Addressing the Dominance Controversy!

In this deep-dive episode, Matt Covey, Nelson Medrano, and Matt Wlos tackle one of the most controversial topics in dog training: dominance. Does it actually exist, or is it an outdated myth? What do the latest studies on wolves say, and how do they translate to our understanding of dogs?

First, we all learn that Nelson actually does drink water, and then the trio dives into the heart of the debate, unpacking the historical research on dominance in wolf packs—studies that have shaped (and reshaped) how we think about dog behavior. They explore the work of early researchers like Konrad Lorenz and David Mech, discussing how shifting perspectives on wolf hierarchy have influenced the way trainers approach dog training today.

A key question emerges: Are force-free trainers correct in saying that dominance doesn’t exist at all, or has the term simply been overused and misunderstood? Matt, Nelson, and Matt break it down, challenging the notion that hierarchy is absent in social structures—whether in wolves, humans, or even Pokémon card collectors (yes, that analogy happens).

They also explore the extreme interpretations of dominance theory that have given the term a bad reputation, from outdated dominance-based training methods to bizarre practices like spitting in a dog’s food to "assert leadership." The trainers emphasize that while dominance is real, it doesn’t mean harsh corrections or outdated "alpha" methods are necessary. Instead, they advocate for balanced training—a combination of positive reinforcement and well-timed corrections—to create clear, effective communication with dogs.

The episode also raises an important distinction: If submission exists in dogs, then by definition, so must dominance. But does using the word "dominance" create unnecessary division in the training world? Could reframing the conversation around control, structure, and leadership help bridge the gap between force-free and balanced trainers?

Throughout the discussion, the team highlights common myths, the importance of context in training, and why the ultimate goal is a well-adjusted, confident dog—not a submissive one. They even dive into the ethics of different training approaches, questioning whether some force-free methods (like withholding food to increase motivation) are truly less aversive than a mild correction.

As always, the episode wraps up with an open invitation for force-free trainers to weigh in. If you disagree, they want to hear from you! Drop a comment and join the conversation.

Topics covered in this episode:
✔️ What dominance actually means in dog behavior
✔️ The history of wolf research and how it affects modern training
✔️ The "alpha wolf" myth—what did David Mech really say?
✔️ The difference between dominance-based training and balanced training
✔️ Myths about dominance—like why your dog sitting on the couch isn’t a power play
✔️ The psychology of submission and control in social animals
✔️ Why the debate between force-free and balanced trainers might be more about marketing than methodology
✔️ How misunderstanding dominance leads to flawed training philosophies

Final Takeaway:
Whether you’re a professional trainer or just a dog owner looking to understand your pup better, this episode will challenge your thinking and give you a more nuanced perspective on dominance, leadership, and effective training methods.

Tune in now and let us know—where do you stand on the dominance debate?

Episode Transcript

(00:05):
Welcome to the show, everybody. I'm Matt Covey.
We have Nelson Medrano and Matthew Vloss.
Today we're talking dominance. Does it exist?
Is it a myth? What's up with wolves?
Wolf theory. All the craziness, right?
All of the craziness and most ofthe craziness.
Before we get into it, don't we need Nelson's plug for an energy
drink? Isn't that?

(00:26):
Isn't this where that goes? Oh, that would be weird.
Yeah. What do we if we didn't do it?
What do we plug in today? We're we're actually, you guys
are going to be disappointed. We're plugging bottled water
today. I didn't know you drank water.
I've never seen you consume water.
Typically it's at night right before bed.
Wow. Morning starts off coffee, you
know, like one to two cups. And then the afternoon is

(00:48):
dictated by energy drinks. And then at night and I'll drink
some some water. Man, I've How many years have we
known each other a lot? 1012 close and close.
I've never seen you drink water.That's crazy.
That's definitely. True.
Maybe that's true, actually. Next thing we need to do is get
you off of the plastic bottle. Yeah, see, I I need to get the

(01:13):
the glass bottle with the rubberaround it that Matt used to
carry around. Everywhere, yeah.
I still do one step at a time though, because normally his
sweat smells like Red Bull. So being water, this is a huge
step in the right direction. I mean, I don't drink Red Bull,
so that's kind of weird. So let's talk dominance.
I mean, there's so much to talk about.

(01:33):
Where do we want to start? You want me to start?
One of you guys want to start and we could go a million
directions here. I think we've all got some big
thoughts on this. Go ahead and start it off.
Well, I guess let me give you a big picture and then we'll dive
in from there. So, you know, people watching,
if you're dog trainers, you already know, you know, some of
the controversy here. But if you're not a dog trainer,
you might not know. There is.

(01:54):
There's people who say there's no dominance in dogs, it doesn't
exist. And there's people who say, of
course there's dominance in dogs.
It certainly exists. And one of the things that's
tossed around a lot are the studies that were done on
wolves. And we can kind of dive into
those a little bit, I think. And some of the studies have
been retracted. So some people point to that
evidence to say, hey, like dominance doesn't exist, and

(02:15):
others take umbrage with that. So I think maybe it'd be good.
Yeah, I try to work umbrage in at least once an episode.
I liked it. I I think it'd be good to talk
about those a little bit, right?What those studies were, what
they, you know, supposedly proved when they were, what
they've maybe disproved through time.
And then how does that actually affect dog training and the term

(02:38):
dominance? So who wants to talk wolf
studies? Do you want to, Nelson?
Do you want me to? I wanted to start with a
question about what you just said.
Are there actually people out there that are saying dominance
isn't a thing? Oh, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Actually, people saying that.
100% yes. People saying it's for people as

(03:01):
well, you know, that there is nodominance or alpha males or
there's, there is no, you know, hierarchy in which case in, in
which we align ourselves socially, that kind of stuff.
I mean, they'll, they'll say it for anything.
There are a lot of force free trainers that will say dominance
does not exist and I will at all.

(03:25):
And clearly, you know, I believedominance exists.
So for the reader or listener, sorry, I just spoiled it for
you. We're going to talk about all of
that, but I will throw them a bone, so to speak.
The force free trainers and they've got a point.
Some of the dominant stuff, which we can get into later.
Know you guys feel the same way.Some of the dominant stuff is
pretty stupid. So the force free people do have

(03:45):
a point here. This isn't like us just crapping
on them the whole time. But I I disagree that when they
say dominance does not exist at all, that's, that's nuts.
So Wolf studies Nelson, you wantto take this?
You want me to. There's a lot we can talk about.
There is a lot that we can talk about.
I can start it off. So there was an initial
researcher, his name was Conrad Lorenz, I believe.

