Something to think about (Cesar Milan and others like him) - Page 2

Good post Duke on the money

If this article represents the current thinking in canine behaviour, then the science is taking itself backwards. I don't believe the vast research into canine dominance has been disproven. The article says wolves only form packs in captivity but what are modern dogs if not captives? I fear that politics among the elite are what is behind this hatred of Lorenz. They don't even give him the credit for his theory of early human-canine relationships that this article presents as fact. Lorenz's "Man Meets Dog" is a beautiful book. The problem with dominance theory comes from our interpreting it in the context of our own ruthless primate dominance. Canine dominance relies on submission being freely offered by the less dominate and aggression being ritualized, meaning a lot of it is posturing, ensuring the survival of the species. Primates resort to force and violence much more quickly and we tend to take things personally. Our relationship with our dogs requires us to keep the primate in check. We are wrong if we are rolling our dogs over, bitting them, and sitting on them just to prove our dominance if they have done nothing wrong.
I would bet that Cesar can read dogs better than whoever wrote this article, his timing and posture is good. He is correct when he says dogs live in the moment, and when he emphasizes calm, assertive energy. But he does have an element of huckster in him that has appealed to neutered Hollywood crowd. I think he sometimes resorts to dominance when it is not needed or appropriate. But I would not count him or his methods totally out. Cesar to me is a rehashing of Jan Fennell's "the Dog Listener", who got her influence from the Horse Whisperer.

Lorenz worked extensively with the greylag goose. He noticed if a mother goose were submissive to the other members of her flock, her goslings would learn to be submissive too, as they mimicked their mother's body language. He was a very good observer of animal behaviour, and reproduced what he observed by imprinting the goslings on humans, and mimicking the mother's body language (mostly done with the head and neck, and in this case, with the researcher's arm and hand) to teach them to be dominant or submissive.

We have been accused of applying our very strong primate dominance model to dogs (and other animals). This is wrong, and most people now realize that. Male dogs very rarely fight to the death, whereas chimps often do. Other members of the tribe are sometimes hurt by males doing very noisy, violent dominance displays to try to take the alpha position. Again, this doesn't happen in dogs or wolves. Now in this new politically correct culture where EVERYONE is considered equal, I think we are doing exactly the same thing with dogs! There's no such thing as dominance, everyone is equal, blah, blah blah.

I saw a special on dog behaviour that tried to debunk the dominance theory. It showed a puppy playing with an adult male dog, and clearly being submissive, rolling on its back, etc. Then, the puppy began humping the older dog, who put up with this behaviour. The narrator said the older dog was now submitting to the younger one, and therefore the dominance theory must be wrong, because the dogs had switched roles.

Anyone who REALLY knows how to interpret dog body language would have seen a) the puppy was getting a free pass from the older male because it was so young, and b) every ounce of the older dog's body language was screaming 'I'm just tolerating this because you're a puppy!" He was standing very tall with his head and tail up, and absolutely NOTHING about that stance said "I submit!"

Good post Sunsilver. Good observation in the all things are considered equal. We should appreciate other species for what they are. It seems as if science is taking a backseat to sensitivity. It has been known that alphas will tolerate subordinates and older dogs will teach puppies through role playing. This is one of the areas where I would disagree with Cesar believing that dogs going out a door first are being dominate. An alpha doesn't need to lead or direct a pack from the front. I have attended a couple of Ian Dunbar's seminars and he describes puppies as carrying a license to be jerks, older dogs will tolerate their antics until they get older. Ian did a lot of good studies observing groupings of puppies and dogs that lived with minimal human contact. I can't believe that the "enlightened" are willing to dismiss all that knowledge.

Excellent posts, sunny and Marko.

Good post, Markobytes! I think the positive training people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater for political reasons (Lorenz subscribing to the Nazi philosophy, and the current politically correct world in which everyone is equal.)

And you are right, people have overdone the dominance theory. It doesn't matter one bit if a dog goes through the door before you do, though a smart owner will teach their dog to wait, because it's good manners, and dashing outside into the street can get a dog killed.

My oldest female sneaks up on the couch when I'm out. It's not because she's dominant, she just wants a soft spot to sleep. I let her get away with it, because the only way to prevent it would be to lock her in her crate, and I don't really want to do that. She know better than to try it when I'm home. I know she respects me, so I'm willing to let her get away with this one bit of misbehaviour. Training is not one-size-fits all. Some people could alpha roll their dog for going through the door ahead of them until the cows come home, and it still wouldn't fix their dog, because they haven't put the time and effort into building a relationship with it, and figuring out what makes it tick.

bump