# DOMINANCE DEBUNKED- The Myths & Realities of Training Dogs



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

I think this is well done. Comments?


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

While I agree with the fundamentals of what he's saying (that dominance is WIDELY mislabeled), I just can't get past this idea that all dogs are little programmable robots, who ONLY disobey when WE do something wrong in the training. 

People that think the "only" reason a dog doesn't listen to a command is because the human hasn't reinforced it properly, or that WE aren't rewarding enough, are very frustrating.

That implies that a dog literally lacks the capacity of free will, and cannot "blow off" the handler, or simply choose not to obey. Dogs are living beings. Everything they do does NOT titter on the balance of whether or not they're going to get a reward, and to suggest differently takes a TON of credit away from the dog. 

Furthermore, it annoys me how these R+ plugs always take it upon themselves to use the term "abusive" in conjunction with type of correction style in the same breath. "Jerking on the collar" (AKA collar correction) is not _abusive_. Tying a dog to a tree with no food or water until he literally deteriorates into a sack of bones is abusive.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 15, 2009)

I couldn't get past his definition, logically in error.

For example right off the bat he says dominant cannot be a personality trait, because the definition of dominant is the relationship between two animals and priority access to resources by one of them.

A dog can quite correctly be called dominant and it can be a personality trait.

Simply put, a dominant personality is one who always attempts to control any resources and always tries to establish it's relationship to other animals as being the dominant animal and establishing priority access to any valuable resource. Though it would very rarely be an issue with a relationship with a human, as we have priority access to all resources by default.

It is real, it does happen, there are dogs with that type of personality that display it with any other dog they establish a relationship with. Even if many people do ascribe dominance to things that having nothing to do with it like jumping up or leading on walks.

As far as the rest, it seemed to be correct enough I suppose.

Following any command can be seen as an act of submission by definition though. The dog submits to our desire for it to perform a behavior.. What does that then say if a dog chooses to not submit? The opposite of submission? Or something else?


----------



## GunnersMom (Jan 25, 2008)

I think it's fairly well done. I agree with the basic philosophy behind what he's saying.

Comparing our domestic dogs to wolves is one thing that really drives me crazy and I'm happy to see anyone who's willing to argue with that theory and attempt to debunk it. Training a dog from that perspective might get you the results you want (and it might not) but it doesn't mean the philosophy is correct.

And I do agree that "dominance" is often misinterpreted. I've seen many people claim that their dog is dominant when it's really just a lack of training. The dog isn't trying to dominate them, he just doesn't know what he's supposed to do.

But I have to agree with atravis in the sense that he really doesn't give dogs enough credit. They think, they reason and they're opportunists. You can have the most well-trained dog in the world and if he sees an opportunity to do something he _really_ wants to do, he's liable to go for it unless he's stopped and/or corrected. I don't think it's necessarily a matter of the dog trying to dominate his owner, but I don't think it's always due to lack of training/reinforcement, either.

And I do believe that some dogs DO have a dominant personality. I saw it in Riley when he was five weeks old and was bullying his littermates. You can't chalk that up to a lack of training, so I do believe that some dogs just have that kind of personality.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

MaggieRoseLee said:


> I think this is well done. Comments?
> 
> YouTube - DOMINANCE DEBUNKED- The Myths & Realities of Training Dogs


Wow! What a bunch hooey trying to attribute human characteristics to our dogs. Sounds like he came right out of a positive reinforcement only advertisement.

If dogs are not dominant to each other I wonder how he would explain some dogs deferring to others in a group? Maybe the submissive dog just wants to be nice to the other one?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think it is very good, and strongly put which is necessary because the idea of dominance, and all the alpha baloney is so deeply ingrained in people. 

I do not know whether or not dogs have free will. In religion, people were given free will, not animals, animals are driven by instinct. They are basically driven by what feels good, rewards, punishment. And yet we have dogs that do things out of context, with no possible way to believe there would be an award associated. So perhaps they have some component of free will, or may be they are actually sometimes driven by a deeper instinct that we cannot even define. 

The instinct to survive is very strong and varied, but I do not know that they really have the kind of free will that humans have. 

