[working-gundog] on the dominance hierarchy theory > GSP Forum

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search

Forums > Mailing Lists > working-gundog

Subject: [working-gundog] on the dominance hierarchy theory

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

cwalt

MH
Posts:180

09/22/2007 8:46 AM
The popular mythology among dog trainers and dog training enthusiasts is that pack hierarchies are mediated by aggressive interactions and dominance is the key to pack leadership. I have long advocated a very different social structure mechanism in which a variable pack status is maintained by deference rather than aggression. The original ideas about wolf dominance hierarchy by aggression apparently originated in a paper by Schenkel from 1947: "Expressions Studies on Wolves." . The idea of a dominance hierarchy was supported by Mech in his earlier papers but he has since reconsidered the structure of wolf packs and published his ideas that are somewhat closer to mine. The significance of these differences of view on training cannot be overestimated, the dominance training idea is wrong. I maintain that you cannot become the "pack leader" by aggressive dominance and that dogs do not respond to aggression in the ways that most dog trainers think that they do. I suspect that one of the first responses of a dog to an overaggressive training regimen is submission along with a marked decline in cooperation. The ultimate result of the aggressive dominance training idea is a dog that is obedient but may express its lack of cooperation in more subtle ways. The more obvious cases of training related uncooperative behaviors include burying or abandoning of game out of the handler's line of sight, eating or mangling of game and blinking, the deliberate avoidance of game. Among versatile dogs in the US these behaviors are not uncommon in tests and apologists for such kinds of dog behaviors often claim that their dogs are "independent" rather than uncooperative. The dominance training concept is widespread in several versatile dog groups in North America and as a consequence the various breeds tested and selected for breeding are "tough enough to take the training". Yes, these modern dog lines are temperamentally tougher than they used to be but they also require more dominance to train. I appreciate tough dogs but I don't want to raise and train dogs that are a daily test of will to maintain. Many US trainers love these kinds of dogs and speak about their independence and toughness. Such dogs are apparently satisfactory for repeated training and testing but they can also become uncooperative and often unproductive companions in actual hunting situations. I would rather have a softer cooperative dog that wants to produce game for me than an animal that performs through sheer obedience. I want a cooperative low maintenance dog, one that has to be trained only once for a lifetime of hunting companionship. Cj

stuwest

JH
Posts:39

09/22/2007 9:17 AM
Please detail your concept of deference more precisely. Stu, Dawn & Hunter West Founder, Pointing Labradors "Letting Labs Point the Way!" Alma Bottom Pointing Labradors N4758 350th Street, Elmwood, WI 54740 (715) 639-3900 h&w (715)684-9892 cell StuWest@AlmaBottom.com www.AlmaBottom.com Cj wrote: > > The popular mythology among dog trainers and dog training enthusiasts > is that pack hierarchies are mediated by aggressive interactions and > dominance is the key to pack leadership. I have long advocated a very > different social structure mechanism in which a variable pack status > is maintained by deference rather than aggression. The original ideas > about wolf dominance hierarchy by aggression apparently originated in > a paper by Schenkel from 1947: "Expressions Studies on Wolves." . The > idea of a dominance hierarchy was supported by Mech in his earlier > papers but he has since reconsidered the structure of wolf packs and > published his ideas that are somewhat closer to mine. The > significance of these differences of view on training cannot be > overestimated, the dominance training idea is wrong. > > I maintain that you cannot become the "pack leader" by aggressive > dominance and that dogs do not respond to aggression in the ways that > most dog trainers think that they do. I suspect that one of the first > responses of a dog to an overaggressive training regimen is submission > along with a marked decline in cooperation. The ultimate result of > the aggressive dominance training idea is a dog that is obedient but > may express its lack of cooperation in more subtle ways. The more > obvious cases of training related uncooperative behaviors include > burying or abandoning of game out of the handler's line of sight, > eating or mangling of game and blinking, the deliberate avoidance of > game. Among versatile dogs in the US these behaviors are not uncommon > in tests and apologists for such kinds of dog behaviors often claim > that their dogs are "independent" rather than uncooperative. > > The dominance training concept is widespread in several versatile dog > groups in North America and as a consequence the various breeds tested > and selected for breeding are "tough enough to take the training". > Yes, these modern dog lines are temperamentally tougher than they used > to be but they also require more dominance to train. I appreciate > tough dogs but I don't want to raise and train dogs that are a daily > test of will to maintain. Many US trainers love these kinds of dogs > and speak about their independence and toughness. Such dogs are > apparently satisfactory for repeated training and testing but they can > also become uncooperative and often unproductive companions in actual > hunting situations. I would rather have a softer cooperative dog that > wants to produce game for me than an animal that performs through > sheer obedience. I want a cooperative low maintenance dog, one that > has to be trained only once for a lifetime of hunting companionship. > Cj >

