Training "dominance" away...

 Gosh, this struck a cord with me.  How many times have I said, on this (and other forums) that it's not about demoting the dog, it's about promoting yourself.... I wish I hadn't agreed with it quite so thoroughly, because agreement is not conducive to discussion.
 

I agree with a lot of what she said, it's up to people to elevate themselves to a position of leadership. She never does define dominance, so I can't say whether I agree with her about her various statements about it.

 
Now, about "dominance". There's a very strongly-held idea about dominance endemic in the dog community. That idea is that dogs are in a constant struggle with humans for dominance.

Maybe I'm sheltered, but I don't know ANYONE who thinks that. The only people I've ever heard utter such a ridiculous notion is people accusing others of having that attitude! LOL

ost of the time I can't tell what my husband is thinking, and he's the same species as I am and has, presumably, approximately the same senses as I have.

ROFL! I'd like to emphasize the "presumably."

Thank you, SD. I think that blog post hits the nail on the head.

I do believe there are some dogs (not all) who will take charge IF no one else is taking charge, but the fault there is not in a power-obsessed dog but in an ineffective human. I think there is a good reason some breeds are not suggested as good fits for first time owners.  

FourIsCompany

 
Now, about "dominance". There's a very strongly-held idea about dominance endemic in the dog community. That idea is that dogs are in a constant struggle with humans for dominance.

Maybe I'm sheltered, but I don't know ANYONE who thinks that. The only people I've ever heard utter such a ridiculous notion is people accusing others of having that attitude! LOL

Ugh. My old trainer was like that, all the time. Constantly discussed it and talked about it. Everything was because of this. And he came from this "prestigious" (well-known) training school from Washington state. It is draining (and negative) to constantly be thinking that everything little thing my dogs do is because of this constant struggle for dominance.

FWIW, it's pretty prevalent in my neck of the woods. I was at my holistic vet the other day and overhead a client saying his dog was doing that and that he was signed up to take him to the boot camp class (oh yes, I've been there). Very much the norm here.

FourIsCompany

 
Now, about "dominance". There's a very strongly-held idea about dominance endemic in the dog community. That idea is that dogs are in a constant struggle with humans for dominance.

Maybe I'm sheltered, but I don't know ANYONE who thinks that. The only people I've ever heard utter such a ridiculous notion is people accusing others of having that attitude! LOL

I don't think some of the old ways should be completely ignored. The newer ways have slanted to a more softer side and certainly have a way of creating new problems.

I enjoyed reading the article. I liked how she addressed the myths of dominance, such as linear hierarchy, fighting for dominance, and behaviours that are often considered dominant. If it was me I would have gone farther to address the issue of hierarchy at all, but since she didn't address that, and since it's a huge complex issue, I'll just leave it be.

I don't consider dominance when working with my guys. I don't consider it in me vs them. I don't consider it in dog vs. dog. I don't treat the "alpha" as the "alpha", to show the other dogs I'm supporting the alpha. All of the dogs get treated identically by me, with the same rules and the same guidelines. I interfere very little with the dogs communicating, and only get involved as a mediator when a discussion turns into an argument (for Shimmer and Gaci, that's basically never). I find that in general (barring special needs dogs), dogs do better sorting things out on their own than when having people interfere all the time, and a lot of times people interfering can actually make problems worse. I have seen dog fights happen where people tried to break it up, when simply walking away from the situation would have totally stopped any possibility of a fight. If household dogs do form some sort of hierarchy (which I don't think they do like other people do), then I let them figure it out and

I look at my relationships not as dominance/status, but as I have something they need, and they have something I need, and in getting to know each other intimately, we learn about each other and learn how to build a strong bond and coexist. I think something people don't think about much is that our dogs "train" us just as much as we "train" them. Dogs actually do control quite a bit of our own behaviour, and reinforce and punish us just as much as we may do to them, if not more so *G*. They let us know what is and is not okay for them, what they like and don't like, how to best have their attention and what really won't work for them, etc. If dogs didn't have something that we felt we needed, we likely wouldn't have dogs, as we would get it elsewhere. I know I certainly need my dogs, my life wouldn't be the same without them and I would be a lot less happy without them in it. So really they provide for my needs as much as I provide for them - they just happen to be different needs. Dogs need our opposable thumbs and social interaction, and we need their intelligence, devotion, love, trust, and other things, depending on relationship.

I've said before, and I'll say it here for my personal belief (as it is in reference to dominance), the idea of dominance exists, I think, only in the eyes of humans, and much less so, or not at all, in the eyes of dogs.

Now, about "dominance". There's a very strongly-held idea about dominance endemic in the dog community. That idea is that dogs are in a constant struggle with humans for dominance.

 

Maybe I'm sheltered, but I don't know ANYONE who thinks that. The only people I've ever heard utter such a ridiculous notion is people accusing others of having that attitude!

nowadays people tend to talk about "becoming the dog's leader" rather than about "becoming dominant", but it's the same old ridiculous attitude- if you don't take charge, the dog will seize control of the household.  And yes, it is ridiculous, and yes, hordes of people going around believing it even today.

mudpuppy

nowadays people tend to talk about "becoming the dog's leader" rather than about "becoming dominant", but it's the same old ridiculous attitude- if you don't take charge, the dog will seize control of the household. 

Becoming the dog's leader and taking charge so the dog won't seize control of the house are 2 very different concepts. As Chuffy said:

Chuffy

it's not about demoting the dog, it's about promoting yourself.

Many DO believe that it's important to lead the dog (be a leader to the dog). I believe that, myself. But it's important to elevate myself to leadership status, not beat the dog down (metaphorically) until it's beneath me.  

