|
Location: Kent, UK
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,031
|
19-04-2009, 09:58 PM
though of course some dogs will. just goes to show that one size fits all methods and ideas are pants..If a dog learns that they can take advantage of a situation then they will, it doesn't have to be anything to do with them trying to take over, they just learn that by doing something they get rewarded. They don't know if it's something that we find to be acceptable or not unless we teach them, as far as they are concerned you don't get rewarded for doing something undesirable because that isn't how dogs work, it's poor communication on our part. Maybe they will take a yard if you take an inch but that doesn't mean they're 'taking over' imo
I never got the going through doors first thing..
|
|
Location: Back in Canada, finally!!!!!
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 245
|
20-04-2009, 03:36 AM
Originally Posted by Louise13 
Hmmmmm says who??
How many others have written opposing info?
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
20-04-2009, 06:34 AM
Originally Posted by Krusewalker
...But 'alpha' doesnt really fall into that catergory.
Alpha isnt really a common usage word in the english language, and is only really used by members of the public when they start looking into dog training and behaviour.
Usually, their first encounter of this word is when they read a book, meet dog trainers, joining groups such as this.
Therefore, you have to understand the history of this word in this context....
.....Thus, if you use the same linkage logic of the old studies, wolf -dog, then it stands to reason that if this 'alpha' doenst apply to wolves in that sense, it doesnt apply to dogs and our relationship to them.
......
Meaning that the word 'alpha' has taken on a 'factual context' based on being repeated enough throughout generations, just as the word 'celts' has to describe scots, or we must drink 34 litres (is that correct?) of water per day.
All based back to studies that werent actually correct and have since become popular fallacies.
......
Hence, when you consider the historical usage context of this word, and its actual meaning, it is not a correct word to use if you just wish to say I am the leader/boss of my dog.
If you wish to believe and therefore say (which is your right to do so) that I am am the 'leader/boss of my dog, then just say use the words which are your actual meaning: 'leader' or 'boss'.
.
Good post there Krusewalker (I've boldened the sentences I think are very important
)Basically the whole alpha/dominance/pack theory is pretty much debunked, but because it's something we as humans like, and probably enjoy thinking we can be a "pack leader/alpha" we tend to cling to it rather than move on with science.
If people are going to use the word, IMO they need to really know exactly why they use it and in its historical context. Otherwise they are simply perpetuating a myth which doesn't help dogs or their relationships with humans.
The alpha thing is a myth, it's that simple. Yet it's become so ingrained it's affecting even now how people think about their dogs and how they interact with them
Wys
x
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
20-04-2009, 06:40 AM
Originally Posted by Gnasher
Good posting Sam !
I agree totally with you. I suppose a good way of summarising things in a nutshell would be to say if you give 'em an inch, they will take a yard. This sounds extreme, but I think it is true. In a wolf pack, the alpha male has to be constantly alert for a beta with alpha aspirations staging a take-over Dogs are opportunists, like their wolf ancestors, and will grab the opportunity to "take over" if it is offered to them on a plate. For "offered to them on a plate", read weak human !
Gnasher, sorry to disagree but this is simply not true. It's totally incorrect
Wys
x
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
20-04-2009, 06:48 AM
If your dogs growled at you, would you punish them (and if so, how?) or would you ask yourself why they were doing it and try to solve the root of the problem?
Dogs are not humans and can't speak, therefore they do need to communicate with us.
If a dog growls that is several rungs on the ladder away from aggression - it's merely showing discomfort. If a dog is not allowed to growl when it feels uncomfortable then it may bite another time.
I wish this was more commonly understood by pet owners.
Just to clarify, no-one is saying it's OK for dogs to go round growling and being pushy for the sake of it; for controlling their humans or anything like that. If my dog growled at me though I trust our relationship enough to wonder why on earth... and try to find out.
First port of call would be for me to think about what had just happened, and if I'd done anything, second would be to get a medical check up. If a dog growls over things like being handled, then desensitising is the way to go.
Originally Posted by SamRottLabb
Sorry but I have to disagree, some dogs don't feel happy or safe with the owners they have this is why they misbehave which can lead to a snap or bite as they are confused due to incorrect boundries being set, eg: being humanised.
In fact I dont think anyone can attribute "misbehaviour" to lack of boundaries only, or being humanised.
Dogs do need boundaries but setting them doesn't always solve a behaviour problem
Wys
x
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
20-04-2009, 06:54 AM
Originally Posted by Reisu
I don't get it either. Am I a strong leader? No not at all, but my dog doesn't try to take advantage of me... Hell, I don't know what he thinks his boundaries are as he's never pushed them enough for them to be established, he's just a well behaved dog. Definately not trying to exploit my every weakness!
though of course some dogs will. just goes to show that one size fits all methods and ideas are pants..If a dog learns that they can take advantage of a situation then they will, it doesn't have to be anything to do with them trying to take over, they just learn that by doing something they get rewarded. They don't know if it's something that we find to be acceptable or not unless we teach them, as far as they are concerned you don't get rewarded for doing something undesirable because that isn't how dogs work, it's poor communication on our part. Maybe they will take a yard if you take an inch but that doesn't mean they're 'taking over' imo
I never got the going through doors first thing..
I agree,
Wys
x
|
|
|
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,374
|
20-04-2009, 06:59 AM
Originally Posted by Wysiwyg
Quoted by SamRotLab:
Can I ask why you think a dog should never ever growl? If your dogs growled at you, would you punish them (and if so, how?) or would you ask yourself why they were doing it and try to solve the root of the problem?
Dogs are not humans and can't speak, therefore they do need to communicate with us.
If a dog growls that is several rungs on the ladder away from aggression - it's merely showing discomfort. If a dog is not allowed to growl when it feels uncomfortable then it may bite another time.
I wish this was more commonly understood by pet owners.
Just to clarify, no-one is saying it's OK for dogs to go round growling and being pushy for the sake of it, for controlling their humans or anything like that. If my dog growled at me though I trust our relationship enough to wonder why on earth... and try to find out.
First port of call would be for me to think about what had just happened, second would be to get a medical check up.
Sometimes it is just lack of training or neglect, not being humanised
In fact I dont think anyone can attribute "misbehaviour" to lack of boundaries only, or being humanised, because that suggests that in depth problems such as fear of children or phobias etc can be solved by pack theory....!
Dogs do need boundaries but setting them doesn't always solve a behaviour problem
Opportunity for what though?
Wys
x
They are opportunists, yes but they are not dictators out for world domination. The Hitler joke/reference is funny and very true.
|
|