People label defiant behavior wrongly as often as they label dominant behavior wrongly. 

I have a pack of bitches and I can affirm that some are more dominant than others. But, this does not extend to their behavior toward me at all. 

All of the things people say you should not allow, I have allowed, pulling, going through doorways, sitting on the couch, eating before me, feeding tidbits while cooking or eating myself. Sorry, but not one of my dogs has ever shown the least bit of dominance or aggression toward me -- well, I suppose Babsy hogging all the pillows in my bed could be...


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

One thing that we should all remember - "Dogs are not people!". They don't think like we do and they do not have emotions like we do - they are dogs!

Selzer, I also do things and sometimes allow my dogs to do things that we are not supposed to do. With some dogs it doesn't make a bit of difference in their pack behavior. With other dogs it really does make a difference.

Doggy dominance and the alpha dog is real - you can see it in most groups of dogs. How else to explain why dogs will defer to other dogs in a group?

How many of us have had a dog growl when you went to take away a toy or a bone or got to close to their filled food dish? What did you do then?

I have had one of my dogs, a 9 mo male GSD puppy I raised from an 8 week old, growl at me when i went to take a bone away from him one day in the house. I grabbed by the scruff of his neck, growled a low fierce "NO" at him and took the bone, never again did he try to growl at me again. No big Alpha roll or "abuse" or anything else but Fritz now understood that he was not the dominant dog in the house. By the way this dog out of German Sieger parent went on to become a great Sch dog as well as a very friendly home pet.

What do you think a "Positive Only Reinforcement" advocate would have suggested that I do when he growledat me for trying to take his bone? Could it have worked better? Convinced Fritz that he should let me take the bone better than a show of dominance did?


----------



## Josiebear (Oct 16, 2006)

I agree with some of what he said and some i don't agree with.

Like one where he says if the dog isn't responding to something it is probably confused and popping isn't necessary.

For one, Josie used to always Come on first call. There were times where she decided NOT to listen to "come" and she knows what i want her to do. The light pop was applied and she ended up coming. Every since then she does come when called the first time.

Another incident when she was around 6 months old, i got to the whole idea of pp. She kept jumping on people when they greet, i did not apply the correction and would tell her "off". But she still does it anyway. The next time she jumped on someone i popped that leash and gave the firm "off!". She has stopped jumping ever since after a few repitition. This goes the same for leash walking too. PP don't always work for her because she will go further because she knows she can do it.

I agree with him that you don't have to be a bully, there are extremist out there, one that does PP and one that does full out dominance/bullying/military type of training. 

I don't do alpha rolls or any of that like the guy mentioned because it's not necessary imo. 

I find the middle ground and see what works for Josie, she does respond well to light to medium correction, hard corrections makes her stop responding. My Sheltie however thrives for PP. Every dog is different there is no one training that works for all dogs. 

I did like how he mentioned in the end to find professional trainers if you Do have a dominant/aggressive dog.


----------



## GunnersMom (Jan 25, 2008)

codmaster said:


> They don't think like we do and they do not have emotions like we do - they are dogs!


I'm not so sure about that. They may not think like we do. I believe they're driven by basic instinct much more than we are ("I want xyz... how do I get it?") But I've seen them use some pretty impressive reasoning to get what they want. 

When it comes to emotions, I would challenge anyone to convince me that they don't share many of our human emotions. They may show it differently and it may be driven by different factors, but they're the same emotions. They feel happiness and sadness just like we do. They grieve the loss of a family member. They feel love and fear just as we do. I'd even go so far as to say that they experience jealousy. 
I've seen all of this in my dogs and people can think I'm a nut if they choose to do so, but I've never heard an explanation that could convince me it's something else.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

GunnersMom said:


> I'm not so sure about that. They may not think like we do. I believe they're driven by basic instinct much more than we are ("I want xyz... how do I get it?") But I've seen them use some pretty impressive reasoning to get what they want. When it comes to emotions, I would challenge anyone to convince me that they don't share many of our human emotions. They may show it differently and it may be driven by different factors, but they're the same emotions. They feel happiness and sadness just like we do. They grieve the loss of a family member. They feel love and fear just as we do. I'd even go so far as to say that they experience jealousy.
> I've seen all of this in my dogs and people can think I'm a nut if they choose to do so, but I've never heard an explanation that could convince me it's something else.