(04:08):
I always mix up his, his first name and he came up with the, I
guess hypothesis, right, that wolves will align themselves
socially in a hierarchy dictatedby aggression, in which he used
the word dominance. Now, the way that he kind of

(04:30):
used the word dominance predicated the fact that
aggression was the kind of most important factor, right?
That's what set the dominant dogor the dominant wolf off from
everyone else. And that there's constant
competition amongst the wolves to see who reigns supreme.
You know, who is the more dominant And it there were,

(04:56):
well, I guess not a lot of people.
There was another researcher, his name was David Mack.
And what he originally agreed with Lorenz and wrote a book,
popularized the idea, the theory, and then later on
retracted kind of all of it. And from a lot of the research

(05:16):
that I saw, a lot of the retractions, he weren't really
an argument against the theory. It was more the fact that he
didn't like the word dominance anymore or and my assumption is
is he didn't like the connotation that it took on when
layman's people are normal people started using the word

(05:38):
more more regularly. And he really didn't like the
word alpha later on. Yes, that was that was his big
umbrage right there right was, was the fact that an alpha dog
does not exist. Now, again, in all the research,
he he's not necessarily debunking the fact that there is

(06:01):
an authority structure, There isa dominant dog or dominant, you
know, couple even his big point was that they're not random
dogs, random, you know, random wolves, random families that are
just constantly vying for the top spot.
And instead that it's typically a familial type of structure

(06:24):
where the parents would be the dominant war alpha dogs just
based on age, ability, you know,a lot of that stuff.
And that they are responsible for maintaining the peace and
maintaining, you know, I guess how effective and safe they were
as a pack. But he never actually can I.

(06:46):
Interject and throw one thing inthere.
Yeah. Another interesting distinction
is when MEC later, you know, renounced his earlier book and
his theories. He said, well, I was studying.
A lot of this was developed based upon studying captive
wolves and wild wolves are different, which fairpoint,
right, Wild wolves are going to be different than captive

(07:06):
wolves. But I, I I want to circle back
to that later, 'cause I think that's an important distinction
there. Yeah, yeah, I agree.
And I, I guess my big problem with Mech is, is that he's, he's
just not actually arguing against the fact that there is a
dominant dog that has to maintain order and that that

(07:30):
order is maintained by corrections.
He used the term gentle aggression, which seems, I don't
know, weird to me, right. That's just a.
Yeah, a term you don't hear veryoften.
That is an odd term, so let's pause here for a SEC because I

(07:52):
think that's a good background. Someone define dominance.
And I don't mean like a dictionary definition either of
you like. What's your definition of
dominance? I've lost.
Take this one. You, you go ahead, Nelson.
My definition would be a single person or even a group that has

(08:14):
influence in the structure and cooperation over someone else or
a group of people. So yeah, I think that similar to
the way I would define it, whichis the ability to control
others. Sure.
To me, the the shorter we can make the definition, the better
that to me it's just the the ability to control others,

(08:37):
whether it's human or animal. So with the research is what you
were talking about. What I find so interesting is
they retracted the idea of they said, well, there is no alpha,
so there's no alpha. OK, so they retracted that.
So what's replaced the alpha in their theory?
The the breeding pair, the male and female breeding pair.

(08:57):
So we don't have an alpha, we have a male and female breeding
bear, OK. We also no longer have like
alpha dominance based aggressionwhere there's constant vying for
hierarchy, right? So they're saying that's gone
away. OK, so what's it been replaced
with? It's been replaced with the
other wolves listening and obeying the breeding pair.

(09:18):
So what I my question would be, why did these other wolves
listen to the breeding pair? And that's for the audience.
Let's say you believe dominance doesn't exist.
Why did the other wolves listen to the breeding pair?
Is it because the breeding pair is like super articulate and
convincing and talks to them andis like, hey, guys, we got to

(09:40):
work together. We got to cooperate here and
don't eat that food. You got to save it for the other
one. Yeah, I think anyone who's not a
moron knows the answer. The the breeding pair controls
the others through limited amounts of force when needed.
And like if you read what Mecca said that he's like, well, they
use body language and they use. Growing.

(10:00):
Growling and barking and they use controlled nips when needed.
So I hear all of that and I'm like that, that makes sense.
And he says what they don't do is use like, unbridled
aggression constantly, which makes sense.
I can't. I never thought wolves would
just like, attack each other constantly because then they
would get infections and they would all die.

(10:21):
So clearly they're not just mulling each other constantly.
So when you hear the distinction, if it's explained
to you, it's kind of like, well,what's the distinction?
So did you really think in the past there was one like alpha
who was just like attacking others every second is if you
believe that, that's pretty weird.
I can't believe anyone ever believed that At this point, the
consensus would be, if you read Beck's work, is that there's a

(10:43):
breeding pair that's in charge that somehow maintains control
over the pack, which I would define as dominance.
And it's just, how are they doing that?
What tools are they using to assert their dominance?
I think to me, that's the important distinction here.
So I also. Find it interesting where we say
that the breeding pair is in charge, right?

(11:05):
But there's no alpha. But then he goes on to say that
the male in the breeding pair isstill the highest in the
hierarchy. Right.
And everyone defers. Everyone defers to the male and
then the others will defer to the female as well.
So it's like we don't have an alpha, but we have one that's in
charge and then another that's like second in command.

(11:26):
And then everyone else defers tothem and they seem to like, so
focus on the fact that it's a family structure, which I don't
disagree with, sure, but it whenwe start, you know, trying to
talk about how this applies to pet dogs, It's a family
structure. I consider my dogs part of my
family. And who?
Who do you want to be the one that's in charge?

(11:47):
If you consider dogs to be similar to wolves, do you want
if you had two dogs, do you wantthem to feel like the breeding
pair who everyone else defers to?
Or would you rather they prefer that you and your spouse?
Or they see that you and your spouse as the breeding pair, if
you want to call it that, and everyone defers to you.
It's a funny way of putting it, yeah.
I got a couple of rabbit holes we could go down based off of

(12:10):
things you just said. Do do you want to go down rabbit
holes now? I do, I just think it's worth
noting that I just called Kara and myself a breeding.
Pair a breeding pair. That's fine.
Yeah, let's hear some rabbit holes.
So this whole talk about the study of dogs or wolves in
captivity versus wolves in the wild, right?

