[k/c mom]

I remember reading a book by this guy many years ago and I wasn't impressed with him. In this article, he seems to be associating "alpha" with force and I never have thought of it that way. It doesn't have to involve force as he is suggesting in his last paragraph, partially quoted below. Seems like lots of so-called experts are spouting what the best training is for our dogs. I wonder how many of them know what the heck they are talking about.

"Perhaps it is time to revise our dog training and obedience concepts to something along the ideas proposed by advocates of Positive Training. In that view, controlling the dog's behavior is more a matter of controlling the things that a dog needs and wants, such as food and social interaction, rather than applying force to achieve what the science suggests is an unnatural dominance over the dog."

 

[k/c mom]

Sher,
The idea of dominance (the definition of it) implies force or aggression is used to take/maintain control. So if we are saying a person or dog is alpha within this theory of dominance, by definition that person/animal is using force. Here is the definition of alpha from dictionary.com

–adjective
8.
a.
(esp. of animals) having the highest rank of its sex in a dominance hierarchy: the alpha female.
b.
being the most prominent, talented, or aggressive person in a group: the alpha male of investment bankers.

So while you may not view alpha in this manner, the people who are looking at scientific studies to make a commentary on dominance and alpha are utilizing the above definitions.

I guess I don't like where he says "applying force" and the range of actions that could entail .. I just have a bad attitude about that guy for some reason!