Obviously, you can feel anyway you want to but dogs are animals, not human! 

They are very nice and I love my dog, but still remember that he is a dog, an animal - a totally different species from us.
"They feel love and fear just as we do" - what convinced you of this?

And did you mean all dogs or just yours or maybe just certain breeds?

BTW, how can you tell if a dog is happy?


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

selzer said:


> I do not know whether or not dogs have free will. In religion, people were given free will, not animals, animals are driven by instinct.


Too bad I'm not religious, else maybe that would mean something more to me.

Regardless of whatever abstract concepts dogs were/were not granted by your deity of choice, the fact remains that "free will" comes down to cognitive choice. Do I want to listen, or do I not? Maybe on some level you are right, and what drives a dog to disobey IS an instinctual reward that we, as humans, could not possibly fulfill, and thus the dog ignores us. 

Either way, its not the HANDLER'S fault that the dog chose to disobey there. 



codmaster said:


> They are very nice and I love my dog, but still remember that he is a dog, an animal - a totally different species from us.
> "They feel love and fear just as we do" - what convinced you of this?



Just because dogs are not human, does not mean they are incapable of complex emotions. 

Dogs feel sorrow. When a human owner dies, many dogs will mourn. The very fact that such a strong emotional response is elicited, on some level demonstrates that dogs have a concept of "love", or at least the capacity to feel extremely strong emotional ties to beings outside of their own species.

Maybe its not "love" per se, but it IS an emotional reaction. Its certainly not "less" than human... it just simply is not human.


----------



## GunnersMom (Jan 25, 2008)

codmaster said:


> Obviously, you can feel anyway you want to but dogs are animals, not human!
> 
> They are very nice and I love my dog, but still remember that he is a dog, an animal - a totally different species from us.
> "They feel love and fear just as we do" - what convinced you of this?
> ...


You can't tell when a dog is happy? Come on now...  I think we can all tell when our dogs are happy. Or _not _happy, whichever the case might be.

I'm just talking about what I've seen in my own dogs. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else's, though I would imagine my guys are far from unique.

I think it's pretty obvious when a dog is experiencing fear. As far as love goes - your dog comes to you for affection. They want attention, pets, kisses, whatever. They know that it won't get them food, or treats or whatever -- they just want affection. If that isn't love, what is it?

I agree that they're dogs and are a totally different species. (I'm not nutty enough to argue that point! lol.) But I do believe that they (and many other animal species) experience many of the same emotions we do.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

There is an emotional component in dogs. It is not the same as humans, but they definitely feel fear. And jealousy, uhm, I have eight jealous bitches at home right now. I call it the green monster, that more than anything will spark fights. 

But why the jealousy? I think that deep down it is driven by an instinct for survival, and for resources, in this case the attention of their human. 

Still, I have never had a dog growl at me over food or a toy, so I have not had to do the method described. My first shep growled at me when I tried to keep him from disciplining my girl. I did pretty much what you did, and ended up with three bitten fingers. that was my first shepherd, and I made a lot of mistakes with him. I also learned plenty from him. I do not train my dogs or treat my dogs the way I trained and treated him, and I have never since had so much as a growl or rumble out of any of the directed toward me. Toward other dogs, maybe. 

My dogs are not stupid. Even the puppies. There is no question in their minds who are the dogs and who are the people.

Dogs feel deep attachment too. Maybe that is what they are feeling when they openly grieve. 

I do not think the guy in the vid was saying that dogs do not have dominance, or are not more dominant than other dogs, but rather we should not be trying to prove that we are more dominant than the dogs.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

GunnersMom said:


> You can't tell when a dog is happy? Come on now...  I think we can all tell when our dogs are happy. Or _not _happy, whichever the case might be.
> *Exactly how do you tell they are "happy" as opposed tojust excited? Do they "smile", bark differently, or what?*
> 
> I'm just talking about what I've seen in my own dogs. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else's, though I would imagine my guys are far from unique.
> ...