(12:32):
I think it's an interesting conversation because think about
what we do with dogs, right? We take dogs that don't know
each other and we put them together in our houses, which
would be captivity, right? So wouldn't a study of wolves in
captivity be closer to a study of dogs in captivity than wolves

(12:52):
in the wild would be too dogs incaptivity?
100% That's why I wanted to notethat distinction earlier because
it's pretty crazy, right? Our dogs are living in
captivity, you know, fun captivity if you're a good
owner, right? But they're not in the wild.
They're not a pack of dogs. And then to your point, Vloss,
it's very abnormal to bring another, you know, adult dog

(13:17):
into a house. Like, you know, that's a weird
thing for wild dogs, right? Like, oh, this adult male is
something going to live here? And we have to get them to
accept that. It's absolutely bizarre, you
know, compared to how they wouldlive in the wild where you'd
have, if we're talking about wolves, a pack of wolves and
they just have pups. And when the older, when the
wolves start to grow and you know, get older, we all know

(13:39):
what they do. They leave.
They don't stay there literally forever.
At some point they go off on their own.
And that doesn't happen in a human household, generally
speaking. So it's takes all these studies
and it's like, how, how do you really compare?
Because it's completely different.
So that's an interesting point and, and one that I wanted to

(13:59):
kind of flesh out because I, I don't, I don't know everything
about it, in which case I'm opento suggestion.
Now, my thought being that if packs in the wild, wolf packs
are familial structures, there would still constantly be a
challenge, right? At some point.

(14:21):
Otherwise all wolves would, would die as soon as the alpha
dog dies. And because nobody can make
decisions anymore, right? So at some point the younger
dogs do come of age and someone starts to lead because now and
whether you want to be kind of like brutal, I guess, and say,
hey, this dog can now take this dog and therefore he's the

(14:43):
leader. Or if you want to be more PC
about it and say, hey, he's the more effective hunter now
because you're getting old and now you have to pass the throne
off. There is still constant, you
know, contest. And to think that just because
they're family, there is no contest, I mean, just seems a
little ridiculous, right? I mean, I have a four year old
running around that wants to take my knees out every time I

(15:06):
turn the corner. There's just you think he's, you
think he's challenging. You Oh, I think so for sure.
I mean his his test of strength is how hard can I hit dad right.
So again, it's weird to think that you would have any type of
social structure and not have a source of contest continuously
happening. Yeah, I, I mean, I certainly

(15:27):
agree with you. And as we talk about all of this
stuff, I'm the first to admit I don't study wolves for a living
and I also don't study wild dogsfor a living.
Now both of those things are useful to the more understanding
some about them helps understandpet dogs.
But like we just touched on, petdogs are in a much different
scenario than wild dogs or wolves.

(15:48):
What we care about is how do we allow and get pets to live in a
household the best way possible.And I would say wild wolves to
have lost his point from a second ago, it's so much more
similar than studying wild wolves than studying wolves.
I'm sorry. Studying wolves in captivity is
much more similar than studying wild wolves because our dogs
live in captivity. But to your point, for sure, I

(16:11):
mean, at some point, the other dogs or the other wolves would
either challenge or leave, right?
And that's, that's a fact of life.
So, you know, I mean, as we talkhere, I think Vloss, you said
you had multiple rabbit holes. Did you want to throw out
another one right now? Well, so the next one is just
sort of an additional point that's similar to what we were

(16:31):
just talking about, just that I feel like researchers get so
confident about their studies. Like, you know, he's stating
that his is so much better than looking at wolves in captivity
because he's looking at wolves in the wild.
But I'm sitting there going, well, if you're standing there
watching them, right? Even if you've been there for
like 2 years trying to get the wolves comfortable with you

(16:52):
being around and stuff, like arethey really acting like
themselves or are they acting different?
Like I know I'd be acting different if some weird person
was standing over my shoulder for two years.
Two years later, I'd still probably not be acting 100%
normal. So like to have this confidence
that like my studies accurate because I did it different.
I, I guess I just don't get it. I don't see it that way.

(17:16):
That would agree. And these studies were all done
before drones and the, you know,the stuff we have now, right?
Lorenz was like in the 40s or something.
And then mechs original I think was in the 70s.
And then he's continued to studythem since then.
So maybe he's using drones today.
But, you know, all of these conversations are and studies
are based upon very either captive or like you said, lost

(17:39):
very strange scenarios that are not, not natural.
So what I would say is in my mind, I'm very much in belief
that, you know, First off, dogs and wolves are very similar,
right? They're the same species, so
very similar, but they're not exactly the same.
And I don't like to get caught up in that.

(17:59):
So if I was talking with someoneabout dominance and they're
like, well, dogs aren't wolves, they're different.
Agreed, they are different. They're also very similar.
But even if we just, let's say we'd never even heard of wolves,
wolves don't exist, never even heard of them.
We just have dogs. You can see displays of
dominance between dogs every single day.
It's it, it's normal and it happens.

(18:20):
So I, I, I don't ever want to get into a debate with someone
about how similar, dissimilar wolves and dogs are because I
don't think it's that relevant. I could almost care less what a
wolf is doing in the wild. It's I care about what is a dog
doing in the and how do we make the dogs not fight each other or
listen better to the owners or not attack new people.

(18:40):
To me, that's the important stuff.
But I do think here's a nice time to kind of throw a bone, so
to speak to the the force free trainers.
I feel like the reason they say dominance doesn't exist is not
because they believe that dominance doesn't actually
exist. It's because it was so
overplayed, overused, over discussed, and then there were

(19:03):
some wackadoos who ran wild withthe idea of dominance and did
crazy things. And I feel like this goes back
to just like dog training right now.
It's unfortunate, but there's two very separate camps it feels
like, right? There's your purely positive
force free and there's balance trainers and it's kind of like

(19:24):
politics. I feel like where if one side,
and I hate to even have size, but if there's a side that
latches onto something and they like it, sometimes the other
side is like, well, that's a dumb idea just because the other
side's using it. And I feel like that's what's
happened with dominance. And so I think it would be fair
to talk about some of the stupidthings we've seen trainers talk

(19:47):
about for dominance, because I don't want anyone listening to
be like, oh, OK, these guys believe totally in dominance and
now maybe they read some insane stuff and start trying to do it.
So you want to you guys want to throw out some stuff you think
is asinine when it comes to dominance and dogs?
Sure. Yeah.
Well, one of the crazy things that I've heard is if you sit

(20:09):
down on your couch, that one. I mean, if your dog is allowed
on the couch, that's already dominance, right?
That's a dominating factor that they're trying to encroach on
your space. But if you wanted to do it
properly, then you sit down on the couch first, then your dog
is allowed on the couch, and then you have to kick your dog
off before you're allowed to getup off of your couch.

