# alpha, beta and omega dogs



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

on a different thread, I had mentioned that i try to make oinest feel equal to all members of our household….and nevertheless, he respects me as leader.

one person reacted by saying if oinest is not made to feel lowest in the hierarchy, he will not view me as leader.

i would like to present my philosophy on this issue, based on much reading and thinking

in the wolf pack, there are three basic levels in the hierarchy:
1)	an alpha male and female
2)	the beta wolves
3)	the lowly omega wolves

recent research has presented interesting new observations regarding the alpha and beta relationship.
the alpha leader will often let a beta wolf eat first, if he knows the beta needs it more.
there is also a surprising amount of affection shown by alphas to the betas.

the betas seem to have a status similar to children in a human household (or the way it should be):
as long as the betas clearly respect the leadership and authority of the alphas, all is well.
(the betas, actually, are usually offspring or siblings of the alpha pair.)

when there are new litters, the betas compete to be involved in the loving upbringing of the new pups.

the omegas, on the other hand, are quite an abused bunch.
they seem to fill some needs of the pack (they are “watch-wolves”, warning of strangers, although waiting for the alpha to decide how to handle the situation.)

however, all the beta wolves make them feel like dirt.
often, the omegas can’t take it anymore, become “lone wolves”, and eventually try to start their own family.

anyway, in every dog litter, there seems to be the equivalent of an alpha, an omega, and a beta.
the omegas are very intimidated by the alphas and try to avoid them.
however, the omegas love to play with the betas, who often let them win wrestling matches.
the betas are also spirited enough to play with the alpha pup.

many experts recommend choosing (by various signs and tests) the beta pup out of a litter.
they have a healthy combination of low dominance and confidence.

subsequently, treating them as an “equal” in your household is a natural feeling for them, similar to the beta wolf’s status in the pack.
as long as the head of household manifests calm assertiveness (as Cesar Milan says), they will not try to dominate others in the household, as long as they too are treated with beta respect.

interestingly, the only person who comes in our home, and oinest treats with disrespect, is the Mexican cleaning lady. 
(btw, she loves us for the dignified way we treat her, but oinest must still sense her “omega” status.)

to ensure this type of ideal beta personality, it is also good to first look for a breed that generally manifests a beta personality.
retrievers (many setters and spaniels, and the beagle among others) are good examples.
they were bred to be submissive and responsive to their hunter-owners…to have a soft mouth and not be possessive of the retrieved bird…but they also need to be bold and ready for adventure.

if an owner, on the other hand, treats his dog like an “omega”, lowest in the hierarchy of the household, the pooch might very well display some of the negative traits of the omega wolf:
fearfulness, insecurity, jealousy of new babies, etc.

obviously, if one has a dog from a dominant breed, or a dog with an alpha personality, or a dog that has had abusive or improper upbringing, the methods and relationship would have to be customized for that specific situation.

btw, it is ok if you disagree with some or much of the above…or if you have had success with a different approach.
a polite challenge and discussion is welcome.
this is just food for thought…my approach.
for some of you, there might be nothing new here.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

What recent research are you referring to?

Why would comparing *wild* wolves to *domesticated* dogs be a relevant argument?


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

CURBSIDE PROPHET:
What recent research are you referring to?

RESPONSE: if i have the time, i will try to find the articles that i have read on the internet...i don't do it as a scholar researching a thesis, so i don't record the sources for later use.
---------------------

CURBSIDE PROPHET:
Why would comparing wild wolves to domesticated dogs be a relevant argument?

