they, in some senses, drew the short straw.  What other animals in such sheer numbers have had to become not only domesticated, with all of the unnatural behaviours that entails, but also develop unending patience with their human companions while we constantly question ourselves and each other on the best way to handle that domestication? 

I personally am inclined to agree with Cressida - if animals that are beyond our capacity for physical control can be trained (go to Sea World!) then an animal I can physically control does at the very least deserve the opportunity to choose to cooperate with me.  I think it's a pervasive attitude with everything in our lives in this day and age that just because we can, we should.  I can roll my dog, I can inflict discomfort to make him walk at a heel, I can pinch his ear to indicate displeasure (popular in traditional gun dog training)...but should I?  Is the fact that I am physically capable of those things a good enough reason to deny Ben the right to choose?  I don't think so - not for me.  Now, my attitude might be different if Ben made different choices - ones that made him incompatible with life as a pet in a relaxed environment  I got Ben as a puppy and he was a blank slate, so I haven't had to make decisions about handling a dog who made seriously destructive or dangerous choices...but I guarantee I'd give any dog in my care the opportunity to make those decisions, even just once, while I observed and decided what to do next. 

As I said above, dogs are unique, but only because we have made them so.  Subtract that from the equation and they are no different from any animal we haven't domesticated, or couldn't control.  None of us here are personally responsible for the domestication of dogs, but we choose to perpetuate it and that means accepting what has come before....it means having a bigger consciousness, beyond ourselves, about our responsibilities.  I speak only for me, and for my interactions with MY dog, when I say that it strikes be as being the height of arrogance to say, though action if not words "my species made your species what you are, I'm the boss and I will force you".  It smacks of enslavement...of denying my dog the one thing he really has left - his own mind and his ability to choose.  That mind, and those choices, would be very different if he were not domesticated, but having the capacity is very possibly the only thing he has in common with his wild ancestors.  Taking that away from him makes him something else...not a dog...just a furry creature who shares my house. 

Very enlightening post, Kate.  I tend to agree with your opinion on this, and I chuckled a bit at the bovine.com comment.  Perhaps if some of my ancestors had not allowed others of my ancestors from across the pond to come here and stay, we would be posting to turkey.com or bison.com.  Can you imagine forcing a bison into a "sit"???????  Nice buffalo.  Now, sit, pretty please......  C/P (click/prairie grass)

I think the "I'm the boss" approach is a smokescreen- regardless of what philosophy you think you are using, you are in actual fact using basic operant conditioning. The problem I have with the "I'm the boss" approach is that it encourages you to think in terms of force and punishment- because if the dog doesn't comply, he's obviously defying your authority, and so you have to punish him. Whereas if you're thinking in terms of operant conditioning, you instead think in terms of under motivated, confused, distracted, and you're unlikely to reach for punishment.

FourIsCompany

However, I think there might be some emotionalism attached to the simple phrase "I am the boss and will force you to obey my rules

The fact is that in any relationship there is a "I am the boss and will force you to obey my rules".  Dogs do this to human with certain expressions as simple as a head tilt or if they want to dial it up, then you get a growl or a bite.  The emotionalism may be come into play when others have a predetermined dial setting.  I agree with the statement to make room for in the middle.  But I also want to point that when I analyze my time, I spend the most of relationship time serving the dog, that is taking care of the dogs and its needs.

I really don't understand the conversation centering around the phrase dogs are just animals.  When an animal comes to live with me I can't help but create an emotional attachment.  When I bond, the animal no longer is just an animal, in the ordinary sense.  This attachment is the drive that leads to better understanding and appreciation of the animal.  And yes, that then extends to their fellow kind.