Just lifting out the observations on 'punishment-based' interactions between wolves and the extrapolation into dog training:
Wild social animals only really issue two 'instructions' - "get out of my space" and "come into my space". We train dogs to do wholly unnatural things, and we expect them to forgo actions that are pleasant to them and instead do things that are far less pleasing. For instance, we want them to come when called no matter what fascinating moment they are involved in, and we put leads on them and expect them to walk nicely. We want them to accept strangers into the house but bark to warn and be quiet when told, we want them to resist chasing and killing other animals, we expect them to potty here and not there, we leave them alone for long spells.
Therefore, because we are expecting so much of them, we have to introduce a reward if we want best results. The old way was 'do what I want or it's going to hurt'. The new way is 'do what I want: it'll be fun and you'll get this'.
And this is also why training cetaceans only has so much value when compared (as so many do) with training dogs. because with big sea mammals, they are being rewarded for performing natural actions on cue. But with dogs, we are constantly asking them to perform unnatural and unpleasant actions when they'd rather do something else. Since we have raised the bar, we need also to raise the reward.
Wolf Philosophy
Moderators: emmabeth, BoardHost
Re: Wolf Philosophy
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
Re: Wolf Philosophy
I really like your points there Nettle as it's true that little of how we ask our dogs to behave would be relevant to them if we weren't in their lives.
Also on dog packs, I've been lucky enough to get to observe a good amount of dog-dog interaction as I volunteer in a dog sanctuary were the dogs are mostly kept in a very large group (30 ish dogs) with a few smaller groups. The thing that strikes me the most about dogs is how peaceful they really are. Now there are fights and scraps but overall they live well together. My observations of the way they live their lives and react to situations has taught me more then anything I've read. It's a fascinating and extremely complex world they live in and I feel lucky to have met as many dogs as I have.
One thing that I have noticed is that they really aren't very concerned about what other dogs are doing unless it effects them in some way. There seems to be little cooperation and who "wins" what changes from one situation to another. "I don't like what you're doing right now" can be expressed in many many different ways with physical contact or real aggression usually only used by the most unstable/insecure individuals.
Despite the fact that this place is run under the principle that dogs are wolves and we must dominate or they will it was actually watching the dogs and my own animals that drove me to seek out non aversive training. I often have to bite my tongue when I'm told I'm too soft. Despite my softness I'm rarely bullied/threatened by the dogs as I've learned how not to reward what I don't want and how to not scare or intimidate the nervous animals.
Also on dog packs, I've been lucky enough to get to observe a good amount of dog-dog interaction as I volunteer in a dog sanctuary were the dogs are mostly kept in a very large group (30 ish dogs) with a few smaller groups. The thing that strikes me the most about dogs is how peaceful they really are. Now there are fights and scraps but overall they live well together. My observations of the way they live their lives and react to situations has taught me more then anything I've read. It's a fascinating and extremely complex world they live in and I feel lucky to have met as many dogs as I have.
One thing that I have noticed is that they really aren't very concerned about what other dogs are doing unless it effects them in some way. There seems to be little cooperation and who "wins" what changes from one situation to another. "I don't like what you're doing right now" can be expressed in many many different ways with physical contact or real aggression usually only used by the most unstable/insecure individuals.
Despite the fact that this place is run under the principle that dogs are wolves and we must dominate or they will it was actually watching the dogs and my own animals that drove me to seek out non aversive training. I often have to bite my tongue when I'm told I'm too soft. Despite my softness I'm rarely bullied/threatened by the dogs as I've learned how not to reward what I don't want and how to not scare or intimidate the nervous animals.
Operant conditioning rocks but classical conditioning rules
Re: Wolf Philosophy
Going slightly Off Topic, but then coming back...
You know how nature is very efficient, and very little of what goes on, goes on by accident? Though I'm not speaking from personal experience, (though I hope I wouldn't be worried about any stigma if I was), there was a school of thought that some forms of human depression have their origins in pack or at least social grouping behavior. When someone is depressed, the irrational nature of thought processes, the desire to deal with things alone, the belief that nobody understands, the desire to escape and get away from everything, and similar such desires which are often thought as very negative and unhelpful emotions, do not at first appear healthy or useful capacities to exist in our mental thought processes. Essentially, what good is there in feeling depressed?