(20:32):
To assert the fact that you are the dominant 1 and you maintain
the resource the longest, then Imean like if you have to think
that much about it, right? I mean, I feel like you don't
want. That's exactly what I was going
to say. I still have lost his eyes
there. And he's like, what the Hell's
Nelson talking about? And I've heard clients say this
and people say this. And if it's that confusing for a

(20:55):
human, you know, your dog's not thinking through all that.
Like, OK, sure. He got up.
He didn't do this. That means this like, they're
absolutely not thinking like that.
If it's confusing to a human, the dog, it's not even in.
It's not even on their radar. Yeah.
And so there's, there's just, there's subtle, what I think is
subtle, but taxing things like that, that just seem foolish to

(21:17):
me, you know, And again, that's just, I've worked with a lot of
different kind of dogs, you know, from very, very dominant
ones, very, very aggressive onesand very, very submissive and
sweet ones, you know, but I've never ever considered who got on
or off a couch first or did theycross my path or, or anything

(21:37):
like that. So that means there was just
crazy ones. For sure.
What I always tell a client withthat one is your house, your
rules. I don't let my dogs in the couch
just because we don't want to clean.
It has nothing to do with dominance whatsoever.
I just don't want them on there.If you give them the right to go
up and down from the couch all you want, that's absolutely
fine. The only time I would flag that

(21:59):
as an issue is the same time youguys would.
If the dog is growling when the person approaches the couch and
they've kind of claimed their spot, that's obviously not good
and we're going to have to change some things with that
dog's behavior in the house. Or if your dog stands on your
lap and growls when a new personcomes over to give you a hug on
the couch, obviously that's an issue we want to fix.
But if everything's good and your dog's on a couch, who

(22:21):
cares? Do you have a crazy one to throw
out there? Isn't the craziest one I've ever
heard. I mean, it's not all that
different, but just that you always need to be higher than
the dog. You should never get down on the
dog's level. You always have to be standing
above them. You should never like get down
on the floor and play with them or anything like that.

(22:41):
For sure. I've heard that one.
And I've heard if we want to geteven crazier, the people that
say talk about like, you should eat and spit the like food
either in the dog's mouth or into their bowl.
The first time I heard someone say that, I was like, no, no one
says that, right? That's not a thing.
But some people actually believethat.
That's wackadoo. That's lunatic behavior.

(23:02):
That's crazy. And like, wild wolves don't feed
each other. Like, you're not like the
breeding pair are not eating food and chewing it up and
giving it to their two year old offspring.
So I don't even know where that would come from.
That one's nuts. And I've never heard it go as
far as that where you're spitting it into their mouth.
But yeah, I've, I've heard ton especially from hunters and and

(23:24):
kind of more old school dog people where, yeah, you'd spit
in the dog's food so that I don't know what whatever they
they see that you had it first and that you're giving it to
them, you know, that that kind of stuff.
And then even like, Oh well, we always eat dinner before my dog
eats dinner. You know, similar concept that
I'm. I'm claiming the resource before

(23:46):
you get to have the resource. Another one would be dogs in and
out of the door first. My thought on that is it has
nothing to do with dominance. I mean, to me, I I if you let
your dog out the door first, I don't there's no dominance
issue. I think dogs running through
doors is dangerous so I don't allow.
I teach my clients to not let a dog run through the door for two

(24:08):
reasons. One, if it's the front door and
they get hit by a car, obviouslythat's not good and it's
annoying and dangerous If you'regoing.
If you open like your sliding glass door and your dogs come
charging and like shove their way through, that's annoying and
dangerous. So I stop all of that.
But it has nothing to do with dominance.
It's just safety and annoyance. I don't want my kid walking
through the door and an 80 LB dog like tries to wiggle through

(24:31):
and smash their way between them.
They have to wait their turn. But I apply the same rules.
Can you imagine? Like I wouldn't want.
I don't let my kids, one of themlike charge past the other kid
and smash their way through the door.
That'd be pretty rude. So to me, nothing to do with
dominance, it's just like that'snot something we allow.
Now, funny enough, I I go back and forth.
So when it comes to like a sliding door or backyard door or

(24:56):
something like that, I'm always the first one in in case I have
to catch them to do something right, You know, like wiping
paws or something like that. But I'll be honest with you, if
I'm going for a walk and we're going through the front door,
I've stopped them from just plowing through the door or
breaking the barrier. But I mean, they go 1st every
single time because it's, it's annoying for me to have to get

(25:19):
them out when I'm turning aroundto lock the door.
I don't know, getting them out first really helps.
What I would tell a client, it'snot about first or second, it's
are they being polite? Yeah, for sure.
So I could care like because a lot of times when I open a door,
I expect my dogs to not run through it when it opens.
So if I open the back door, theydon't just race out, they wait

(25:39):
there and until I tell them free.
And most of the time I'm not going out there with them.
So it's not like I walk out first and then tell them free
and now they come out. But I just want to me once
again, nothing to do with dominance.
It's just I don't want the dogs smashing through each other
trying to get through the door as you're open it to me is
annoying and it's asking for danger.
What you're describing, I know your dogs are calm, right?

(26:02):
So for a client, if they said can I go for a walk and let my
dog through the door first, I would say yes, if it's done
correctly. And then we'd talk about what
that looks like, right? It would not be.
You open the door and they pull instantly out the door.
Right jump. Out there, if I have a client
who says that they always go first because of dominance, it's
a. It's a a battle I don't even

(26:22):
bother having a conversation about.
I'm just like, yeah, that's a good idea and just leave it at
that. And I think that's fair, right?
Because it's not going to do anything to negatively impact
the training, right? I mean, it's, it's another thing
that they've taken on to focus on.
But it doesn't matter one way oranother.
So yeah, sometimes it's not worth having to go for it.

(26:45):
So now going back to, you know, my point about agreeing with
force free trainers on some of this, anyone who calls
themselves a dominance based trainer is an idiot.
Like there's there's no way around that, right?
So I, I can't imagine saying I'ma dominance based trainer.
So if you I believe that dominance exists, but if you

(27:06):
said, hey, there's this trainer who calls himself a dominance
based trainer, I would say I probably wouldn't get along well
with that person. They sound like they're probably
a jerk and maybe some of them aren't.
Maybe it's marketing fluff, I don't know.
Maybe they think their clients like it.
But to me that would be nuts because the way I've heard
people describe like what a dominance based trainer does, if
it's true, is pretty stupid, right?