cwalt

MH
Posts:180

09/22/2007 9:34 AM
Please detail your concept of deference more precisely. Stu Start here. http://www.davemech.org/schenkel/index.html

jmurr

MH
Posts:158

09/22/2007 2:00 PM
It's well known, Cj, you are a WEIRDO I can't understand why anyone would want to hunt an uncooperative dog. Soon those folks will be able to get a robot dog from the Lego toy makers and they won't have to train at all once the thing is programmed. Gee, Garmin already has the GPS tracking technology out on the retail market... Jere > The popular mythology among dog trainers and dog training enthusiasts is > that pack hierarchies are mediated by aggressive interactions and dominance > is the key to pack leadership. I have long advocated a very different > social structure mechanism in which a variable pack status is maintained by > deference rather than aggression. The original ideas about wolf dominance > hierarchy by aggression apparently originated in a paper by Schenkel from > 1947: "Expressions Studies on Wolves." . The idea of a dominance hierarchy > was supported by Mech in his earlier papers but he has since reconsidered > the structure of wolf packs and published his ideas that are somewhat closer > to mine. The significance of these differences of view on training cannot > be overestimated, the dominance training idea is wrong. > > I maintain that you cannot become the "pack leader" by aggressive dominance > and that dogs do not respond to aggression in the ways that most dog > trainers think that they do. I suspect that one of the first responses of a > dog to an overaggressive training regimen is submission along with a marked > decline in cooperation. The ultimate result of the aggressive dominance > training idea is a dog that is obedient but may express its lack of > cooperation in more subtle ways. The more obvious cases of training related > uncooperative behaviors include burying or abandoning of game out of the > handler's line of sight, eating or mangling of game and blinking, the > deliberate avoidance of game. Among versatile dogs in the US these > behaviors are not uncommon in tests and apologists for such kinds of dog > behaviors often claim that their dogs are "independent" rather than > uncooperative. > > The dominance training concept is widespread in several versatile dog groups > in North America and as a consequence the various breeds tested and selected > for breeding are "tough enough to take the training". Yes, these modern dog > lines are temperamentally tougher than they used to be but they also require > more dominance to train. I appreciate tough dogs but I don't want to raise > and train dogs that are a daily test of will to maintain. Many US trainers > love these kinds of dogs and speak about their independence and toughness. > Such dogs are apparently satisfactory for repeated training and testing but > they can also become uncooperative and often unproductive companions in > actual hunting situations. I would rather have a softer cooperative dog > that wants to produce game for me than an animal that performs through sheer > obedience. I want a cooperative low maintenance dog, one that has to be > trained only once for a lifetime of hunting companionship. > Cj > >

rospigan

MH
Posts:372

09/24/2007 2:21 AM
Cj wrote: >>>I maintain that you cannot become the "pack leader" by aggressive dominance and that dogs do not respond to aggression in the ways that most dog trainers think that they do. I suspect that one of the first responses of a dog to an overaggressive training regimen is submission along with a marked decline in cooperation. The ultimate result of the aggressive dominance training idea is a dog that is obedient but may express its lack of cooperation in more subtle ways. The more obvious cases of training related uncooperative behaviors include burying or abandoning of game out of the handler's line of sight, eating or mangling of game and blinking, the deliberate avoidance of game. Among versatile dogs in the US these behaviors are not uncommon in tests and apologists for such kinds of dog behaviors often claim that their dogs are "independent" rather than uncooperative>>> I find the modern demand for "instant obedience" most repulsive. 10 years ago when we started to offer gundog training we usually had 10 meetings mixed theory and practice, totally about 30 hours. To me that is still not enough, I would like to have at least 40 - 50 hours. There is a retired man who takes care of all the practical things when advertising the class, receiving the applications, payment and such. We only hold the classes and supply the material for study. Anyway this man has found it necessary during the years to shorten the classes hour by hour in order to get applications. People are getting more and more busy, particularly those with children. Their entire life is regulated by the children who has to be driven from one activity to another, day after day, year after year. It is extremely time consuming, stressful and expensive. The parents have to do it since the neighbours parent do it. It is kind of a rat race that goes faster and faster. They want the dog, they want it to be obedient but the fact is that they should not have a dog at all. For example some years ago one of the pupils owning a boar dog invited me to hunt wild boar with him later that autumn. I met him after x-mas and he said that he had not had the time to even touch his gun, lot less arrange for a boar shoot. He wanted but he could not... a prison in his own family! My conclusion is that you have to be a strong person if you want to successfully own a gundog today. You must be strong enough to moderate and say No! to your children. You must be strong enough to say No! to too much work and above all you must be strong enough to say No! to your neighbours when they are stressing you to do this and that, preferably with their children so that they could have a few minutes rest! Who is pouring fuel to this rat race? It is the commercial world that you find on the telly, internet and different other media. They are constantly whipping our children and young, inexperienced folks to consume more and more of this and that. In the end the profit is all that matters, not the way they get the profit. We pay for this and our dogs pay for it even more. Whatever they need they have no change to get enough of it to feel well. They must perform at trials and on the field, and perform well. They are given a handy size tin with instant, condensed obedience. If this is not working we change the values we rule the dogs against. Dogs that are governed by e-collars and harsh handling are made into the standard and voila´- problem solved! Torsti Borta Med Vindens Kennel "Ask not what your dog can do for you. Ask what you can do for your dog." www.rospigan.net