However, I did read, (some 10 or more years ago so don't ask me for a reference), that there was one school of thought where our modern capacity to feel depressed is not the result of our highly developed intellect becoming dysfunctional and turning inward upon itself with self destructive consequences, but instead stems from the emotions which an animal typically goes through when weened or excluded from the pack. The breakdown of social bonds and communication, the unhappiness, and contentment to be alone, all serve to make leaving the familiar pack existence a less traumatic experience to get through and survive. In very crudest terms, if the animal felt, or was made to feel disliked, unwelcome and worthless by peers in the pack, the mechanisms of 'depression' evolved to help the animal decide for itself it was time to move on. The negative option was in fact the positive option. Stretching it a little perhaps, but even the loss of appetite, and even thoughts of self harm which may seem irrational, do become a little less irrational if you consider a pack animal required to do the illogical thing and drive itself away from safety and a reliable and regular source of food which the pack represented.
The conclusion was that depression had it's origins in a perfectly healthy mental process. I say again, the irrational negative option becomes the logical positive option as a survival mechanism.
I have to admit, I'm no means convinced about this theory, but at the same time, it was a curious observation for someone to have made. Just like the issue of wolf behavior relative to dogs however, the theory is perhaps harmless, but the problems arise with literal implimentation of the theory.
Kind of interesting though don't you think?
Edit: And ditto WufWuf, that's a nice way to think about training Nettle.
You know how nature is very efficient, and very little of what goes on, goes on by accident? Though I'm not speaking from personal experience, (though I hope I wouldn't be worried about any stigma if I was), there was a school of thought that some forms of human depression have their origins in pack or at least social grouping behavior. When someone is depressed, the irrational nature of thought processes, the desire to deal with things alone, the belief that nobody understands, the desire to escape and get away from everything, and similar such desires which are often thought as very negative and unhelpful emotions, do not at first appear healthy or useful capacities to exist in our mental thought processes. Essentially, what good is there in feeling depressed?
However, I did read, (some 10 or more years ago so don't ask me for a reference), that there was one school of thought where our modern capacity to feel depressed is not the result of our highly developed intellect becoming dysfunctional and turning inward upon itself with self destructive consequences, but instead stems from the emotions which an animal typically goes through when weened or excluded from the pack. The breakdown of social bonds and communication, the unhappiness, and contentment to be alone, all serve to make leaving the familiar pack existence a less traumatic experience to get through and survive. In very crudest terms, if the animal felt, or was made to feel disliked, unwelcome and worthless by peers in the pack, the mechanisms of 'depression' evolved to help the animal decide for itself it was time to move on. The negative option was in fact the positive option. Stretching it a little perhaps, but even the loss of appetite, and even thoughts of self harm which may seem irrational, do become a little less irrational if you consider a pack animal required to do the illogical thing and drive itself away from safety and a reliable and regular source of food which the pack represented.
The conclusion was that depression had it's origins in a perfectly healthy mental process. I say again, the irrational negative option becomes the logical positive option as a survival mechanism.
I have to admit, I'm no means convinced about this theory, but at the same time, it was a curious observation for someone to have made. Just like the issue of wolf behavior relative to dogs however, the theory is perhaps harmless, but the problems arise with literal implimentation of the theory.
Kind of interesting though don't you think?
Edit: And ditto WufWuf, that's a nice way to think about training Nettle.
Re: Wolf Philosophy
I can't say anything useful about human depression, but concerning dogs and wolves and the weaning and leaving the pack/family group:
Weaning when it is allowed to occur naturally in dogs happens a lot sooner than the books would have you believe. Humans do exactly the wrong thing (as we so often do) by making a big fol-de-rol about weaning (goats' milk, rusks, scraped beef, soaked kibble) when the secret is - pups are self-weaning. Having weaned many a litter straight from Mum onto raw, I see what a casual process it is. No trauma. Motherdog spends very little time with her pups after the first couple of weeks (sooner for many) and they really don't bother about her either. They grow away from each other quite naturally, and although she will teach them to hunt (as described in another post of mine) and keep an eye on them, protecting them when necessary, they are not bestest friends arm-in-arm everywhere.