RESPONSE:
it is a recently proven fact that dogs are just wolves that have been domesticated...wolves stuck in the adolescent emotional stage...the only major DNA difference is that dogs don't go through certain hormonal changes at sexual maturity, which turn wolves more skittish and aggressive.

therefore, much of the instinctual behavior of the wolf is quite relevant to domesticated dogs.
the extent of that relevance is debated.
however, many experts consider it very relevant.

and for the better: the recent research has indicated the benefits of accentuating the loving and affectionate aspects in wolf relationships, especially that of the benelovent alpha.

previous conclusions from past research, which stressed a more dominant "alpha" role of the dog owner has been shown to be incorrect.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Actually, based on what I've read- the Dutchers had some good research on wolves there are many more than alpha, beta, and omega. There's an alpha pair, then a beta, then some mid ranks, juveniles are another group, then the omega. The mid ranks have some hierarchy within the pack as well. The omega takes a lot from the other wolves, but it really depends on who is omega. Certain personalities seem to take it better than others. Omegas are also the wolves that seem to instigate a lot of the play with the others and are very vital to the pack's existence. The pack will also be very caring towards their omega at times. A life at the bottom of the pack is generally better than a life on one's own. 

Wolf behavior is sort of applicable to dogs, but as you've said dogs are much like wolves stuck in puppyhood. Based on my experience of having a 'pack' there are definite rankings between my group. There is a definite lowest ranking dog here and everyone knows it. But they all take great care of him and are very sensitive towards him. They watch his back. 

But I don't think wolf packs are exactly the way to look at things when training and figuring your relationship with your dog. My dogs and I are buddies, but I am 'leader'. I don't use the term alpha. I just strive to be a gentle leader, but a leader nonetheless. I don't worry about treating my dogs as 'omegas' or 'betas'. I just treat them as my friends and companions, but they are expected to listen to me.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Laurelin, i don't disagree with anything you said.

one clarification...i consider my children to be equal to me in terms of dgnity...but i am still their leader.
when i say i treat oinest as an equal, it doesn't me i or others don't assume a leadership role.
what it mostly means is that he is a cherished member of the family, and i want him to feel that his needs are as important as anyone elses.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> it is a recently proven fact that dogs are just wolves that have been domesticated...wolves stuck in the adolescent emotional stage...the only major DNA difference is that dogs don't go through certain hormonal changes at sexual maturity, which turn wolves more skittish and aggressive.


Fact? I'll need that reference too. Dr. Erik Zimen attempted to socialize wolf pups past 19 days...he's never succeeded. So if the Mesolithic people were able to do this, I'd like to know how they were able to keep their limbs.



> therefore, much of the instinctual behavior of the wolf is quite relevant to domesticated dogs.


In _The Handbook of Applied Behavior and Training, _Steven Lindsay says this...


> A long history of domestication behaviourally segregates dogs from wolves, and one must take care not to overly generalise between the two canids in terms of their respective motivations and behaviour patterns.





> the extent of that relevance is debated.
> however, many experts consider it very relevant.


I see dogs as far removed from their ancestors as we are from ours.


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

dog-man said:


> CURBSIDE PROPHET:
> it is a recently proven fact that dogs are just wolves that have been domesticated...wolves stuck in the adolescent emotional stage...the only major DNA difference is that dogs don't go through certain hormonal changes at sexual maturity, which turn wolves more skittish and aggressive.
> 
> therefore, much of the instinctual behavior of the wolf is quite relevant to domesticated dogs.
> ...


I don't think many people argue the difference in temperament, drive, and other innate characteristics between the Toy Poodle and the GSD, much less the Toy Poodle and the working GSD or Malinois. If there is that much difference in these innate, genetic characteristics (drive, sharpness, hardness etc) in two breeds imagine how much between sub species.

As a buddy of mine puts it, the least wolfish wolves were chosen as the first attempts of domestication, then the least wolfish of their pups were bred in order to create the dogs we know today.

And as far as I know the skittishness that many wolves (and wild animals at large) show is due to a shorter, much more ingrained fear period experienced from between birth and twelve weeks. Feral dogs that miss this "critical period" are often very difficult to ever truly domesticate.



Curbside Prophet said:


> I see dogs as far removed from their ancestors as we are from ours.