The article states that there is a strongly-held idea that dogs are in a constant struggle with humans for dominance.

That's what I've never heard anyone say. That's what I think is ridiculous. That it's a common thing for a dog to be in a constant struggle with humans for dominance. That's what I am calling ridiculous. The struggle for dominance thing, not that dogs need a leader. Although there are some dogs, especially of specific breeds that I think are inclined to challenge the owner's status, it's not a common thing and certainly not with all dogs.

That's very different than suggesting that the human elevate themselves to leadership status. You seem to be morphing it all together in a goulash of ideas that becomes pretty confusing.

From the article:

dogs don't care who the boss is. All they care about is that SOMEBODY is in charge of the universe.

FourIsCompany

Maybe I'm sheltered, but I don't know ANYONE who thinks that. The only people I've ever heard utter such a ridiculous notion is people accusing others of having that attitude! LOL

Oh I see it all the time.  Not on here so much, but everywhere else I turn people assume all sorts of behaviors are the dog being "dominant" when most times, the dog is just confused, has been unintentionally reinforced, or just plain needs some direction and training.  Things that often get labeled "dominant" behaviors -  barking, guarding food or toys, getting on furniture, accidents in the house, not consistently performing commands, pulling the leash, ignoring recall......tons of things that are much more easily explained as fear reactions or the dog simply not being trained and proofed.  I think if people spent way more time training a dog what they want then trying to train it not to do what they don't want, the dominance thing would not even be an issue.  Most shelters and rescues do not adopt out dogs that actually exhibit dominant behaviors, at least not to people that don't have proven experience with those types of dogs.

FourIsCompany

mudpuppy

nowadays people tend to talk about "becoming the dog's leader" rather than about "becoming dominant", but it's the same old ridiculous attitude- if you don't take charge, the dog will seize control of the household. 

 

Becoming the dog's leader and taking charge so the dog won't seize control of the house are 2 very different concepts. As Chuffy said:

Chuffy

it's not about demoting the dog, it's about promoting yourself.

Many DO believe that it's important to lead the dog (be a leader to the dog). I believe that, myself. But it's important to elevate myself to leadership status, not beat the dog down (metaphorically) until it's beneath me.  

The article states that there is a strongly-held idea that dogs are in a constant struggle with humans for dominance.

That's what I've never heard anyone say. That's what I think is ridiculous. That it's a common thing for a dog to be in a constant struggle with humans for dominance. That's what I am calling ridiculous.

I agree with almost all of that post!

However, I think you need to look a little more closely - I see/hear people talking about this supposed "struggle" all the freaking time. Maybe it's not widespread in your area, but if you look at some of the first time posters - particularly in the "behavior" area - you'll see this a lot. "My 7 week old puppy is challenging my dominance by peeing on my bed, how do I teach him who's boss?" "I call my dog's name at the dog park but he's a dominant dog and likes to challenge me, so he runs the other way. I shake him by the collar when I catch him to show my dominance, but he is getting worse and worse. What do I do?"

I don't think the long-time, experienced, vocal members of this forum feel that way. In fact, I think nearly all of us probably think it is ridiculous. However, there are a lot of uneducated people out there who do believe this about their dogs. And I think that is quite scary (for the dogs)!

The article states that there is a strongly-held idea that dogs are in a constant struggle with humans for dominance.

That's what I've never heard anyone say

well, you must not get out much.

and really, I don't see much difference between folks who talk about the need for dominance over your dog and folks who talking about becoming your dog's leader; it's all based on the idea that if YOU don't take charge, your dog will develop all sorts of behavioral problems and may attempt to become the leader himself and put himself in charge. And the train of thought suddenly becomes, Hey, if I become the dog's leader then my dog's behavioral problems will all magically go away. 

If you've never really thought about it, think: If you believe that you must become your dog's leader, what exactly do you expect to happen if you fail to achieve that role? 

I disagree with the fundamental principle of that article- that dogs care whether someone is in charge of the universe or not. I don't think they think that way at all- they don't think in such abstract terms. They want consistency from their owners, not abstract concepts of leadership and being in charge.

That's why I said "maybe I'm sheltered". I admit I don't see or talk to a lot of dog people outside this board.

Also, I think a dog peeing on the bed COULD be a display of dominance. Doesn't mean he's trying to seize control of the household, but it could be a dominance display. Not a 7-week-old, though.

mudpuppy

I don't see much difference between folks who talk about the need for dominance over your dog and folks who talking about becoming your dog's leader

I don't doubt that. You don't want to see a difference. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

mudpuppy

if YOU don't take charge, your dog will develop all sorts of behavioral problems and may attempt to become the leader himself and put himself in charge. And the train of thought suddenly becomes, Hey, if I become the dog's leader then my dog's behavioral problems will all magically go away. 

As usual, there is some truth to what you're saying here. It's possible that if a dog doesn't have a good, structured environment, with strong leadership, he WILL develop behavioral problems. That happens whether you believe it or not. And in many cases, if the human beings in the house take their role more seriously and provide the dog with what he needs, many of the behavioral problems WILL go away. It's not magic. It's meeting the dog's needs.  

mudpuppy

If you believe that you must become your dog's leader, what exactly do you expect to happen if you fail to achieve that role?

With Cara and Mia, not much. But with Jaia and B'asia, there would be some behavior problems, I'm sure of it. I've seen the indicators.

mudpuppy

I don't think they think that way at all- they don't think in such abstract terms.They want consistency from their owners, not abstract concepts of leadership and being in charge.

How do you know?