MH
Posts:117

09/24/2007 8:50 PM
Subject: [working-gundog] on the dominance hierarchy theory >>Many US trainers love these kinds of dogs and speak about their independence and toughness. Such dogs are apparently satisfactory for repeated training and testing but they can also become uncooperative and often unproductive companions in actual hunting situations. I would rather have a softer cooperative dog that wants to produce game for me than an animal that performs through sheer obedience. I want a cooperative low maintenance dog, one that has to be trained only once for a lifetime of hunting companionship. Cj<< I am one of those US trainers. I have been training dogs for over 30 years. Six days a week, year round. I had 50 dogs in my summer camp this past summer with two trainers helping me to train these dogs. We camped out in the White Mountains of Arizona and did nothing but train dogs from 5 in the morning to 6 in the evening, six days/week. I train more dogs in one year, than most people train in their lifetime. This is my ideal dog: Tough? absolutely! I want a dog that will work as long As I want him/her to. Dogs that will work in driving rain, 40 MPH winds, Freezing rain, or 100 degree heat. Dogs that can handle rocks, sand, cactus, ice, sandburs, or whatever I toss it out on. Dogs that will retrieve on land or in water. I also want a dog that excels at both the hunting of the game and the handling of the cover be it hunting chukar in Idaho, pheasants in South Dakota, Sharptails in North Dakota, bobwhite quail in Kansas, valley and mountain quail in Oregon, & Scalies-mearns-gambels in New Mexico. Independent? Without a doubt. I want a dog that will hunt for birds, on it's own without asking me for instructions or direction. He/she is the expert on birds, Not me. Take me to the birds, I will tag along and shoot them for you . . .When He/she is on point, and the birds leave, I expect that dog to relocate on it's own and find them again. I want him/her to do this with no instruction from me. If this dog has a stop to flush, and I am not nearby, I expect him/her to move on and find more birds. Again, without instruction from me. I want a dog that has the ability and the intelligence to think for itself in these situations. Manners? I demand it. I want a dog that sticks to business. I expect that dog to be steady to wing and shot. It should honor another dog on it's own and hold calmly and quietly while the bird is shot over the pointing dog and retrieved. I also want a perfect retriever. A Dog that will retrieve promptly to hand. A dog that can track a wounded bird for a great distance and bring it back without any command given. Cooperative? I would expect nothing less. A dog that is well bred, that has the right mind, and that is trained properly will perform for you at all costs. It will have a never-ending desire to "please" you, and it will be happy and excited to do so. Soft? Only in the need for correction. An intelligent dog will not need physical correction. It will only need a trainer that can let the dog know when he/she is displeased. That, and that alone, will achieve the desired results. Great dogs are born, and great trainers bring out their natural abilities. Most experienced dog people can spot a mechanical dog in an instance. Those dogs don't win much in Competetive field trialing. The great dogs, perform with exuberance and excitement. They simply look good doing what they are bred to do. They perform with such amazing ability and talent that their performances will be indelibly burned into your memory. These are the great ones. Those that have the experience and the knowledge to recognize these dogs have without a doubt enjoyed watching one of the most wonderful events possible in the dog world today! tc

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Mailing Lists > working-gundog > [working-gundog] on the dominance hierarchy theory

ActiveForums 3.7