Meaning one wouldn't study Orangutans and then apply the that to analyze human social interactions I assume.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Prophet, you raised a few challenges.
i'll start with one, although i'm not sure exactly which points of mine you are challenging.

first of all, recent DNA tests have proven that the dog is a wolf.
do you need references on that?...it has been discussed in many scientific journals and tv shows.

as far as the process of domestication, the research of the Siberian scientist Dmitry Belyaev with wild foxes has shed much light on likely scenarios.
his experiment was to breed only the least aggressive foxes out of each litter.
within 20 years, there were quite a few generations.

not only did the foxes start to develop floppy ears, hormonal changes brought about white patches.
the skittish, aggressive foxes eventually produced tail-wagging, affectionate pooches.
it seems the mere breeding for non-aggression caused hormonal changes.

the exact process by which ancient man began to do this domestication is debated....whether with puppies, or low-agression adults by the human garbage dump is a matter of specualtion.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

rvamutt said:


> Meaning one wouldn't study Orangutans and then apply the that to analyze human social interactions I assume.


Exactly, it's wishful thinking at best. 

You mentioned feral dogs which reminded me of the book _The Dingo in Australia and Asia _by Laurie Corbett. Corbett says this...


> In a practical sense, the progeny of a long line of domesticated animals will "automatically" perform the activities required by its human owner, whereas the tamed progeny of a wild animal requires retraining (retaming) with every generation. Thus, it is theoretically impossible to domesticate a wild animal and maintain its natural behaviour patterns, because two genetic makeups are involved and an animal has to follow one pattern or the other.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Actually, genetically dogs are much much closer to wolves than we are to anything. In fact many scientists consider dogs to be a subspecies of gray wolf. And orangutans aren't our ancestors at all so that's a really bad comparison. 

Dogs and wolves are a valid comparison to an extent but I wouldn't base any of my dog training on watching a wolf pack.

ETA: Depending on the method of defining species you personally ascribe to, dogs can and are considered the same species as the wolf.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> i'm not sure exactly which points of mine you are challenging.


Let me restate it then... How is the comparison of *WILD *wolves to *DOMESTICATED *dogs a relevant argument?



> first of all, recent DNA tests have proven that the dog is a wolf.


If my dog were intact, why would she have two heat cycles per year and not 1 like wolves do. If my dog *is* a wolf, why doesn't she hunt like a wolf does. If my dog *is* a wolf, why does she look to me (another species of animal) for direction? A dog is not a wolf. Dogs do not behave like wolves, and if this is the basis of your argument, then apples taste like chicken is my argument. 



> do you need references on that?...it has been discussed in many scientific journals and tv shows.


Why is it being discussed? If it's fact, what is there to discuss? You're asking me to provide an answer that hasn't been determined as fact? 

Our closest relative is the Bonobo. I believe we share 96% of our DNA with Bonobos. But if you're going to say the Bonobo's success is 96% of ours, I'll have to laugh because you can't be serious. 



> as far as the process of domestication, the research of the Siberian scientist Dmitry Belyaev with wild foxes has shed much light on likely scenarios.


Good point, and I hope you took note of how Belyaev never mentioned any reduction in teeth size, or skull size, or brain size. If these traits were part of the wolf to dog's drastic change, I may have to change my argument. Unfortunately, since these traits didn't occur, I'm still allowed to discriminate between the effects of natural selection and artificial selection.



> his experiment was to breed only the least aggressive foxes out of each litter.


That was the intent of the experiment, however, if you look at how the experiment was conducted, all he really bred for was flight distance, not tameness. 



> not only did the foxes start to develop floppy ears, hormonal changes brought about white patches.
> the skittish, aggressive foxes eventually produced tail-wagging, affectionate pooches.
> it seems the mere breeding for non-aggression caused hormonal changes.


This is merely an example of what occurs in artificial selection. It does not explain the pressures involved to change skull size, teeth size, brain size. I believe these morphological differences can only be accounted for through natural selection, not artificial selection, over a long period of time, and I can't say the animal that went through this morphological change was a wolf. He may have been a descendant of the wolf, but he was not a wolf as you claim.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

i have not read the book, but i have read various articles:

The Loved Dog, by Tamar Geller

she uses her research on wolf behavior to understand effective methods of raising a well-adjusted dog.

