What′s wrong with using ‘dominance&rs to explain the behaviour of dogs?

why do i think those are so important?
in the first instance, a truly ball-obsessed dog will ALWAYS be more aggro and more invested in any ball than another dog,
however bigger or more intimidating, if that dog is not *at least equally ball-obsessed*.
is that dominance? no - it is differential distribution of resources - the one that wants it the most, generally gets it -
whatever *it* is, at the moment.

in the 2nd instance -
If U cast the dog in the role of adversary - being dominant, attempting to take charge, taking over, blowing U off,
and so on - U taint the way U perceive that dog very significantly; NOTHING the dog does, can now be seen outside of
that frame... like adding lemon-juice to fresh milk, it sours on the spot.
all my best,
--- terry

__________________
terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, TDF
*wolves R wolves, dogs R dogs, + primates R us.*
tmp, sept-2007

bump.................

__________________
terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, TDF
*wolves R wolves, dogs R dogs, + primates R us.*
tmp, sept-2007