Leaving the 'pack' - this again is not a case of being thrust out, but more teenagers hanging around street corners. Young males form batchelor groups (similar to other social species) and drift away to seek new territory. Young females help raise other pups (get your social stereotypes here
) and tend to remain within the original family group either until they are in pup themselves or if they find and go off with a roving male.
There are bad experiences associated with social groups but these are more matters that animals are well-equipped to deal with - loss of health, loss of territory, lack of food, that sort of experience. Perhaps a 'trauma' is an occurrence that the animal in question is not naturally equipped to deal with - what do you all think?
Weaning when it is allowed to occur naturally in dogs happens a lot sooner than the books would have you believe. Humans do exactly the wrong thing (as we so often do) by making a big fol-de-rol about weaning (goats' milk, rusks, scraped beef, soaked kibble) when the secret is - pups are self-weaning. Having weaned many a litter straight from Mum onto raw, I see what a casual process it is. No trauma. Motherdog spends very little time with her pups after the first couple of weeks (sooner for many) and they really don't bother about her either. They grow away from each other quite naturally, and although she will teach them to hunt (as described in another post of mine) and keep an eye on them, protecting them when necessary, they are not bestest friends arm-in-arm everywhere.
Leaving the 'pack' - this again is not a case of being thrust out, but more teenagers hanging around street corners. Young males form batchelor groups (similar to other social species) and drift away to seek new territory. Young females help raise other pups (get your social stereotypes here
) and tend to remain within the original family group either until they are in pup themselves or if they find and go off with a roving male.There are bad experiences associated with social groups but these are more matters that animals are well-equipped to deal with - loss of health, loss of territory, lack of food, that sort of experience. Perhaps a 'trauma' is an occurrence that the animal in question is not naturally equipped to deal with - what do you all think?
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
Re: Wolf Philosophy
John's comments on "submission" displays. His comments are actually lengthier and more in depth, but I am pretty sure he won't appreciate me copying out his entire book. So I will leave it at this.
The thing about books to keep in mind, and why this may or may "conflict" with Shaun Ellis's work is that in my opinion books represent a snap shot in time for what the author has learned to that point of publishing. John's book maybe at this moment one of the more up to date books and some of the info may be "timeless" but 5 years from now? 10 years from now? What will we have learned or clarified or reinforced verse today. That is why books are great for passing on info, preventing the reinvention of the wheel so to speak. But it takes continual study of both books and real world time with dogs and or wolves to stay current. you can't just take John's Dog Sense book or some of Shaun Ellis's work and and based on that one piece of publishing say "this is it, it's all figured out from this day forward".John Bradshaw Dog Sense 2011 wrote:This radical change in our conception of pack behavior has required that we also reappraise the social signals that wolves use. Under zoo conditions, signals that wolf parents would normally use to remind their offspring to cooperate instead became the precursors of out-and-out fighting and were labeled “dominance indicators.” Similarly, the cohesive behaviors that adult young wolves would normally use to bond with their parents were now being used in desperate attempts to avoid conflict and so came to be labeled as “submission.” Contrary to long-standing theories of wolf behavior, it is now believed that “submissive” behavior may be nothing of the sort. An effective “submissive” display should, by definition, indicate to an attacker that the attack is not worth pursuing—and, indeed, when wolves from two different packs happen to meet, the smaller one will try to avoid being attacked by performing such a display. This rarely works, however, and if the smaller wolf fails to run away, it will be attacked and often killed by the larger. Wolves from different packs have no common interests; they compete for food and are probably only very distantly related, if at all. Nevertheless, if the “submissive” display was truly an indication of submission, it ought to work in these circumstances, since the attacking wolf is putting itself at risk of injury, even if it wins. The fact that this display doesn’t work under these circumstances indicates that it isn’t a “submissive” display at all. Moreover, when it’s performed between members of the same family, for the most part it is not preceded by any form of threat from the recipient. Rather, it usually appears spontaneously, reinforcing the bond between the members of the pack. Only in artificially constituted “packs,” kept in zoos, do “submissive” displays come to be a standard response to threat. Presumably the younger, weaker wolves learn by trial and error that such displays (sometimes) work under these unnatural circumstances, where pack loyalties have been totally disrupted and there is nowhere for them to escape to.