*Which animals do not experience human like emotions, do you think. Do say, crocodiles experience sorrow? How about cats?*


----------



## TxRider (Apr 15, 2009)

codmaster said:


> Obviously, you can feel anyway you want to but dogs are animals, not human!
> 
> They are very nice and I love my dog, but still remember that he is a dog, an animal - a totally different species from us.
> "They feel love and fear just as we do" - what convinced you of this?
> ...


I hate to clue you in, but we humans are animals as well.

And we humans are also a mammal just like a dog is a mammal nd we both have similar mammalian brains.

We are also a social mammal like a dog and live in family groups.

We are also a predator like a dog, and hunt using teamwork.

We share all the exact same brain components as a dog or any other mammal, we just have a few parts that are a lot larger and more well developed.

You can tell me a reptile has no emotions, I would likely agree, but all mammals share a much closer brain structure and and in the case of dogs a lot of the same instincts and cognitive functions, just not as well developed.

Social emotions are largely an adaptation evolved to allow us to live in social groups without killing each other. Dogs obviously share much of them them in my opinion.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

codmaster said:


> "They feel love and fear just as we do" - what convinced you of this?


There's actually scientific evidence that their brains function in some of the same ways as ours. Have you read For the Love of a Dog: Understanding Emotion in You and Your Best Friend by Patricia McConnell

I'd highly recommend it, you might find it pretty enlightening.


----------



## Josiebear (Oct 16, 2006)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> There's actually scientific evidence that their brains function in some of the same ways as ours. Have you read For the Love of a Dog: Understanding Emotion in You and Your Best Friend by Patricia McConnell
> 
> I'd highly recommend it, you might find it pretty enlightening.


I have for the love a dog and i feel that the author babies her dogs like a human child and seems alittle too weak. Sometimes i wonder how many success she has dealing with a very dominant dog.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I like Patricia McConnel, she has a small book on leadership, that I put in every puppies' binder for their new owners. 

I will look for For the Love of a Dog.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

TxRider said:


> I hate to clue you in, but we humans are animals as well.
> 
> *Why would you "hate to clue me in"? I think it is very nice of you to clue me in about this. Of course, some humans are more animal than others don't you think?*
> 
> ...


*I obviously cannot share your views about how close dogs and people are - dogs are very different from humans and need to be treated like dogs not people if we want to be successful with them. Many dogs will adapt to our weird ways of treating them but some cannot and demand to be treated like dogs.*

*I will say that your thoughts above do raise a number of questions.*

*Regarding doggy dominance and the need for it - would you agree that a group of humans will be a lot more successful in most intensive endeavors if there is a clear leader (dominant individual*!)?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think a person can lead a group without dominating the group. 

The most successful boss I ever had was a leader, not a dictator. The least successful were the ones that were trying to force things to happen, and would not trust anyone to be able to do their parts. But people are not dogs. And I am not sure where that analogy is going. 

I think groups of individuals do a lot better if there are different personality traits in the group. You need people willing to take risks, and others who will embrace order and follow through on the details. And so forth. 

I am not sure if this is true of all groups of people, because I actually read a book that included a chapter of managing engineers, suggesting we may not function the same, what works for some people may not work with engineering types. 

If every dog in the pack was highly dominant, there would be problems. I think that your average litter generally has a pup that is more dominant, one that is more adventurous/intelligent who may or may not be the more dominant, you have a few that are more laid back, followers, and you often have one that is a bit hesitant about things. 

Left on their own, all of these traits might be very significant to the survival of the pack. 

I just don't think that we need to number ourselves in this. I do nothing to be dominant with my dogs, but even my most dominant bitches let me do whatever with them and their pups. they listen to me regardless. 

I think too much stock is put onto controlling the dominant dogs and staying on top of them.


----------



## Jambaa (Apr 3, 2010)

I don't even have a dog to train, and he may be right about certain things, but he needs to set a better foundation for his argument.