(27:27):
They're doing all these things we just talked about and the
idea of alpha rolls, which I don't think we need to spend a
lot of time on. I've heard people say like you
should alpha roll your dog, which for people listen, if you
don't know what it is, it's likerolling your dog on the back
into a submissive position. And I've heard people say that
dominance based trainers, I don't know if anyone actually
does this, but they do that frequently to just establish

(27:48):
control that they can do that. If they're really doing that,
I'm like rolling the dog and pinit on the back.
That's weird. That's absolutely bizarre.
That makes no sense. Doesn't mean there aren't times
like I teach dog settle. I want them to be on their side
when I clip their nails and do different things to make sure
they allow me to do it. And a new dog who's, you know, a

(28:09):
certain assertive dog who's likea 18 month old rot, If you're
trying to teach them that, it might be kind of hard, they
might be pissed about it. So I don't have any issue with
putting dogs on their side or back.
But like, this idea of like, randomly doing it as a show of
dominance, that's bizarre. Absolutely bizarre.
I am glad that you put the caveat out there though.

(28:30):
The fact that it, it could be marketing fluff, right?
I mean. It might be, yeah.
For all we know, it is a rational person who's trying to
set themselves aside from a saturated market of balance
training or just not force free training, you know, positive,
pure positive. And they thought that, hey man,

(28:51):
you know, I got to set myself aside and apart and this is a
good way to do it. I don't think it's a good
marketing strategy, but that doesn't mean that they're crazy.
That would be it's very similar to to the studies, right?
It's all connotation. It's and it's not that they're
necessarily saying the wrong thing, we just have an emotional

(29:13):
response to that word now. For sure.
And to that point overall of maybe they're just saying
dominance based. I mean, I do think that the
average force free trainer and the average balance trainer has
way more in common than they think they do and then way more
common than people think they doand others extremists on both

(29:33):
sides, obviously. But I think and and sometimes,
you know, we laugh and joke about the extremist force free,
right? But I don't think the average
force free trainer is really like that.
And I think they look at balanced trainers and they're
like every balanced trainer is like this dominance guy, right?
Who's like flipping dogs in the back and spitting in their food
and all this nutso stuff. And yeah, I did a first time

(29:55):
house call last night and I think of a force free trainer
that was there with me. They would have thought like, so
let me tell you what I did. It was a 4050 LB dog somewhere,
maybe 40. Heck can't go outside.
Clients don't have a fenced in yard, hasn't been to the vet in
quite a while. Can't go to the groomer because
if they try to put any harness on the dog, the dog bit them.

(30:15):
And the last time the owner wentto the hospital.
So real bites. They can't get anything on the
dog. They can't get the dog outside
because they can't get a leash on it.
So the dog is now going on pottypads in the house and hasn't
been outside of the house in months.
Like when I say not outside, like no walk, no time outside
whatsoever. And for listeners, don't shit on
the client here. That's not fair.

(30:35):
Like the person is trying their best, right?
They just what are you gonna do with the dog that bites you?
Right? Took a real bite.
Yeah, to the hospital for sure. And they wanna fix it, right?
So I showed up and we spent the whole lesson me showing them how
so I slip leaded the dog. It took a long time and I
explained could I go? Could I get this dog quickly?
Could I corner it, slip lead it and get it into a cage in 5

(30:58):
minutes? Sure.
Absolutely. Is that the right thing for the
dog? No right?
Of course not. But I could physically do it but
it doesn't mean I should. We spent a long time, I used a
lot of treats, I would toss treats and I worked on getting
the dog to where it would finally put its head near.
I used a slip lead and I could have slip leaded it after
probably, I don't know, 5 minutes.
I spent a solid half hour beforeI got the slip lead on the first

(31:20):
time because I didn't want to just pull it tight, have the
dog, you know, freak out and then now the next time he's
like, I'm on to you buddy. So I used a lot of treats,
finally got the slip lead on, walked the dog through the
house. At first was pretty resistant
and I used treats for a lot of that process.
Got the dog walking, then I tookthe slip lead off, you know, had
it off for a couple minutes and put it on again and did the same

(31:42):
thing again. We did that three times.
That was the entire lesson 0 corrections.
Never said the word no, no discipline.
Now it doesn't mean discipline doesn't have a place in
training, of course, right? But at this point it just didn't
make sense. And so I think if you asked the
average force free trainer, whatwould a balance trainer do in
that scenario, they would say, well, they would correct the dog

(32:03):
and you don't correct a fearful dog.
They'd put an E collar on them and they would scare them and
traumatize and they'd never get better.
And I mean, I would say anyone who would do that isn't a
balance trainer. They're an idiot trainer, right?
Balance. It means we're using opera, like
all, all parts of operant conditioning, right?
So I think sometimes the words we use, except for dominance

(32:26):
itself has been so overplayed that it comes between us.
So when a force free trainer hears it, they're like, oh, you
believe in dominance. I bet you pinned that dog down,
got it in the corner, slip leaded it, flipped it on its
back, held it till it peed itself.
And then you, you know, you won,so to speak, but now you've just
suppressed the behavior, then you let the dog up.
I think from what I've heard, a lot of force free trainers

(32:48):
believe that's what the average balance trainer would do.
And if that average balance trainer would do that, well, I
don't want to be associated withthem and I, I don't think they
would. I think that's an extremist.
So for everyone, and I'm curiousyour guys's thoughts on that.
But I really do believe we're much closer than we think on
average. And sometimes as we're dominance

(33:08):
kind of comes between us when atthe end of the day, all we're
saying is it's control. It's asserting some sort of
control. Animals do that.
It's like it's basic biology, right?
I mean, all humans do that. It's we don't need alpha, We
don't need alpha rolls. We just need some way to assert
control. Thoughts on that?

