Totally agree.

I find the word "dominance" has almost the same effect on people as "electric shock collar".

Dominant behaviour exists, just as aggressive behaviour exists. This is a fact and we can see it every day.

Some people define their dogs by those behaviours rather than saying that in certain contexts the dog displays x behaviour (after all we do not think or expect a dog to be aggressive 24 hours a day even when alone as there has to be something or somebody else in the equation for a dog to demonstrate aggressive behaviour)

I have also found that, as in much literature, as the dogs do not read, they often demonstrate (quite regularly) that life can contradict the written word!

I also find it interesting that the views of those whose empirical knowledge outweighs the theoretical knowledge are often disparate from those whose knowledge where the positions are reversed!

And by that I mean the empirical knowledge of HUNDREDS of dogs rather than their own a small group to which they are regularly exposed.

But, as they say, it is good to talk!

Tass I think you are quite right about agreeing to disagree; I think this sort of discussion usually ends up like that anyway

I will just refer to a few bits and pieces that I've not yet had time to reply to (due to, I am sure, an oncoming RSI ). Don't bother answering it Tass unless you especially want to, as it is long!


I hope I haven't given the wrong impression here about the references etc. It's not that older studies are ignored - but often what will happen is that the same people, or scientists "building" on previous studies, actually produce more up to date papers themselves. They themselves would prefer us to use their most recent papers.

Also it's not really a case of cut off dates - you will see plenty of references to older studies; for example even if you ref. a paper from say, 2000, that will quite possibly at times refer to ones from say 1990 - even before.

As far as I know, this is the case across the board when it comes to collleges/uni etc. I studied evolution, ethology and psychology amongst others as modules and it was the same in all, it's not just a behaviourist thing

Take these papers as an example - a quick glance to the refs at the end, and you can see much older studies included .

(no particular subject, just mostly dog stuff)

http://azs.no/artikler/art_training_methods.pdf

http://www.behav.org/behav/cases/AAB...y_dog_play.pdf

http://www.trainabull.com/articles/d...0old%20hat.pdf

Re Scott and Fuller and the Bar Harbour project, I know of the studies of course, that's one book I've not got (yet) but is one I plan on reading/buying one day. Their's is seminal stuff in my book. There were copies at both colleges, but I never had the time...

IME these studies are highly respected, and often referred to as being important etc. I would say that just because a study doesn't agree with current thinking, it doesn't necessarily matter: in the sense that science recognises good contributions that aided understanding along the way. Our learning might be never ending....!

I brought that study up because it was one of the very few studies that I know of that has been done on domestic dogs, in a relatively normal situation, not because it's particularly special .


Certainly this may be how she interpreted that part of her study - after all, she was not supportive of linear hierarchies, and was interested in disproving this, rather than anything else. It wasn't so long ago that many people involved with dogs and owners as trainers, behaviourists, vets etc believed in linear hierarchy (myself included).


Wys
x

Yes! reward based methods are not new at all really

The problems with harsh methods began really when you got the military influence.

...
Agree, dog training is an art as well as a science, no getting away from that

However, it's important to understand as much as we can about dogs, and for those of us who work with behaviour, it's imperative we keep learning.

For example the Lassie myth needed exploding, (although many peeps still subscribe to that) and we are just starting to understand that dogs really do have emotions (!)and that this does need to be taken into account when helping them, etc . There is a lot of research going on into dog cognitive ability at the moment, which might bring out some fascinating stuff. (I really hope it doesn't bring tears, although there is always that chance I suppose!)

Wys
x

Don't know if you've seen the book "Carrots and Sticks" by Paul McGreevy and Boakes? It's very interesting and goes quite deeply into the principles of animal training.

It's got some very interesting training case histories, from cats to wolves to elephants to dogs (lots of dogs). It's not cheap though - I got it for a birthday.

Wys
x

I'm sorry I think I've missed your point (it doesn't take a lot ) but if dominance was to be used, then I think the last bit you mention would be more like it should be used. Defo for each interaction, not labelling the dog, etc. However the Van Doorn reference indicates as far as I am aware that even when trying to do this, you still get situations where the theory cannot predict stuff properly, and the whole point of such a theory is to help us predict outcomes.

Probably not what you were asking but I've tried

Wys
x

Yes indeed, I am not the world's fastest or best typist, I freely admit, so it's not always easy keeping up with posts when peeps including myself are writing long ones

I will just answer the last few a few bits and pieces, however please don't bother to reply unless you particularly want to

I think this is actually a huge subject (whoops, better not go there) but I'd agree witn you in part, I think that the problem began with putting linear/alpha etc into the equation and so of course, logically that = physical force and so on. Then a few dog training books such as Woodhouse, Monks, etc added their weight.

I understand your point I believe Part of the problem was that the original view did not seem to "fit" domestic dogs.. O'Heare says that it did not account for many observations. But I do think that if the word was to be used, then there should be some proper research into it. It should be totally dumped or researched thoroughly and not be something without empirical data that is bandied around by trainers/owners and so on.

If it was to be salvaged (and who knows, things do change!) then as a theory, it should be developed and researched properly and also the public educated on correct use of the term.I imagine the debate will continue for a long time

Ok, not sure I've seen that then, I have only seen the study he did with Bradshaw and Goodwin.

Thanks for a good debate Tass; can I say I do respect your views, I don't think that disagreeing is necessarily a bad thing as it keeps everyone on their toes

Wys
x

Yes, I think that it would be weird to refer to a person as dominant. However could it be accurate? I don't think so, I don't think it fits, but perhaps we also need research on this topic

Wys
x

I would say dominating a situation or person/dog is getting your own way. A dominant person would therefore be someone that had the ability to get their own way. You are therefore right, someone can not be dominant because it depends on who they are competing with whether they are successful in getting their own way. As you would expect with a character trait it is a sliding scale. Perhaps domineering is a better term; someone that tries to get their own way a high percentage of the time. Which can apply to dogs too.

Yes it is very complicated if you try and label it
There are so many different ways to get your own way

For example now Mia knows agression does not work she has different methods for trying to get her own way
If Ben is lying on something she wants wthout being aware he 'has' it she will come and cry to me to get it from him
She got her own way - but is that dominant?

If he is chewing something she would like she sometimes does tricks for him in the hope he will reward her, sometimes he was leaving the thing anyway so she thinks her tricks have been rewarded, she gets her own way - is that dominant?

Sometimes she will lie beside him and watch him till he has done and leaves it

Sometimes she will fawn, creep up to him on her belly, lick his muzzle, drop toys on his head until he lets her have it
Is that dominant?

and plenty dogs have learnt the 'barking at the door' to get the other dog to move so they can get their own way


and SB, although I have had less experience with dogs and have done lots of reading
When I only had 1 dog I believed the pack thing, I believed there would be a leader who possibly would need supported and all that stuff
But then the evidence of my own eyes was that yes it was more than possible that Mia could take charge, her bossy behaviour could be rewarded
but I didnt like it, so I took a big gulp, went against all the advice that I was given, that if I didnt support a leader I would be splitting up fights all the time, a 'pack' couldnt be happy without a leader
I made up my own rules - and the fighting totaly stopped

Mmmm, so if a teacher is dominant in the classroom because the teacher is the leader of the group, what does that teacher become when they themselves go on a course and become the student?

This is why I have a problem with 'dominant' labelling. The same applies to dogs, in some situations they are the leader, in others the follower. In some situations confident, in some insecure.

In a particular group, it may seem obvious who does what - until, that is, an unknown factor is introduced (another dog, a different person etc)