Comparing wolves vs dogs and humans vs chimps - that's not even close.
Like he said, dogs were domesticated from wolves some 15k years ago.
Humans evolved "from" chimps about 500k years ago. Huge difference. Dogs can still mate with wolves. I don't think chimps will care to mate with humans lol. A dog in a wolf pack will do a lot better than a human in a chimpanzee or gorilla group, because they have a better understanding of their behaviors and pack structure.

He defines dominance as "the relationship between 2 or more animals and is based on who has access to valued resources, such as food". When anybody trains a dog, they are asserting dominance. The valued resource can be food, attention, freedom, play, etc. In order to positively reward your dog, you are exercising dominance.


----------



## GunnersMom (Jan 25, 2008)

codmaster said:


> *Exactly how do you tell they are "happy" as opposed tojust excited? Do they "smile", bark differently, or what?
> 
> **Is it "fear" or simply wanting to avoid something unpleasant? These are not the same.*
> 
> ...


Well again, I'm just talking about what I see in my own dogs, but yes - their body language is significantly different when they're happy as opposed to just being excited. 
For one, they're much more relaxed when they're happy. And yes, they do "smile"! But their mouths are more relaxed when they're happy - when they're excited, the smile almost looks more like a grimace.
There's a significant difference in their barks, too. Riley doesn't bark, at all, when he's just happy. When he's excited, he will. Gunner tends to whine/"talk" when he's happy - when he's excited he yaps his fool head off.

As far as fear - I believe that's hardwired into every animal's brain (including ours.) It's a basic survival instinct. 
I can recognize fear vs. avoidance very easily in Riley. If he wants to avoid something, he just tries to, well... avoid it. lol. If he's seriously afraid of something, he hits the deck and freezes. He's absolutely terrified of having his nails clipped. (Previous bad experience.) He'll try avoidance first, in every manner he can think of, including biting the **** out of whoever is holding the clippers. If that doesn't work, he freezes, pees all over the place and will express his anal glands. That's just absolute, complete and total fear. (Or at least I believe it is.)

With Gunner, about the only time he shows true "fear" is during a thunderstorm. He glues himself to me and shakes like a leaf. That's definitely not avoidance - he's scared out of his wits.

And yes, the dog wants something that it likes. But if they like and want affection from us, with no other motive involved, then there has to be some form of love involved. It may not be "love" in exactly the same way that we experience it, and it may be driven by different factors (harmony= pack/unit stays together = survival) but I think they do feel it all the same.

That's an interesting question about other animals. There's an interesting book about that - "The Emotional Lives of Animals." Can't remember who the author is, but it's a good read. According to this book, elephants in particular are incredibly emotional animals.

Don't even get me started on cats. LOL. I'm convinced that cats are little humans stuck in feline bodies. One of these days, they're all going to get together and plot our demise.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 15, 2009)

selzer said:


> I think a person can lead a group without dominating the group.
> 
> The most successful boss I ever had was a leader, not a dictator.


And I would say dominant does not mean dictator. A dominant individual does not have to dictate everything, only some things.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

selzer said:


> .................
> I think too much stock is put onto controlling the dominant dogs and staying on top of them.


Most folks would probably think the same UNTIL they have a would be dominant dog themselves.

Most dogs are meant to be followers and only a few are potential leaders/dominant.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

There are ways you can keep on top of a dog who has the desire to take over, keeping it clear, fair, and primarily positive. A lot of checking in from them, a lot of shaping from us. It's a lot of fun!

I now have a pack of followers with a couple with some leadership skills but not the whole shebang...it's way different than it was and I am still learning how to work without my capo.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 15, 2009)

codmaster said:


> Why would you "hate to clue me in"? I think it is very nice of you to clue me in about this. Of course, some humans are more animal than others don't you think?


It's a figure of speech...

We are all animals, equally. We are certainly not plants. 



> You think your brain is just like a dog?


I don't think so, it's scientific fact. We share the same basic brain structure, dogs have a frontal cortex, prefrontal cortex, and all the other brain structure we do. Some sections of our brains are just a lot larger and more powerful. Those related to thought and speech for example.




> But a large percentage of humans live alone, don't they? Actually dogs are probably a more social animal than humans are.


