stirder said:
they are only irrelevant when used in the wrong context.
That's the point. They are so universally bandied about incorrectly that they have become dangerously misleading. We need to stop trying to sound like dog behaviour "techies" and just be as accurate and easily understandable as possible. The whole point of talking about training is to make it possible for people to gain knowledge and use it effectively.
I wonder how many good dogs end up in shelters or put down because some idiot pronounced "that dog has aggression issues" instead of being more accurate and explaining that the dog is fearful, or defensive or guarding . . . A truly aggressive dog is a rare thing.
Dominance can be accurate when used to describe the relationship between dogs, but not the relationship between dogs and humans. Dogs learn love and respect for their people - all this crap about having to "dominate" a dog is babbling twaddle. Trying to put something like that into practice results in a fearful, confused dog. That's just not how they understand their relationships with us. Sometimes I'm sure they understand much more than we do and cut us an awful lot of slack for some of our idiotic notions.
And dogs are not wolves. That whole alpha concept is only somewhat applicable to some dogs - and only when dealing with other dogs. The relationships are very subtle, and domestic dogs living with humans don't have to depend on each other for survival, negating the necessity for much of the social structure found in wolves and other feral canines. There are some similarities, but it's not the same.