Wolves perform two signals that used to be labeled “submissive”: “active” and “passive.” Domestic dogs perform very similar signals, and these, too, are referred to as “active submission” and “passive submission.” One might expect that any reinterpretation of these signals in the wolf would quickly have been followed by a reappraisal of what they mean when performed by dogs, but this has been slow to happen. The “active” display is the more common one among wolves and, rather than being a sign of submission, is in fact a bonding signal that scientists now refer to—much more appropriately—as the affiliation display. In the affiliation display, the wolf approaches with a low posture, holding its tail low; its ears are pulled slightly back, and its tail and hindquarters wag enthusiastically. This display forms part of what’s called the “group ceremony,” which occurs when the pack reassembles or as a precursor to a hunting trip. Under these circumstances it can be performed by the parents (the “alphas”) as well as by their offspring, confirming its role as a mechanism whereby affectionate bonds are reinforced. It’s difficult to figure out how this display was ever labeled as “submissive” behavior. A wolf performing the affiliation display is actually in a rather good position to attack its recipient—a swift twist of the head and it could sink its teeth into the other’s throat. Therefore, accepting the performance of the affiliation display is, if anything, more an expression of trust on the recipient’s part than on the performer’s. It’s undeniable that the younger members of the family perform the affiliation display toward their parents much more frequently than vice versa, but this behavior is typical of all parent-offspring relationships and does not mean that the offspring are allowing themselves to be “dominated” by their parents. Indeed, it simply reflects the asymmetry of the relationship between parents and offspring. The parents are the only parents that each of the young wolves is likely ever to have, and therefore their attachment is total. The parents may—indeed, probably do—have other offspring, so their attachment to each cub must unavoidably be a shared one.
Re: Wolf Philosophy
I am not sure I follow you why wolves make the better focus of study...I mean I do, by focusing on wolves you in theory reduce the variables, i.e different breeds for example. But if dogs are not behaviorally identical to wolves, then despite the challenges presented by so many different breed, doesn't it still make sense to study dogs to understand dogs? Even if that means having to perform studies that somewhat over lap in order to take into account breed differences.DogNut wrote:.... I also agree that we should do more studies on dogs, because we deal with them on a daily basis and have become very important to us. But it may be difficult to do so, because there are so many different breeds with widely disparate characteristics and a huge variety of environments. Wolves, OTOH, are generally very similar in appearance and behavior, and their environment, either in the wild or captive, are also relatively uniform.....
John brings up the point that Wolves have over 20 different visual signals they use. But because of selective breeding and domestication we have damaged dog's abilities to communicate with each other. (humm, could this play into reactive dog problems??? not sole source, but a piece of the puzzle?) So you go out and study wolves and learn all about their 20 + signals. How would this knowledge help you better understand the Cavalier King Charles who according to John cannot give off any "wolf like signals" depriving them of effectively communicating within a "pack". I can see how this knowledge would help you say "ah, the Cavalier king isn't giving off signal A B and C", that we see in wolves". While that maybe interesting and helpful to a point, what it doesn't do is tell us how Cavaliers overcome this lack of "wolf signals" in dealing with other dogs.
Re: Wolf Philosophy
What I am saying is that wolf studies have less variables and it may be easier to make observations and draw conclusions. Even so, the changes as expressed by L. David Mech indicate that the environment of wolves has a huge impact on their behavior. The presence of the observers also affects what is observed, and it may be extremely difficult for biologists and ethologists to get accurate data. The fact that aggressive displays and physical corrections are not observed does not mean they do not exist. They are probably very rare, and the mother wolf's corrections of her pups occur in the den, which cannot be observed without obvious intrusion and affect.