Missed the point entirely. We are both adapted over a couple of million years to live as social animals in family groups, it is in our DNA which is not something modern cultural changes affect.




> When I used to go hunting, I would actually prefer to hunt alone - it reduces the chances of getting shot while you are hunting.


Which has absoluty zero to do with a couple of million years of evolution o hunt on groups, that shaped our very genetic makeup.



> So are you saying that humans and say platypus's share a lot of the same instincts and cognitive functions or is it just some mammals?


Yes actually we do share a lot with a platypus, most instincts we hve we share with a platypus, but we share a lot more cognitive functions with a dog. Platypus don't stalk chase and kill prey, and don't like in a social family group for life as we and dogs are both genetically adapted to do.




> I obviously cannot share your views about how close dogs and people are - dogs are very different from humans and need to be treated like dogs not people if we want to be successful with them. Many dogs will adapt to our weird ways of treating them but some cannot and demand to be treated like dogs.


I don't think you understand my views, for some odd reason you seem to have missed the cogent aspects of my views entirely.



> I will say that your thoughts above do raise a number of questions.
> 
> Regarding doggy dominance and the need for it - would you agree that a group of humans will be a lot more successful in most intensive endeavors if there is a clear leader (dominant individual!)?


Yes, and we are dominant over dogs by default. We control every resource it requires from social resources, to the basics of food and water and access to outdoors. It is completely up to us how we assert that dominant position, or if we do.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

That little feral Russian girl...THAT was interesting! EEEEEEEEE! Look at this site. I would love to work with a feral child. FeralChildren.com | Feral children: isolated, confined, wild and wolf children 

My mind somehow made this jump. Sorry to muck up the thread.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 15, 2009)

codmaster said:


> *Exactly how do you tell they are "happy" as opposed tojust excited? Do they "smile", bark differently, or what?*


How do you tell a child is happy, as opposed to just excited?

Facial expression? Body language? Vocalization? Same with a dog, though they have different forms of those from ours.



> Is it "fear" or simply wanting to avoid something unpleasant? These are not the same.


A bear pops out in the trail right in front of you, are you experiencing fear or simply wanting to avoid something unpleasant? It is no different for a dog.

You see a pile of poop, and walk around or over it, is it fear or simply wanting to avoid something unpleasant? Same for a dog.



> The dog wants something that it likes. Is that your definition of love? If so, then you are correct - dogs know love.


So what is your definition of love? Describe in detail the difference between a dog seeking affection from it's master, and a child seeking affection from it's parent.



> Which animals do not experience human like emotions, do you think. Do say, crocodiles experience sorrow? How about cats?


A Crocodile is a reptile, not a mammal, and evolved as a solitary creature with little or no social instincts or behaviors required to maintain social relationships. So likely no.

A cat is a mammal, but still is a more solitary animal. Sorrow? maybe, haven't seen it though. In a lion, a social cat, probably.

What we call love, sympathy, empathy, and other instincts we share with dogs are those required for maintaining a close social group. Animals who live in close social groups with necessity for complex social interactions require those emotions at some level to be a social animal. 

Those who do not display those emotions and instincts are typically shunned from the social group. This goes for both human and canine social groups.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

TxRider said:


> A cat is a mammal, but still is a more solitary animal. Sorrow? maybe, haven't seen it though. In a lion, a social cat, probably.


Can't speak to sorrow, but cats certainly feel other emotions. 

I have one cat, Neko, who I call the "Big Daddy" cat of the bunch. He looks after the others with a sort of patriarchal dignity. If one of the other cats comes back from the vet's office and isn't feeling well, he will nuzzle them, and curl up next to them for the remainder of the day.

Does the same for me. If I've had an especially crappy day, or if I'm sad/upset over something, he follows me around the house, chirping at me until I pick him up, and will refuse to leave me alone until I've settled. 

I don't know of that's "emotion" so much... could be. Maybe empathy? Too deep? Lol.