(33:30):
Every animal group that has a social structure right follows
the same hierarchy. I mean, it's just, that's just
how that goes. My big question from that is do
you think if we took the word dominance out of it and we used
social structure or hierarchy, right, And just said that every
group of animals, because again,let's forget about wolves for a

(33:52):
second, we're talking about dogsin a house.
You know, it follows some type of social structure.
There is a hierarchy. Do you think if we set it that
way, is everybody going to agreeor are there going to be people
who are like? No, I don't think we agree.
You know, I, I don't see, I, I see dominance as advertisement

(34:12):
and not a fundamental difference.
Really what I think it comes down to, and I agree with you,
Kavi, that 90% of what we do is positive reinforcement.
We're not pure positive because that word pure has meaning, but
we use positive reinforcement. But the 10% that we differ is

(34:36):
fundamental, right? And then the fundamental
difference is that we are willing to correct for bad
behavior, right? We praise good behavior and we
correct bad behavior. And for pure positive trainers,
that's a fundamental change thatwould kind of destroy the whole
ideology, right? You know, the second that they

(34:57):
start to correct a dog, they're no longer pure positive
trainers. They can't say that.
And if they do, which believe me, I've met a few and they're
not, they're not opposed to corrections.
They're opposed to advertising it, right?
They're opposed to saying it. They have to be hush, hush.
They have to be quiet. Like I agree with you that

(35:18):
corrections is the difference between us right at the end of
the day, like that's the big difference between the two
sides. I think 100% and a lot of the
other stuff is just noise. But I guess what I I'm just
wondering, so you still think that that we wouldn't agree that
there's some type of structure you think positive only would
say there's no structure and balanced trainers, dominance

(35:40):
trainers are saying there is a structure.
That's what that would be my point.
That would be the point that I would derive on it.
And what I what I would say is that again, because people like
to you don't tribalize themselves, right?
My side, your side, I think dominance is just used as

(36:02):
advertisement of like, Oh, well,you don't want those guys
because they're dominance trainers and they dominate your
dog. And nobody likes the word
dominate, you know, because again, it has a negative
connotation. Yeah.
And somewhat successfully, right.
I mean, they, they do get business because they can point
their fingers at at balance trainers and say they're

(36:23):
dominance trainers. And, and I think because there's
not a lot of trainers and on both sides, right, Because
there's not a lot of trainers that will actually, I don't
know, talk to each other or, or advertise that they're talking
to each other or anything like that.
You do get the, well, I think this about pure positive
trainers. And then pure positive trainers

(36:44):
think this about us when kind ofwhat Covey is, is pointing out
is actually we should both be pointing our fingers at idiots,
right? And like, there's idiots on both
sides and we should be able to call that out.
But I I really do think that but.
I still think, I think we could all.
I think there's common ground enough that I would say, I think

(37:05):
everybody would agree that there's some type of structure.
I would agree with that statement and I definitely don't
want anyone to mischaracterize what I said earlier.
There are differences for sure between force free and balanced
traders, right? And positive punishment is the
difference, right? 100% agree that in my mind, like
positive punishment has a place.I mean, it needs and you know,

(37:27):
if you're trying to stop a behavior, you can't use positive
reinforcement to like all you can do is try to create
something else, some other behaviors that is hard to do or
impossible to do at the same time.
But it's not that's not feasiblefor many things.
I think overall what I would sayis I can't remember the last
time I used the word dominance in a lesson with a client.

(37:48):
And I mean the. Reason I don't is it has a
loaded connotation, but it's also not that helpful because to
me, dominance is the ability to control.
So I just talk about control, right?
If your dog gets wild, we want away to control them, right?
Like, yeah, obviously if your dog is running off leash, right?
If your dog is running away off leash, you wouldn't be able to

(38:09):
control them verbally, right? Yeah, of course I do if your dog
is. But you know, if I'm called in
on food aggression and your dog is trying to attack you over
food, obviously one of the firstthings we want is control around
the food, right? You walk up, you say get back,
your dog gets back and they're like, yes, that's why I called
you. So to me, dominance doesn't even
need really disgust because it'sjust in my mind, the ability to

(38:31):
control others and everybody, orat least all my clients want the
ability to control their dog when needed, doesn't mean they
want to control every second of the dog's life they want.
And we always talk about, at least to me, training your dog,
the reason we train is to give more freedom.
Training is not to take freedom away.
Training is the getting them good enough and trustworthy
enough you can grant them more freedom.

(38:53):
So when you know you can controlat any point in time, then you
don't have to do it. If you know you can call your
dog off leash, then they can runaround and play and have fun and
you call them back when you needit.
So control does not mean they live their life like a, you
know, good little soldier. It means they respect you enough
and they're well enough trained to listen when you need them to.

(39:13):
Right? So I don't, I don't see any need
for the word dominance in in my day-to-day training at all.
I agree with that and where I was going if we could get people
to agree that there is a structure, right?
To me the next step is asking the question, so should the
humans be the breeding pair in the family structure right?

(39:35):
Which to me the answer is yes. Which then means that the human
should be in control and controlling the other dogs.
For sure. Yeah, 100%.
I mean, if I had a client that said I don't want to be in
control, then I would say, well,I don't think you need me.
You're good. You're already not in control.

(39:56):
Mission accomplished. Done. 5 minutes, we're finished.
We could get, do you think we could get a force free trainer
to agree to that point? A reasonable force free trainer,
well educated, reasonable 100%. I think if we a reasonable force
free trainer, if we said, do youagree that we need to have
control over the dogs 100%. I think where they would have

(40:20):
trouble admitting on a on a podcast for sure would be to
Nelson's point and what I said earlier about positive
punishment. It would be how do you assert
that control? I think they would say you, you
can't use positive punishment toassert control.
You could use negative reinforcement, you could do
other things, but you can't use positive punishment and that.

(40:41):
And that's where our difference would lie.
Doesn't that negate the point then?
You know, if I cannot influence you in a way that dogs care
about, right? Which is that if I continue to
do this naughty thing, eventually I will be corrected,
right? And again, let's the three of us

(41:03):
agree that dogs are more than willing to correct you when they
think you're not doing the rightthing, right.
And so it is a give and take. I think really you, you run down
to the fact that if you agree that there's a hierarchy,
somebody has to be at the top. And that fundamentally defeats
pure positive training, which isplease, I, I, I make my plea to

(41:29):
my dog to do a different behavior when he feels this.
But push comes to shove, there is no chef, you know, And so I
don't know, but I see it with people as well.
You know, like you guys said it,it feels like politics.
It feels, it feels like, like what normal politics is.
And so then I think back to Jordan Peterson.