I tend to believe Shaun Ellis's observations, even if he does not have the usual academic credentials that are usually prerequisite to being accepted. And since his sample size is very small, it does not meet the usual scientific standards. But I think he has been able "to go where no man has gone before", by being accepted in a wild wolf pack, being trusted to care for the pups while the adults went on a hunting expedition, and being given food when they returned. He has also experienced the alpha leadership role with the pups he raised from birth, and then having to return later to the same pack, where one of his wolves had taken over the pack leader role, and he had to show submissive gestures to be allowed back in as an underling. He has experienced "testing" by the so-called "Beta" wolves, who protect the breeding pair and enforce rules. This testing consisted of them nipping his knees or other body parts, hard enough to draw blood and be painful, but not serious injury. They easily could have crushed his kneecap or killed him. And his wife was also tested when a wolf held her neck or her face in his jaws, and would probably have seriously injured her if she had flinched or resisted.
Another example of how wolves communicate is told when Shaun attempted to go down a trail to a water hole, and one of the larger wolves blocked his path, growled menacingly, and forced him into a hollow tree, where he had to remain motionless or risk being attacked and probably killed. He actually thought he was going to die, but after maybe a half hour the wolf backed off and gestured for him to follow him down the path. As he approached the water hole, they passed a huge pile of fresh bear dung, and the wolf had sensed the bear's presence and kept Shaun from being killed by this large, hungry, angry bear. Of course, the wolf may also have been preventing the bear from being alerted to the presence of their den. I think this is a great example of how an unpleasant physical aversive was given for his own good. Yes, it was painful and it caused fear. But the realization of the ultimate good reason for the "correction" was obvious in this case, which greatly added to his respect and trust toward the wolves.
I think people such as John Bradshaw make a great and convoluted effort to dance around the concept of dominance and the role of physical corrections. Dominance is just a state of mind based on confidence and true ability and knowledge, and not a selfish position won by violence and brutality. And corrections should be very rare events given only to stop behavior that is dangerous to the dog or other members of the "pack", human or canine.
I also found interesting Nettle's observation of why we should use positive reinforcement for dogs, partially because they generally want to please us and cooperate, and also because our demands are for behavior that is not naturally part of a dog's normal spectrum of what is instinctively rewarding.
I tend to believe Shaun Ellis's observations, even if he does not have the usual academic credentials that are usually prerequisite to being accepted. And since his sample size is very small, it does not meet the usual scientific standards. But I think he has been able "to go where no man has gone before", by being accepted in a wild wolf pack, being trusted to care for the pups while the adults went on a hunting expedition, and being given food when they returned. He has also experienced the alpha leadership role with the pups he raised from birth, and then having to return later to the same pack, where one of his wolves had taken over the pack leader role, and he had to show submissive gestures to be allowed back in as an underling. He has experienced "testing" by the so-called "Beta" wolves, who protect the breeding pair and enforce rules. This testing consisted of them nipping his knees or other body parts, hard enough to draw blood and be painful, but not serious injury. They easily could have crushed his kneecap or killed him. And his wife was also tested when a wolf held her neck or her face in his jaws, and would probably have seriously injured her if she had flinched or resisted.
Another example of how wolves communicate is told when Shaun attempted to go down a trail to a water hole, and one of the larger wolves blocked his path, growled menacingly, and forced him into a hollow tree, where he had to remain motionless or risk being attacked and probably killed. He actually thought he was going to die, but after maybe a half hour the wolf backed off and gestured for him to follow him down the path. As he approached the water hole, they passed a huge pile of fresh bear dung, and the wolf had sensed the bear's presence and kept Shaun from being killed by this large, hungry, angry bear. Of course, the wolf may also have been preventing the bear from being alerted to the presence of their den. I think this is a great example of how an unpleasant physical aversive was given for his own good. Yes, it was painful and it caused fear. But the realization of the ultimate good reason for the "correction" was obvious in this case, which greatly added to his respect and trust toward the wolves.
