|Barked: Sun Oct 21, '12 1:45pm PST |
|It actually would be incorrect to interpret the "certain tv trainer" as being the cause of these words usages (save for "pack" or "pack leader"), nor solely responsible for the heat brought against him. He is an easier target due to his celebrity, and some would say one more crucial due to his high accessibility and popularity to the masses. That said, the "dominance, alpha, wolf thing" traces more fairly link to the Monks of New Skete, whose text continues to sell extremely well. But it is hard to rant about a monk, and also they are less of a target as they are not celebrities in the same unhinged fashion. However, amongst more scrutinizing and intelligent thinkers, they would/ought be equal a threat to those who don't believe in this stuff.
I think the fallout of tv is that it can be information for those who would opt for minimal effort in being "enlightened"; those who often fail to investigate, consider things intellectually and ethically, and only half listen to what they are even turning their ears to in the first place.
But it also is a point, I would say, that countering one non-truth with another non-truth....this is progress? The very concept....and look around and you will find this...that Mech claims he has not witnessed dominance or submission in wolves is preposterously false and can only be uttered by someone who chooses to quote another capriciously, without one lick of investigation or interest to explore their subject, and thereby rather akin to the determined ignorance and half eared listening that tv fans could be accused of. That this non-truth, in some blogs, etc., is used to convince the ignorant masses that some how all training that is not their own has been discredited by quoting something that never was said by someone they know very little about is absurd.
The salient point, which can be intelligently and insightfullly made with no need for spin or truth twisting, is that dominance is EXTREMELY rare in animals that have nothing to compete over Duh. There would be no point. And of course the dogs in our lives have precious little to compete over amongst themselves, nor do they view themselves in competition with us. That doesn't mean they can't be willfully bratty at times or not get some kick out of pushing our buttons, but they have no mind to "take over."
This "throw out the baby with the bathwater" approach to me is way too over the top. Dogs do not need to be forced or to accept you as "dominant." Actually, as regards the latter, only parts true, as you control the resource, which is a personification of a dominant by the definitions we choose to use, but whatev Ah, but I digress...dogs do not need this concept of force or demand. Good. Everyone can agree. But somehow despite that fact....that everyone agress...this has morphed in some corners into dominance/submission is a myth, people who have bed, couch, door first rules are Neanderthals, and so on.
It is all rather ridiculous.
|my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals|| [notify]|