(41:49):
I don't know if you guys know who that is, but he wrote a book
about social hierarchies and people went wild, right?
People, I mean, even the news went crazy on the fact that he
suggested that there is a hierarchy that we naturally fall
into. And so if we can't agree about
humans and, and we have so many young people saying I would

(42:12):
choose a dog over people anytimeand right, I mean just
hierarchies everywhere people are willing to forgo and for the
sake of emotion as opposed to logic.
And so could someone say that ifthey were very logical, yes,
absolutely. But if they were logical, I
think it defeats the purpose again.
I just think it's crazy when people try and suggest that

(42:34):
there's no hierarchy with humans.
Like go to any, any corporate meeting anywhere on the world
and you're going to see that there's a hierarchy in that
meeting. Absolutely.
One person's going to be leadinglike, and other people are going
to be following like. I just, I don't, I don't get how
anyone can say there's not. And it can be with anything,

(42:56):
right? I mean, it could be Pokémon
cards, you know, like there's so.
I did not see Pokémon cards. No.
Right? So let's stop for a second.
Let's back up a little bit, OK? Pokémon cards, playing cards,
Digimon, is he one? No, Digimon is a separate
entity. OK Charizard.

(43:18):
Charizard is a oh Charizard. GXI know about him.
They short him as well? Yep.
It's he's an evolution of Charizard if I remember
correctly. Very good.
Yep, Yep. Now let's say someone has AI
mean. I think we're old enough.
So let's say we're back in the 90s, right?
Like, let's say it's 9899. And are we still talking about

(43:40):
Pokémon? Cards.
Pokémon cards. Yep, and someone has a
holographic. Mantle was first, right?
I don't know. That's a good question.
I would think so. We've been playing Magic and not
Pokémon. No, I think you guys are crazy.
Maybe you guys, I don't know, I'm young enough that Pokémon
would have been the first real card game that I would have been
exposed to cuz magic. I think you're right, but that

(44:02):
was in the 80s, wasn't it? No way.
I don't know. I mean, magic is still.
When I was in like. It's and it's still going
junior. That's for sure.
I've seen cards at the store. Well, the Satanic scare and all
that stuff anyways. So how tie Pokémon into
dominance? I'm really intrigued.
I'd have no, I usually I feel like when you start talking, I'm

(44:24):
like, Oh yeah, I know where he'sgoing with this.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
So I'm pretty intrigued. So dominance being influenced,
right? If someone in 9899 had a
holographic Charizard card, he was the dominant person in any
group talking about Pokémon cards because he had the rare
and coveted. It's still rare to to this day.

(44:45):
I mean, that is still a status. It's influence.
And so you, it doesn't have to be strength, it doesn't have to
be aggression. But the fact of the matter is
dominance is influence. Dominance is authority.
And people would look up to someone who had a Charizard card
that was holographic and be likewhoa dude that guy knows
everything about Pokémon cards. Is that the card?

(45:08):
Is that the card Jake Paul had? Like on a giant chain.
Maybe because I think he did have one of the giant Pokémon
cards of that card made, so I think you're correct.
So let's let me play devil's advocate for a second.
Let me be the force free trainer.
I think what A and a well educated force free trainer

(45:30):
would say is, and maybe I'm wrong.
So if anyone who's force free islistening and you disagree, then
of course drop a comment. But I think what they would say
is, yeah, what? You're welcome.
We'd love to have you. I think what they would say is
there's control, right? Of course wolves are controlling

(45:50):
the younger ones. And anyone who's well educated
is is not going to deny that thewolves will control with a nip
from time to time. Like that's that's fact, right?
That's biology. I mean, it's just it's a fact.
So I don't think they would denythat someone who's well
educated, once again, I think what they would say is that's
how wolves do it. But we have a better way.
We have learned. And I think they would use the

(46:12):
term science. But we have learned through time
that we have a better way that we can do it without resorting
to a nip or a bite or a correction because we're humans
and we're smarter and we figuredout this better way of doing it
that doesn't require positive punishment.
And I think that's a fair that that makes sense, right?

(46:33):
That's a logical statement. My issue with that would be
because if we have a better way,like we are smarter than dogs,
why could we not invent, invent a way that's better than the way
wolves communicate a lot? I mean, I could see that
happening. What I would say to that though,
is if that was the case, balancetraining wouldn't exist.
If like if everyone could just fix every dog with pure

(46:57):
positive. I mean, who likes correcting a
dog? I mean, like if someone gets off
on that, they're a wacko, right?Like who likes disciplining
their deviant behavior for sure.And like I don't spank my
children, but like, who likes disciplining a child?
Like I think nobody, it sucks, right?
But it's just a necessary part of life.
And same with dogs. And if if it worked, if you know

(47:20):
purely positive worked in every single scenario, balance
training would go away on its own and you wouldn't have to ban
tools. You wouldn't have to try to ban
the tools because nobody would use them because who you and
you, you always say Nelson, purely positive is a feel good
product. And that's true, right?
It feels good, right? Who doesn't want to just, like,
reward all the time? That's awesome.

(47:41):
And clients like to be told thatyou don't ever have to
discipline your dog. If it worked in every scenario,
every trainer would do that and that's all that trainers would
do and balance training would disappear.
The reason it's not disappearingand the reason they're trying to
ban tools is because it works really, really, really well.
Balance training and purely positive can work for some dogs,

(48:02):
but it's not going to fix all ofthem.
And that's why balanced trainersget so many dogs that have
flunked out or, you know, failedother training programs because
they needed some sort of discipline.
So I think to me, both types of training have their place.
Like if I could ban force free training, no way.
I have no interest in like, trying to ban force free

(48:22):
training. Do your thing, do your training,
and if you can have success and the client's happy and the dog's
good, more power to you. But if the dog's not doing well,
how about instead of saying you need to euthanize it because it
can't be fixed, you'd send them to a trainer who deals with a
lot of aggression and let them do their thing?
Right. So that that was going to be my

(48:43):
point, right. The fact of the matter is that
positive reinforcement is very effective for what it does and
so effective that balance trainers use it.
I use it all the time. It is it is literally the
majority of what I do, right, ispositive reinforcement the I

(49:03):
guess not the hard part, right? For any educated, honest, pure
positive force free trainer, youknow, whatever it is that they
kind of go by the I would lead them down the down the trail,
right? Like where does that go to?
And so two things that come to mind for me, right?
One, we're humans, we're smarter, therefore we, we found

(49:26):
a better way. But just being smarter doesn't
necessarily mean that you're effective, right?
And so yes, if how many? Times have humans destroyed
nature because we're smarter. For sure, yeah, absolutely.
But even even just to kind of bring it back to something that
people could understand, like ifElon Musk tried to explain

(49:47):
Bitcoin or some really tough subject for to me, he's too
smart. He wouldn't be able to do it.
He wouldn't be able to dumb it down enough for me to actually
understand it. And that though he's smart, he's
ineffective right in that range.And so the whoever is smartest
doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be able to be
effective when there is an effective way that we don't have

(50:11):
to change anything about dogs. They just naturally understand
because animals naturally understand, you know, rewards
and punishment, how the world works.
But then the other thing too is like, man, if you, if you have a
pure positive trainer who says, Hey, we, you know, we found this

(50:34):
this way to do it that we don't actually need any force.
Walk it, walk it down. And like, where does it lead to?
It leads to euthanasia or punishments, right?
And, and there's really no otherway to achieve your goal.
If you have a dog who is not willing to obey, right?