I think people such as John Bradshaw make a great and convoluted effort to dance around the concept of dominance and the role of physical corrections. Dominance is just a state of mind based on confidence and true ability and knowledge, and not a selfish position won by violence and brutality. And corrections should be very rare events given only to stop behavior that is dangerous to the dog or other members of the "pack", human or canine.
I also found interesting Nettle's observation of why we should use positive reinforcement for dogs, partially because they generally want to please us and cooperate, and also because our demands are for behavior that is not naturally part of a dog's normal spectrum of what is instinctively rewarding.
Re: Wolf Philosophy
hrm, i don't think he dances around the concept of dominance at all. but i think the concept of dominance has been poisoned by CM type trainers, and so bradshaw takes necessary steps to explain exactly why that version of dominance theory is flawed. unfortunately, that is not what MOST people (who aren't dog nutsDogNut wrote: I think people such as John Bradshaw make a great and convoluted effort to dance around the concept of dominance and the role of physical corrections. Dominance is just a state of mind based on confidence and true ability and knowledge, and not a selfish position won by violence and brutality. And corrections should be very rare events given only to stop behavior that is dangerous to the dog or other members of the "pack", human or canine.
) think of when you use the term 'dominance', so it is necessary to explain why THAT version of the word is wrong, but 'dominance' as a differebt concept itself is still valid. while 'dominance' and 'psychical corrections' may indeed happen between wolves, as you mention in your earlier post - i agree as HUMANS working with DOGS i think these type of interactions will never be delivered correctly, so at best they will simply be wasted/useless, but at worst can be seriously damaging to the dog/human bond.
oooh, interesting...so if we go back to the 'captive' wolf pack dynamic - the loss of pack members / territory itself may just come with the gig being a wolf, but the trauma itself is actually being put in a confined environment with unrelated wolves and then being expected to work it all out and live together? interesting...Nettle wrote: There are bad experiences associated with social groups but these are more matters that animals are well-equipped to deal with - loss of health, loss of territory, lack of food, that sort of experience. Perhaps a 'trauma' is an occurrence that the animal in question is not naturally equipped to deal with - what do you all think?
Re: Wolf Philosophy
Dog behaviour and body-language is very straightforward to study, and we understand the breed differences thus:
First it is a canid
Then it is a generic dog
Then it is a dog bred for a task
Then it is the specific breed or mix
Then it is the individual
So - where a dog, through genetic manipulation, can't move its ears or facial muscles or tail in the way the generic dog can - it will adopt slightly different signals. We who have our marvellous brains simply adapt to understand the particular dog.
A few thoughts: If submissive signals to the wrong wolf result in being killed, they ain't much good, and the perpetrator isn't going to learn in time to adapt its approach. Maybe there is no adaptation that would work in the strange-wolf scenario. maybe the submissive signals do work with a proportion of wolves.
If greeting signals to a group member put a wolf in danger from the other wolf, or pose a danger to the greeting wolf, they would be a real issue. But animals aren't two-faced: animals don't lie. If a greeting is what you see, a greeting is what you get.
First it is a canid
Then it is a generic dog
Then it is a dog bred for a task
Then it is the specific breed or mix
Then it is the individual
So - where a dog, through genetic manipulation, can't move its ears or facial muscles or tail in the way the generic dog can - it will adopt slightly different signals. We who have our marvellous brains simply adapt to understand the particular dog.
A few thoughts: If submissive signals to the wrong wolf result in being killed, they ain't much good, and the perpetrator isn't going to learn in time to adapt its approach. Maybe there is no adaptation that would work in the strange-wolf scenario. maybe the submissive signals do work with a proportion of wolves.
If greeting signals to a group member put a wolf in danger from the other wolf, or pose a danger to the greeting wolf, they would be a real issue. But animals aren't two-faced: animals don't lie. If a greeting is what you see, a greeting is what you get.
