I didn't see him mention wolves nor dominance at all..
Actually, he (stevej9) did. He said "Walks shouldn't be all about sniffing. They are migrating just like wolves do in the wild..."
I think the word he wanted was closer to patrolling/hunting/scavenging than migrating, as all territorial mammals patrol their territory, and social hunting/scavenging mammals travel to hunt/scavenge, which includes both dogs and humans... And usually with both dogs and humans there is a leader, and cooperation, and some sort of rules or expectation of roles.
As for going in and out first, I do that too.. Mainly because I don't want to set an expectation for my dog she can bolt out whenever the door opens, and she needs to defer to me before she ever steps through that door. Well the front door anyway, she slides out the back door instantly when I open it and she's always out before I am and that's ok.
The front door and garage doors have different rules though, I always go out first, and come in first. I'm the boss, I set the rules, and I enforce the rules.
For a person to even establish a rule and an expectation for another to defer to it some authority must exist for the other to defer to that rule over their desires, and for that authority to exist it must be first established. Establishing that authority is just as clearly stated by saying "showing who is the boss", nothing silly about it.
Deference and authority is different than dominating. My problem with "dominating" (or the use of forms of the word) is that many people who come here looking for advice may hear the "dominance" stuff, and their idea of what that entails may include alpha rolling, pinning, hitting, among other things. I would hate for someone to believe the stuff about how you have to pin your dog when he does something you don't like so that you can show him who's boss, or to believe that you have to roll your dog so that he will listen to you next time, or any number of things that people may think of when they hear "dominance theory".
I still remember reading "The Other End of the Leash," especially the part where the author recounts the story of a young puppy that had been rolled, pinned, shaken, etc., because the owners thought that was current puppy training technique. Patricia McConnell said the owners hated doing it, but were following advice they had been given.(not by her) Well, the puppy's growling went to snapping, and that went to biting (because she was being bullied by her owners.) So, they put down a 6 month old puppy. It's so easy for those who don't know any better to take the "dominance theory" and run with it, so to speak.
Me going in and out first is a very clear way to establish that authority and make the rule clear and easy to follow and set the expectation that my dog must defer to me and have permission to go through the door always.. It has got nothing to do with wolves or old outdated wolf studies, I have rules for anyone who lives in or visits my house, dog human or otherwise, I am the boss, the leader, the person with the authority, and I enforce those rules...
For that to happen I must bring that expectation into existence that a rule exists and bring the expectation that it should be followed into existence, which means I must bring the deference to my authority into existence, which is essentially showing who is the boss.
I for one find it quite tedious with folks popping up with this tired "dominance has been disproved" BS every time someone hits one of their keywords like leader, or going through door first, especially when it has little or nothing whatsoever to do with the persons post they are replying to.
I, for one, am tired of seeing dogs brought to the shelter I volunteer for, because someone has used their idea of "dominance" and have turned their dog into a defensive, frustrated, dangerous dog. So, I will likely keep popping up with reminding people that the wolf study that is STILL linked to many people's concept of the dominance theory is flawed.
Dominance exists in -most- relationships between individuals to some degree and in some fashion. I am an employer, I am dominant in the relationship between me and my employees. If I am a parent I am dominant in the relationship with my kids. A cop is dominant in his relationship with me. I am dominant in the relationship with my dog. It has nothing to do with folks like Mech or Schenkel, Rabb, Fox, or Zimen or their limited studies on wolves or what they have or haven't proved or disproved.
I see my relationship with my dog more as a parent, and I believe it's the closest analogy I have heard described. I don't think many would argue against the statement that a parent is dominant in the parent child relationship. This is exactly what Mech who "disproved" prior "dominance theory" from previous captive wolf studies expressly stated, that the dominant wolves in the pack are the breeding parents, not that dominance doesn't exist, just that it isn't gained by force and fought over and contested constantly as previously described by folks like Schenkel..
I guess I just don't prefer the use of the word "dominance" in any of these situations, employer, parent, etc, as it has, to me, a negative connotation. Yes, an employer, and a parent have authority, but I choose not to use the word dominance. I am a teacher. I have, if I do say so myself, few discipline problems, as I pride myself of clear rules and expectations, as well as clear consequences. I am fair, and reasonable, but, yes, I am the authority in my class.
I have seen teachers who were "dominant" in their classrooms, and, again, in my own opinion, that connotates putting someone down, talking down to students, flaunting your "power". I prefer to be fair and get respect because I am fair and set clear guidelines and boundaries.
Or in the words Dr. Mech who is touted as being the man who disproved "dominance theory" himself.. "Calling a wolf an alpha is usually no more appropriate than referring to a human parent or a doe deer as an alpha. Any parent is dominant to its young offspring, so "alpha" adds no information."
So although old studies had been corrected, that in no way means dominance doesn't exists in wolf packs, only that it is established in a different manner in a natural wolf pack, and not gained by force and fought over as previously believed. A quite common misunderstanding of the science, and quite unfortunately IMO parroted out on forums with little real understanding.
Very good point, and I agree, especially with the part about not being gained by force. Again, that's why I don't like to use the word dominance, because it, to many people, has a physical component.
What was really disproved is that unrelated wolves brought together in captivity do not form packs like a natural parental packs in the wild..
That is about all that has been disproved from what I can see.. And that the dominant wolves in a natural pack are still dominant, but they are simply dominant because they are the parents and ALL parents are naturally dominant in the parent offspring relationship. NOT that dominance doesn't exist, quite the contrary. It does exist, simply a new dominance theory of the wolf pack replaced the old one.
But that has limited applicability to dogs, as dogs are not wolves and don't behave like mature wolves.
Modern science has also described dogs as perpetual juvenile wolves behaviorally, that dogs behavior is very much like a juvenile wolf that never matures. Exactly the same as the behavioral differences between many domesticated animals and their wild counterparts and most recently and clearly shown in the 50 years of foxes bred for friendliness to humans in Russia.. who have pretty much all the exact same differences between them and wild foxes as dogs have between them and wolves both behaviorally and visually..
Domestication and breeding for tameness it seems is actually precisely selecting for juvenile traits. Creating permanent juveniles. Or simply stated we are creating child versions of the wild animal that never grow up and we assume their parental role, the dominant role, and that IS domestication..
Sigh... the whole inaccurate "this has been disproven" junk is becoming as much of a pet peeve as anything to do with those keywords seems to be for the people who spout it.