I know they're certainly happy to see me when I get home. I get greeted by 4 cats all trying to climb my legs so they can be held :crazy:


----------



## EchoGSD (Mar 12, 2010)

I couldn't agree with most of what this individual was professing. I do agree that the term "dominant" has been over-used and applied incorrectly...for example, in my years of teaching & assisting obedience classes I have heard countless owners say "I just can't control him, he's so dominant" or "He won't heel beside me because he's so dominant he always has to be in front", or some such nonsense. Certainly there are dominant dogs, just as there are submissive dogs. Ever watch dogs at a dog park? These are not wolves in a wolf pack, but you can almost always easily identify which of the dogs is being deffered to, and which dogs are doing the deffering. This is inborn and instinctive, but does not translate into "and there's nothing I can do about it". I also vehemently disagree with the linking of traditional training methods (like a correction and/or pinch collar combined with thoughtful, well timed corrections) to "punishment" or "abuse". I use chain collars, flat buckle collars, pinch collars, squeeky toys, treat rewards, and lots and lots of petting and praise to encourage, reward, and yes CORRECT my dogs' behavior. My dogs compete in AKC Obedience trials, where we demonstrate our teamwork in response to judges' commands, and my dogs work quite happily, with tails wagging. To imply that because I have chosen to properly utilize tools like a chain collar in my training program makes me an abuser is ludicrous. Dogs are very intelligent and unique individuals, with the mental capacity to evaluate situations, learn, and make decisions on behaviors based on the situation at hand. Perfect example: dogs leading the blind. When their handler says "foward", and the dog can see the threat of danger such as a pothole in the street, or a car coming around the corner, the dog ignores the handler's command to go forward because THE DOG'S JUDGEMENT TELLS HIM THIS IS A MISTAKE. This does not demonstrate a lack of proper training, improper reward systems, or a failure on the handler's part to properly reinforce a behavior. Silly to ignore the intelligence of the species and treat them as if they were computer chips to be readjusted after a short circuit.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 15, 2009)

atravis said:


> Can't speak to sorrow, but cats certainly feel other emotions.


Of course they do. It's a requirement born from evolution and the mammalian brain. Emotions at some level are required for parenthood, something all mammals must possess.

Mammals have offspring that cannot survive without long term care by a parent.

Take a leopard. A solitary non social animal. Why doesn't a mother leopard just eat her offspring like she would any other small animal?

Emotions is why, and all mammals share that. A chemical signal in the brain that triggers social instincts. That triggers things like love, like empathy to know when the cubs are hungry and to feed them.

We are no different, this is what we know as love for our children, it is why we will throw our lives down to defend them without a thought. Just like any other mammal.

We selectively breed domestic animals like cats and dogs to retain that emotional component of bonding.

In mammals that form larger more complex social groups the same mechanical process exists but is extended and expanded. An extension of that system of stimulus and response that triggers releases of chemicals in the brain that trigger social instincts.

It is scientifically measured for example, that when when our dogs seek affection and we give it by petting, that the same chemicals are released in our brain, and in the dogs brain, that a mother and a newborn child release in their brains to form a bond. That is the process of how our bonds are formed.

People say treat a dog like a dog, not a human. This is proper, but what does it really mean?

To me it simply means to take into account the differences between the dog and the human brain. The smartest dog on the planet would be doing well to match the cognitive function of a 4 year old. 

One way to look at it is as if your child grew to be an adult, but his brain never progressed past a 3yr old in cognitive ability. How would you interact with a permanent 3yr old? Would you pin him to the ground if he got violent and hit you, or choose another path? Would you spank? Would you hit? How would you control this adult with barely more than a toddlers mind?


----------



## goatdude (Mar 3, 2009)

Article on how using "dominance" to explain behaviour is old hat Using 'Dominance' To Explain Dog Behavior Is Old Hat

and another related article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm

and still another: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090424114315.htm

Contrary to these "studies" I have been using behavior training methods that establish me as alpha and I have found a great reduction in aggressive behavior as well as other unwanted behaviors such as jumping on people, being a pest as far as barking etc.


----------



## Kodi (Mar 20, 2010)

I posted one of this guy's articles a while back and once again i find his take on it to make the most sense to me..

“Dominance in Dog Training Debunked” or is it? By Mike D'Abruzzo

very interesting!


----------

