Beyond the “Dominanceâ€

[GreddyGirl]

Beyond the “Dominanceâ€

[Purple]

Two thumbs up and snaps in a double z formation....great article!

[pitbullmamaliz]

Two thumbs up and snaps in a double z formation....great article!

Has anybody ever told you that you're a dork?


That was a good article.

[Purple]

Two thumbs up and snaps in a double z formation....great article!

Has anybody ever told you that you're a dork?


That was a good article.

Why, yes, almost on a daily basis!!

[SisMorphine]

So I'm just trying to get her point here (forgive me, it's very early in the morning):
She says that dogs need a strong leader. To me leader = taking the alpha role. Alpha = dominance.

By saying that people are too focussed on dominating their dogs is she talking more about physical domination, like alpha rolls? Is she talking about how people overuse the term? Or is she just talking about being the leader in the home (if she is she's saying two totally different things)? Because of my "strong leadership" or as I prefer to refer to it as, my dominant status in my household, I can have two alpha males who don't even so much as look at each other. But I'm sure that if I left my house and someone else was here with the two of them out, or someone else tried to walk the two of them together, there would be a huge fight.

And as far as the peeing on the carpet: there are SO MANY different reasons for a dog to be peeing in the house. So many. Some are simple training issues. Some are medical issues. And *gasp* some can be fixed through the humans in the household being strong leaders! By being a strong leader you are giving a fearful dog confidence thus making it less likely to have an accident in the house because it's nervous. Wally marks when he's mad at me (blah blah blah, dogs don't have emotions, yadda yadda yadda, I'm not buying it). I leave and take another dog with me and not him: my couch gets peed on. I leave, forget something, come back in to get it, and leave again, thus teasing him making him think he's coming with me: he pees on the cabinets. We're in a dominance struggle and he is punishing (I don't think that's the word I want to use) me by peeing on stuff. If I had put strict boundaries on him from the beginning this wouldn't be happening. So yes, I see that as a dominance issue. It's not a housebreaking issue, it's a marking issue directly related to a dominance struggle in our household between the two of us.

So I'm hoping that this woman is using the term "dominance" meaning physical dominance as opposed to strong leadership which *gasp* is dominance. Or perhaps it's more of a commentary on how the term "dominance" is being overused and misused and how most trainers nowadays see everything as a dominance issue. I think that the article is written half-assed leaving much more to be explained as she said that she believes in pack hierarchy, she said she believes in strong leadership, but not dominance? Makes very little sense to me the way it is written . . . then again, it is early in the morning and I haven't eaten yet so perhaps it will make sense to me later on. LOL

[pibblegrl]

Being a benevolent leader is not the same as being a dominant leader.

People who are dominant, feel the need to hold power over every living thing in their lives. They don't make great leaders because they are so focused on making sure everyone knows they are the 'ALPHA male or female'.

A benevolent leader knows how to lead. They can make a person (or dog) WANT to work for them. They know how to disipline properly, and how to get the desired behaviors out of their workers (or dogs).

Patricia McConnell tries to teach people the difference between dominating your dog and forcing it to work for you, and actually teaching the dog and making it want to work.

[katiek0417]

So I'm just trying to get her point here (forgive me, it's very early in the morning):
She says that dogs need a strong leader. To me leader = taking the alpha role. Alpha = dominance.

By saying that people are too focussed on dominating their dogs is she talking more about physical domination, like alpha rolls? Is she talking about how people overuse the term? Or is she just talking about being the leader in the home (if she is she's saying two totally different things)? Because of my "strong leadership" or as I prefer to refer to it as, my dominant status in my household, I can have two alpha males who don't even so much as look at each other. But I'm sure that if I left my house and someone else was here with the two of them out, or someone else tried to walk the two of them together, there would be a huge fight.

And as far as the peeing on the carpet: there are SO MANY different reasons for a dog to be peeing in the house. So many. Some are simple training issues. Some are medical issues. And *gasp* some can be fixed through the humans in the household being strong leaders! By being a strong leader you are giving a fearful dog confidence thus making it less likely to have an accident in the house because it's nervous. Wally marks when he's mad at me (blah blah blah, dogs don't have emotions, yadda yadda yadda, I'm not buying it). I leave and take another dog with me and not him: my couch gets peed on. I leave, forget something, come back in to get it, and leave again, thus teasing him making him think he's coming with me: he pees on the cabinets. We're in a dominance struggle and he is punishing (I don't think that's the word I want to use) me by peeing on stuff. If I had put strict boundaries on him from the beginning this wouldn't be happening. So yes, I see that as a dominance issue. It's not a housebreaking issue, it's a marking issue directly related to a dominance struggle in our household between the two of us.

So I'm hoping that this woman is using the term "dominance" meaning physical dominance as opposed to strong leadership which *gasp* is dominance. Or perhaps it's more of a commentary on how the term "dominance" is being overused and misused and how most trainers nowadays see everything as a dominance issue. I think that the article is written half-assed leaving much more to be explained as she said that she believes in pack hierarchy, she said she believes in strong leadership, but not dominance? Makes very little sense to me the way it is written . . . then again, it is early in the morning and I haven't eaten yet so perhaps it will make sense to me later on. LOL

Excellent points. I remember back to when I got Sacha. I was having so many issues with her. So my friend, who was coincidentally a trainer told me to start alpha rolling her every time she did something wrong. I was a new dog owner, and didn't know any better, so I did. Well, I had my obedient dog...but I noticed something: she never seemed happy to be doing obedience. Even when she was just hanging in my house, she would lay on the floor...not typical of a lab puppy...but who cares, I had my obedience, right? Right?

Well, I went to a different trainer who emphasized that the dog should "work happy." Through leadership, as opposed to dominance, the dog would work happily. Here, I saw about 10 GSDs doing obedience with their tails up, and smiles on their faces....even when they got corrected (with the prong collar). The problem I was having had to do with me being a dictator. Sacha did the work because she HAD to do the work, she wasn't doing it to make me happy. When I started to work with her differently, and change the way I approached our time together, she became a different dog. The obedience got even better. But, more importantly, she did it with her tail wagging and a smile on her face. She understood that I was the boss, but now she was doing things b/c she wanted to please me.

This isn't dissimilar to working in the real world. Who would you rather work for: a boss who acted more like a dictator or a boss who was a strong leader and could motivate you?