I'm Mavie. My husband and I are the humans here at K9 Commune. We share our lives with five of our dogs, and our daughter's dog.
We are a living experiment of sorts. Our goal is to treat our dogs like co-habitants, we coexsist. We try to think of us (the humans) and dogs as individual beings, rather than human and canine. That we humans have no innate superiority.
Of course, this doesn't work 100% of the time. When push comes to shove, we humans do have the final word. But the thought is, how much can we not interfere with our dogs choices, and what are the consequences of this method?
This is rather contrary to most other methods of living with dogs. We try to not use methods of control, such as collars and leashes. Although we do use treats as rewards, we do not follow a Clicker type method, nor do we use a No Free Lunch or Nothing In Life Is Free method.
In the thought of treats as rewards, It's only a reward if the dog understands it to be. When I blow a whistle signal to come, and the dogs get a treat, the dog may think it's a reward for coming, or, the dog may think the whistle indicates there are treats to be had, like a "come and get it" signal.
My interest is in a cultural anthropology of canines. Why do dogs do what they do? Is there another way to look at it? What is the dog wanting or meaning by a certain behavior? Due to a lack of concise communication, much of my "findings" are my speculations, and are limited to our group of individuals.
I don't see domestic dogs as wolves. I have trouble using the term "pack" when referring to dogs because of the connotations the term brings up. Which is unfortunate. I would describe a group of children as a "pack" in some instances, while in no way meaning anything in relation to Alpha's, dominance, or anything else. A wolf pack is a majority of kin members. Our dogs are not, although we do have two sets of mother/pup relationships.
I don't follow the typical thought of domestic dogs and dominance. Again the term dominance has been misused and over used, thus leading confusion. In the true sense, dominance is only a means of comparison, usually in canines, individual A lets individual B have a resource. It could be that A thought they'd lose a fight to B, or it could be that A doesn't find the resource as interesting as B does.
If individual A was a mother, and individual B was an offspring (be it canine or human or any other species we wouldn't see it as the mother submitting to the offspring, it could be seen as anything from indifference (I don't want a baby's pacifier), to a learning experience (I'm not going to steal my child's carrots when I want them to eat them), to the mother is willing to share (such as I'll let the kid have the last of the ice cream).
I feel we as humans, talking to other humans, are okay to talk of dogs in human terms. How better for a human to communicate with another human. I don't find an issue in talking about dogs in terms of human qualities. I know human children, having raised three of them. The human listener at the very least was once a child themselves, thus understanding childish thoughts. To cut out this form of communication only hinders the learning form each other.
We are a living experiment of sorts. Our goal is to treat our dogs like co-habitants, we coexsist. We try to think of us (the humans) and dogs as individual beings, rather than human and canine. That we humans have no innate superiority.
Of course, this doesn't work 100% of the time. When push comes to shove, we humans do have the final word. But the thought is, how much can we not interfere with our dogs choices, and what are the consequences of this method?
This is rather contrary to most other methods of living with dogs. We try to not use methods of control, such as collars and leashes. Although we do use treats as rewards, we do not follow a Clicker type method, nor do we use a No Free Lunch or Nothing In Life Is Free method.
In the thought of treats as rewards, It's only a reward if the dog understands it to be. When I blow a whistle signal to come, and the dogs get a treat, the dog may think it's a reward for coming, or, the dog may think the whistle indicates there are treats to be had, like a "come and get it" signal.
My interest is in a cultural anthropology of canines. Why do dogs do what they do? Is there another way to look at it? What is the dog wanting or meaning by a certain behavior? Due to a lack of concise communication, much of my "findings" are my speculations, and are limited to our group of individuals.
I don't see domestic dogs as wolves. I have trouble using the term "pack" when referring to dogs because of the connotations the term brings up. Which is unfortunate. I would describe a group of children as a "pack" in some instances, while in no way meaning anything in relation to Alpha's, dominance, or anything else. A wolf pack is a majority of kin members. Our dogs are not, although we do have two sets of mother/pup relationships.
I don't follow the typical thought of domestic dogs and dominance. Again the term dominance has been misused and over used, thus leading confusion. In the true sense, dominance is only a means of comparison, usually in canines, individual A lets individual B have a resource. It could be that A thought they'd lose a fight to B, or it could be that A doesn't find the resource as interesting as B does.
If individual A was a mother, and individual B was an offspring (be it canine or human or any other species we wouldn't see it as the mother submitting to the offspring, it could be seen as anything from indifference (I don't want a baby's pacifier), to a learning experience (I'm not going to steal my child's carrots when I want them to eat them), to the mother is willing to share (such as I'll let the kid have the last of the ice cream).
I feel we as humans, talking to other humans, are okay to talk of dogs in human terms. How better for a human to communicate with another human. I don't find an issue in talking about dogs in terms of human qualities. I know human children, having raised three of them. The human listener at the very least was once a child themselves, thus understanding childish thoughts. To cut out this form of communication only hinders the learning form each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment