# Another nail



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

Another nail in the ever closing ,coffin called Dominance training. http://companionanimalsolutions.com...dification-techniques-and-the-risk-to-owners/


----------



## ShirleyH (Sep 13, 2009)

Good article, Dave. 

One question has always baffled me. Why does anyone NEED to be dominant in this effort and therefore use dominance training? Speaks volumes about the owner.

Keeper's Mom (Shirley H.)


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

I don't know... If I can't say "Stay!" too loud without upsetting my dog, I don't think I have to worry about a dominance battle with him!


----------



## CarolWCamelo (Feb 15, 2012)

I think humans often misunderstand "dominance" (partly led there by history, where a theory of dominance arose maybe half a century and more ago).

I've read widely about dog-behavior, and reached an understanding that the nature of the domestic dog is to avoid conflict as much as possible. This would generally be true of any dog who is carefully bred, and well-raised at home, underfoot (in the house, with dam and litter-mates, and the dam being well-supported by the breeder). Furthermore, dogs kept with litter-mates, and supported-dam in attendance, for at least up to 12 weeks, get the time to learn how to be dogs. These dogs often turn out to be just about bomb-proof, in the sense that they are practiced in avoiding conflict, and slow to become defensive and anxious. Even 10 weeks isn't too bad, but I prefer 12 weeks, because the dogs learn so much more in that extra time.

It's very expensive and a ton of work for a breeder to keep littermates to 12 or even 14 weeks. Some keep them to 16 weeks (especially toy dogs), and do the crucial socializing as well.

The point, though, is to allow the dog (pup) to put the (genetically) innate abilities to work, and learn, in practice, how to use those abilities, which include canine calming signals.

Removing the whole idea of "dominance" from our consideration is a wonderful way to continue working with dogs - even dogs of all ages. After about 3.5 decades of intensive study, including some reading, and some working with dogs, mostly informally, seems to me to work very well. We don't NEED a dominance model (concept), because there are other, more accurate (if you ask me) ways to understand dogs.

I can't remember ever meeting a dog (and I've met many hundreds) who give a hoot about rank, status or hierarchy. Pack theory has been amply debunked. It didn't make sense in the first place; what has been substituted, with far greater and more accurate comprehension by us humans, is the idea of family, with each family-member having a place, depending on the job-assignment for that family-member. Typically, dogs (and wolves) work out these assignments to suit the individual members and their particular capabilities and inclinations.

I think we fall into traps when we try to overlay our human views of DOGS with human views derived from the power-structure of the society(s) we live in.

Our dogs depend on us - solely on us - for their livings. If we were to throw them out, say, into the wild, they might survive for a time, but even if food were plentiful, the dangers of life on human-and-machinery-populated Earth along with wild predators, would tend to shorten the dog's life. Lots! And because our dogs depend on us, we have, in a sense, absolute power over them. There's never an issue of "Who's in charge?" when we work to meet all a dog's real needs. The whole idea of "in charge" fails, except for one thing: WE are the ones who meet the dog's real needs, no matter what expert we consult, in which area (trainers, behavior counselors, veterinarians).

And this holds true as long as dogs, under the law, are property. And likely, further than that, too. A dog whose real needs are met with some reasonable consistency simply doesn't develop any need for "dominance" struggles. Those don't fit into a dog's brain. A dog can't conceive of the (artificial) boundaries we humans manage to construct - usually in many ways contrary to Nature.

You know me; I could go on and on, but Camellia is waiting for her walk, and I have chores to do first; might have more to add later. I really enjoyed James Ha's article; thanks for the link, Dave.

Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:49:00 (PDT)


----------



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

Well said Carol. Yeah the history of dominance based training goes back a ways. It was adapted because no one knew any better. Very little reasearch was ever done, and when wolf research came on board, it was transferred to dogs. And it was incorrect research that was transfered onto dogs. There will always be people who believe in this type of training, but more and more people are converting to better ways. Our dogs deserve it.


----------

