RULES FOR THE DOG
1. The dog is NOT allowed in the house.
2. Okay, the dog is allowed in the house, but only in certain rooms.
3. All right, the dog is allowed in all rooms, but has to stay off of the furniture.
4. Well, okay, the dog can get on the OLD furniture only.
5. Fine, the dog is allowed on all the furniture, but is not allowed to sleep on the bed.
6. Okay, the dog is allowed on the bed, but only by invitation.
7. The dog can sleep on the bed anytime, but not under the covers.
8. Okay, the dog can sleep under the covers, but by invitation only.
9. Fine, the dog can sleep under the covers every night.
10. Humans must ask permission to sleep under the covers with the dog.
I found the above list of rules for the dog in the examining room at the Rio Vista Veterinary Office. It is of course for fun. The following list, presented by John Bradshaw in his book Dog Sense, is a perfectly serious list of rules, or commandments, proposed by trainers who espouse the dominance method of teaching obedience:
1. Do not allow your dog to eat its meal until you (the top dog) have eaten first.
2. Do not allow your dog to leave the house (den) before you (the top dog) have passed through the doorway first.
3. Do not allow your dog to climb onto the sofa or bed (only top dogs are allowed to rest in the cosiest places).
4. Do not allow your dog to climb the stairs, or to peer at you from the top of the staircase.
5. Do not allow your dog to peer into your eyes.
6. Do not cuddle or stroke your dog.
7. Do not interact with your dog unless you are involved in some kind of training.
8. Do not greet your dog when you come home from work or from the shops, etc.
9. Do not greet your dog first thing in the morning; it should be the one to greet you (the top dog)
10. Do not allow your dog to keep the toy at the end of a game; it will interpret this as winning.
Bradshaw's reason for presenting the above list of horrors--which were seriously advised by a trainer committed to the dominance theory of dog behavior--is to demonstrate exactly why they are harmful.
Bradshaw observes, "It has become abundantly clear that the model upon which many people are training, managing, and simply interacting with their dogs is fundamentally wrong." His book details the scientific evidence that conclusively demonstrates that the dominance theory of dog behavior is a lot of hooey, and most competent and educated trainers now agree. Unfortunately, the dominance theory is the one which has the most entertainment value on television and other mass media because of the innate conflict it supposes. Shows like "The Dog Whisperer" are popular because Cesar Millan's weekly contests with problem dogs have a satisfying dramatic structure, not because they provide valid approaches to good relationships between humans and dogs.
Which brings me to the question of Amber being spoiled. What is assumed about the individual creature that is considered to be spoiled? I would contend that it is inferior status. Children are considered spoiled, husbands or wives are considered spoiled, animals are considered spoiled, if they are indulged by a more powerful parent, spouse, or owner. If we consider, in all the above instances, that the healthiest and most rewarding relationships exist between those who relate to each other as equal animals, we have a different way of viewing the way they interact.
If Amber behaves in ways that cause me distress--and she does, most particularly when she will not come with me when it is time to end a free roaming rabbit chasing session, or when there is some danger such as traffic or dangerous currents in the river and she will not come to me--then the distress is my problem to deal with. If I behave in ways that cause her distress--and I do, on those occasions when I have to leave her alone--then the distress is her problem to deal with. In other words I do not see our relationship as essentially different than any other kind of relationship. Language and an opposing thumb did not make me a more valuable sort of animal than she is. I do not consider that "teaching obedience" is a concept that has any validity in a relationship between equal creatures.
1. Do not allow your dog to eat its meal until you (the top dog) have eaten first.
2. Do not allow your dog to leave the house (den) before you (the top dog) have passed through the doorway first.
3. Do not allow your dog to climb onto the sofa or bed (only top dogs are allowed to rest in the cosiest places).
4. Do not allow your dog to climb the stairs, or to peer at you from the top of the staircase.
5. Do not allow your dog to peer into your eyes.
6. Do not cuddle or stroke your dog.
7. Do not interact with your dog unless you are involved in some kind of training.
8. Do not greet your dog when you come home from work or from the shops, etc.
9. Do not greet your dog first thing in the morning; it should be the one to greet you (the top dog)
10. Do not allow your dog to keep the toy at the end of a game; it will interpret this as winning.
Bradshaw's reason for presenting the above list of horrors--which were seriously advised by a trainer committed to the dominance theory of dog behavior--is to demonstrate exactly why they are harmful.
Bradshaw observes, "It has become abundantly clear that the model upon which many people are training, managing, and simply interacting with their dogs is fundamentally wrong." His book details the scientific evidence that conclusively demonstrates that the dominance theory of dog behavior is a lot of hooey, and most competent and educated trainers now agree. Unfortunately, the dominance theory is the one which has the most entertainment value on television and other mass media because of the innate conflict it supposes. Shows like "The Dog Whisperer" are popular because Cesar Millan's weekly contests with problem dogs have a satisfying dramatic structure, not because they provide valid approaches to good relationships between humans and dogs.
Which brings me to the question of Amber being spoiled. What is assumed about the individual creature that is considered to be spoiled? I would contend that it is inferior status. Children are considered spoiled, husbands or wives are considered spoiled, animals are considered spoiled, if they are indulged by a more powerful parent, spouse, or owner. If we consider, in all the above instances, that the healthiest and most rewarding relationships exist between those who relate to each other as equal animals, we have a different way of viewing the way they interact.
If Amber behaves in ways that cause me distress--and she does, most particularly when she will not come with me when it is time to end a free roaming rabbit chasing session, or when there is some danger such as traffic or dangerous currents in the river and she will not come to me--then the distress is my problem to deal with. If I behave in ways that cause her distress--and I do, on those occasions when I have to leave her alone--then the distress is her problem to deal with. In other words I do not see our relationship as essentially different than any other kind of relationship. Language and an opposing thumb did not make me a more valuable sort of animal than she is. I do not consider that "teaching obedience" is a concept that has any validity in a relationship between equal creatures.
My companion died last year and Sugar several months ago. Who ever penned "the golden years" must have been around when gold was $35 an ounce.
ReplyDeleteMy question was all about the whys........