(50:56):
You know what, without correction, if they're not food
motivated, then you know, and I've heard this.
So this isn't just me. This isn't me saying this,
right? But you know, you have the dog
not eat until they're hungry or more than they are scared or
they are hungry or more than they are stubborn.
And that way you can use treats.But that I mean, that's not

(51:18):
necessarily punishing a behavior, but that's pretty
brutal too, you know what I mean?
I'd rather just tug a collar then have to starve a dog out,
you know? But then the other thing too,
and we hear this all the time ishey, because my treats didn't
work, your dog is irredeemable. Let's put it down.
Yeah, that's the the one of the few times I get very angry and

(51:39):
frustrated with, with purely positive.
And, you know, and without getting too deep in the weeds,
you know, a lot of times, you know, they'll say positive
punishment is bad, right? It's stressful, it's aversive.
So one thing I think is worth thinking about is that aversive,
and we've talked about this on the show.
It's in the, the term aversive is what's aversive to the dog,

(51:59):
right? That's all that matters.
It doesn't matter if you consider it aversive.
Does a dog consider aversive? And withholding food can be very
aversive to some dogs and to a purely positive trainer or first
free they might say well that's OK because that's not physically
aversive. But if the dog considers it
worse than a tug on the leash, then isn't that worse?

(52:21):
Like why does it matter if it's physical or mental?
If the dog considers it worse then it's worse and it's a
bigger aversive. So to me, I don't think we
should get caught up on is this aversive mental or physical?
It's how does the dog react to it?
How do they feel? And obviously you don't want to
be too aversive. You don't want to have a really

(52:41):
hard physical correction that scares the dog.
But you also don't want to withhold food in a way or pull
it away in a dog that create pull it away from the dog in a
way that creates a massive amount of stress.
Some dogs would bite when you know food is being withheld or
taken away, that tells you it's pretty darn aversive to that
dog. So I, I think that the
distinction between physically aversive and mentally is a silly

(53:04):
distinction. It's how is the dog?
Let's let's think about how the dog's feeling.
And that's to me, the relevant part.
So overall I think my mic drop moment would be if someone is
just convinced Dominus doesn't exist I would ask him and one of
you guys want to play the extremist right now who just

(53:24):
says dominance doesn't exist at all.
Sure. Who is it?
You. I'll be it.
I'll be. The OK, so we've talked for a
long time, dominance, you say this doesn't exist.
Does submission exist? No.
You don't think submission exists?
So if you see. Oh, I'm not talking.
No, no hierarchy. I've removed that from the
conversation. No hierarchy.

(53:46):
But like a puppy, you know, you've never seen a submissive
puppy that rolls over to its momand shows its belly and has its
tail low. What does it mean when a dog's
tail is low in wagging? I just think that's affection.
That's just being affection. Nobody would.
Nobody would say that. Give me the real answer.
What belly? Rubs force free trainers 100%

(54:07):
believe in submission. Sure, I would agree with that.
So I would say that yes, don't be.
You can dominate a dog and that's how I would put it.
If I were a force free trainer Iwould say that you can dominate
and put down a dog and that's when they'll show submissive

(54:29):
behaviors because you broke. Their So what I would say is,
and I don't think a reasonable purely positive person would say
submission doesn't exist. It obviously exists.
We see it constantly, right? And you know, if you read books
by purely positive trainers, they agree submission exists,
right? Submissive tail wag.
They use the word submissive tail wag when a dog approaches

(54:50):
you with his head low and you know that's a submissive
approach. Like they use the word
submissive all the time. And what I would say to them is,
well, what's the opposite of submissive?
Everything has an opposite, right?
It has to. What's the opposite of
submissive? Trying to find it best.
Trying to find the best word, right?

(55:13):
But it would be, it would be dominance.
And I don't, and I again, I wouldn't try to like, and
obviously I don't fight with random people about this.
I don't like try to, I wouldn't fight the like.
You say dominance right now, butuse whatever words you want,
right? Submissive.
And they, they agree that they're submissive dogs.
And that's why I truly believe the reason they don't, they say
dominance doesn't exist. It's because it's been

(55:34):
overplayed by wackadoo balanced trainers.
You know why I wouldn't even call them balanced wackadoo
dominance trainers. So then they just have to say
doesn't exist because clearly submission exists.
Clearly that dog is submissive to something.
What is it submissive to? Something it considers more
dominant than itself. And it could be more assertive,
more controlling, more whatever,whatever words you want to use.

(55:57):
But everything has an opposite, including submission.
And I'll throw out there, I, I do think a lot of positive only
trainers would suggest that a balanced trainer is going to
want the dog to look submissive,right?
Like I think that's what they feel like we want.
But to me, that's the furthest thing I want a dog to look like,

(56:20):
right? I want them to just act normal.
I don't want them to be acting dominant and I don't want them
to be acting submissive. Just being normal in the middle,
listening and paying attention. Yeah, I think that's a good
point. Yep.
And my only pushback on that would be if the dog has done
something wrong and you'd stop them.
You want them to show that they hurt you.

(56:41):
You don't want them to just walkoff wagging their tail.
You want them to look at you fora second, like, OK, understood,
ears go back a little bit, whatever.
Some sort of change in that moment.
But generally speaking, yeah, you're not looking for your dog.
They did. It wrong.
Yeah, and you don't want them toshow submission all the time.
None of us want that. You want a dog to just be a dog,
Be happy, do their thing. And so much so that we test for

(57:02):
that stuff when they're puppies,right?
There's there's these dogs are more submissive, these dogs are
more dominant, and these dogs are more even keeled.
And generally, people are going for the even keeled.
Well, if you don't believe in dominance, you have to throw out
the whole Volhard Puppy aptitudetest.
That's true you. Got to throw out a lot of
literature. Yeah.

(57:22):
All right. Well, I think that's enough for
today. Any last points either of you
guys want to get in? All right, thanks for watching
everybody drop comments if you have them.
If you're force free and you disagree with anything we said
or we mischaracterized your position, tell us.
We'd absolutely love to hear it.Definitely.
Thanks. All right, Thanks for watching.