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
Re: Wolf Philosophy
Or maybe people like John are just more open to updated information and willing to acknowledge past conclusions might have been wrong. more willing to adjust their thinking/beliefs based on new information. Including even saying "what we thought X meant...we were wrong. We actually don't know what X meant".DogNut wrote: I think people such as John Bradshaw make a great and convoluted effort to dance around the concept of dominance and the role of physical corrections.
In my opinion people cling to the idea of dominance as a description of hierarchy and leadership despite the growing evidence to the contrary for a variety of reasons. For some it justifies a bully approach to dog training, for others they have no desire to do harm and bully intentionally, but need a sense of order. everyone has their role and place kind of thing. And it simplifies things. Me LEADER, you dog are FOLLOWER, listen or I will correct you. much easier, but is that right? is it effective? does it develop the dog human relationship to it's fullest?
Just for argument say that hierarchy is what dominance is about, being THE leader and that corrections (ie punishment for breaking a "rule") happen with in dog or wolf packs. I am still not understanding why any of that would be relevant to how we train and treat our dogs?
I would never claim that John is the end all expert, he may very well have gotten some points wrong, but I find it very interesting that much of what he writes has been shared here before his book came out by our own resident experts, and by the likes of Patricia McConnell, Jean Donaldson and others. I also find it interesting that Patrica's opinion of his book was essentially, good but nothing new. what that tells me is that many of beliefs people are holding onto have long ago been dis-proven, but us laymen are slow to digest the updated info for whatever reason.
why is it so hard to accept that what we once thought of as a purely submissive behavior might actually be in many cases the same idea as you hugging your own parents? "mom, dad, so happy to see you". that it might not always be a "oooops, sorry don't hurt me" behavior, if ever.
Why is it so hard to accept that dominance is more about priority access to resources verse achieving leadership? That just being the strongest, smarts, bravest so to speak doesn't always mean that individual will come out the winner.
Why is it so hard to accept that "alpha" is a role that any dog achieves when it starts parenting pups? verse through battle physically or through smarts and wits?
Why is it so hard to accept that the behavior of wolves in a group of unrelated individuals is different than when a pack forms around family?
What is so wrong with accepting/admitting past explanations/observations might have gotten things wrong? Maybe not everything, but certainly some points.
Why do people keep insisting on trying to adapt wolf/dog behavior into our training methods. we aren't wolves and we aren't dogs. we can't ever replicate their behavior, so why continue trying? and even if we can/could emulate some, where do you draw the line. Like Patrica says, mother dogs eat the placenta......
Re: Wolf Philosophy
You've probably said this, but what i know is that, a man (sorry, can't never remember his name 
), did an study years and years ago about wolves and he shorted out that they live under a pack leader, and under dominance, but that was made with cautive wolves (did i say it correctly? sorry if not).
He then did same study with wild dogs, free and leaving in nature, and he just had to disagree with his previous words, as he found out that the pack was important, but that dominance was not there, it's more a family roll, like you're better haunting, so you go aunting, and as you need more energy you get the best part of the haunted piece, you're better taking care of puppies, so you do that. so, i say it's similar to human families, not getting the best part of the haunted piece, hehe. but dad and mom are an authority figure for their kids, no meaning they dominate them.
The problem is that a lot of people don't know about this second part, and only hear the dominance thinggy. Oh, and this guy even said not to reprint his first book, coz he knew it wasn't the correct thing.
), did an study years and years ago about wolves and he shorted out that they live under a pack leader, and under dominance, but that was made with cautive wolves (did i say it correctly? sorry if not).He then did same study with wild dogs, free and leaving in nature, and he just had to disagree with his previous words, as he found out that the pack was important, but that dominance was not there, it's more a family roll, like you're better haunting, so you go aunting, and as you need more energy you get the best part of the haunted piece, you're better taking care of puppies, so you do that. so, i say it's similar to human families, not getting the best part of the haunted piece, hehe. but dad and mom are an authority figure for their kids, no meaning they dominate them.
The problem is that a lot of people don't know about this second part, and only hear the dominance thinggy. Oh, and this guy even said not to reprint his first book, coz he knew it wasn't the correct thing.
