Dog whispering in the 21st century article

[ClareMarsh]

Still making my way through this but finding it very interesting and lots of references

http://www.examiner.com/article/dog-whi ... st-century

[jacksdad]

did a quick skim. I am going to have to go back and read it when I have some time. Looks like a well written and researched article.

[ClareMarsh]

There are a lot of references which I think to do the article justice you need to take a look at at least some, I haven't got to this level of detail but I did find the article well put together.

It's doing the rounds on the internet now

[Erica]

Victoria posted it on her Facebook. Got the usual "That might work for your lab, but my pit bull needs a prong collar! I need to be the alpha with THIS breed!" Gotta wonder if they even read the article...one particularly dim-seeming post said "Until dominance is disproved by science, I'll keep training my dog this way. At that point, I guess all the wolf packs will line up to apologize for the way they formed their packs!" :headdesk:

Only halfway through the article myself, but so far it does seem very good.

[jacksdad]

Well the problem is Dominance is a valid concept in science. BUT what science is trying to say and what the typical dog trainer/owner thinks it means is TWO VERY different things.

I did read the section on Dominance and it looked pretty spot on. There was one article from 1993 I believe it was I had wished he had included references too as it does a VERY good job explaining what the concept means, doesn't mean and when you should be trying to apply it. But now I am just getting nit picky

[Erica]

Ah - I always stumble on that, separating dominance from dominance-based training. In the original post it was clear he meant the whole "be the pack leader" thing rather than winning access to a resource. It is something I have to keep in mind!

[ClareMarsh]

The thing that has started me wondering is are "we" even trying to get to the same point? I mean I don't want to be Ted's "pack leader"/have him obey my "commands" etc. I just want him able to live in the human world in a safe way and to have a relationship where we can communicate with each other and enjoy doing stuff together.

I'm oversimplifying but hopefully someone will know what I mean

[jacksdad]

yep, and that is where most people seem to trip up. Dominance to describe something observed verse a training theory.

For Dominance to be useful/valid in describing/explaining something, that something also has to not be able to be better described by an existing explanation.

For example, pulling on leash. it's not Dominance because there is no conflict going on and its better explained by the fact that A. Dogs naturally walk faster than us, and B. the dog wasn't trained to walk at a particular pace or place in relation to "it's" human.

At a high level "dominance" is about conflict resolution, peacefully if possible.

another issue the "dominance based training" crowd stumble on is the difference between submission and appeasement. they regularly confuse appeasement/please don't kill me with submission.

yet another are the "dominance crowd" get wrong is inter species dominance. So far from what I am reading there is question as to if dominance can exist between difference species. The primary reason there seems to be a leaning towards no being the answer is that there needs to be a "common language". The signals given off to establish dominance has to mean something to the other individual.

Which raises some interesting questions about enter breed "dominance". while dogs are dogs, breed doesn't equate different species, different breeds have different physical characteristic or lack of, that cause inter breed issues with communication. For example. Wolfs have lets call it 20 communication signals (can't remember the actual number), but German Shepard have only 9 (again I can't remember the right number, but it's one of the breeds with the most signals. Oh and ironically, I came across a chart that listed out how genetically close to wolves each breed was, while GSDs are a breed that looks very wolf like, they had some of the lowest "wolf content") then there is the King Charles Spaniel with maybe 1 signal. This raises some interesting questions and problems regarding dogs and Social Dominance. If you want to read up some more, see "dog sense" by Bradsaw.

What is truly going on in the "realm" of Dominance is actually fairly "simple" and complex all at the same time. Every time I think I have "got it", I learn something new. This is because despite the claims the "dominance crowd", even the scientists who use this term to try and explain what they observed can't agree on the meaning 100%. And in the words of Dr. McConnell ...paraphrased...."we don't get to make up what dominance means, it's not our word. We have to use it the same way those who define it do". Those who define it would be the biologists, ethologists, physiologists that are out there studying animal behavior.

There is a really good article written a Zoologist in the UK that tried to get things back on track. Really good, you have to buy it, it's $35, but it's well worth the money. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4535117

[jacksdad]

The thing that has started me wondering is are "we" even trying to get to the same point? I mean I don't want to be Ted's "pack leader"/have him obey my "commands" etc. I just want him able to live in the human world in a safe way and to have a relationship where we can communicate with each other and enjoy doing stuff together.

I'm oversimplifying but hopefully someone will know what I mean

no I think you bring up a good question. I have started questioning the whole "leadership" concept. I am not so sure it adds anything. In my mind, you first need to define leadership in a way that is replicable by all humans and means something to dogs. Second, you need to explain how that definition helps me teach a better sit. otherwise I don't think it brings anything to the table.

I think telling people to be "their dog's leader" give some "structure" to the human side of the equation, much like NILIF does. I think it also is a answer to the question of how your dog views you, how your dog fights into your life etc. But being a answer doesn't make it a right answer or even helpful answer in reality.

IF you understand the concepts that go into training, even if you don't take it to a "geeky PhD level" I am not sure leadership by any definition is required to get our dogs to do what want/need. Remember, we are teaching and rewarding behavior we want. where is the leadership in that? At least in the typical picture that comes to most people's mind.

I don't view myself as my dog's leader. I don't take any special steps to make him think so. as my training skills improve/grow I am able to get him to do what I want/need him to do and he complies just fine when I am able to figure a way to communicate those wants/needs in a way he gets.

I am personally starting to lean towards ideas/concepts such as "be your dog's leader" or "dogs need a leadership program" or "be the pack leader" or "dominant your dog" as all distractions to better understanding and better training of our dogs. I am becoming less and less convenience they add anything to those goals.

[ClareMarsh]

Second, you need to explain how that definition helps me teach a better sit. otherwise I don't think it brings anything to the table.

This is quite brilliant I am going to have to read some more and think on all this

[Nettle]

IMO dogs couldn't care less about 'leadership'. There are no 'leaders' in a natural dog world. There are sometimes 'helpers' if a big animal needs killing.

I've always said we should be our dogs' 'safe place'. Everyone/thing wants to feel safe. Dogs are happy if they are safe, co-operative if it keeps them safe, scared and producing random behaviour patterns if they feel unsafe.