------------------

Prophet, there is nothing left to discuss regarding dogs being wolves.

the 4% difference you mention by bonobos and humans is huge in terms of genetics...the difference with dogs and wolves is so neglible that it is now considered proven fact by scientists.

many of the behavioral differences between wolves and dogs is based on the fact that dogs are wolves stuck in "adolescence".

so, if you want to understand dogs, you focus more on the nature of adolescent wolves.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

dog-man said:


> anyway, in every dog litter, there seems to be the equivalent of an alpha, an omega, and a beta.
> the omegas are very intimidated by the alphas and try to avoid them.
> however, the omegas love to play with the betas, who often let them win wrestling matches.
> the betas are also spirited enough to play with the alpha pup.
> ...


Not sure how many litters you've observed or what breed but I got a female pup and all in her litter were dominate. The breeder said all are alpha. Anyway she is an alpha pup so far. In some litters I see there are different ranks. Sometimes a couple who wish to be alpha. My alpha bitch had the alpha attitude since she was a pup. She is a true alpha. I've had others that were dominant but not alpha. In one litter there were 2 which acted as omegas but only 1 did within the "puppy pack" the other didn't there but did towards the adults females. She was a complete omega with the adults and older pups. She would act more submissive, she would roll on her back to try and play and she would jump up at their mouths and rolls and flip and lick at their muzzle. 

What do they recommend to do with the omega and dominant ones? Cull them or what?

I think breeds are also different. I don't have a problem taking a dominant pup because they will still be submissive towards me, the dominance towards other dogs can be worked with, as long as they will listen to me. They can be extremely dominant but shouldn't be with humans. One that isn't dominant might be easier for some because of them being challenging towards other dogs, thats the only reason I can think of.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

this happens to be a quote in wikipedia, but you can find a wealth of articles, based on the DNA discoveries of Mr. Vila.
other articles discuss the extremely close DNA makeup, even today.

Prior to the use of DNA, researchers were divided into two schools of thought:

1) most supposed that these early dogs were descendants of tamed wolves, which interbred and evolved into a domesticated species. 

2) other scientists, whilst believing wolves were the chief contributor, suspected that jackals or coyotes contributed to the dog's ancestry. 

Carles Vilà of UCLA,[5], who has conducted the most extensive study to date, has shown that DNA evidence has ruled out any ancestor canine species except the wolf.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Fact? I'll need that reference too. Dr. Erik Zimen attempted to socialize wolf pups past 19 days...he's never succeeded. So if the Mesolithic people were able to do this, I'd like to know how they were able to keep their limbs.
> 
> In _The Handbook of Applied Behavior and Training, _Steven Lindsay says this...
> I see dogs as far removed from their ancestors as we are from ours.



Respectfully...

Terriers and Wolves and GSDs and Foxes and Boxers are ALL members of the same species, the Canidae Family.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Spicy,

i believe you are referring to pitbulls, which were originally bred for dominance.

if the bitch you were breeding was originally bred for dominance herself, and if she was mated with a male bred for dominance, it is no wonder that almost all the pups were dominant.

there are purposes for dominant breeds and dominant dogs...in the right hands with the right purpose, that is fine.

the recommendation to get a beta, is for ordinary family people, who want an easy-going, well-adjusted dog, that doesn't need a dog-behavior expert.

no, there is no recommendation of culling from me.
omegas and alphas are exactly the right dogs for some people.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> Prophet, there is nothing left to discuss regarding dogs being wolves.


This is true, since your argument is based on unsubstantiated "fact".



> the 4% difference you mention by bonobos and humans is huge in terms of genetics...the difference with dogs and wolves is so neglible that it is now considered proven fact by scientists.


And who's to say the difference between 99.9% and 100% is not a huge difference in terms of genetics?



> many of the behavioral differences between wolves and dogs is based on the fact that dogs are wolves stuck in "adolescence".


This is true if you believe dogs are wolves. However it does not explain the many, many differences between dogs and wolves. The only correct answer is you don't have the answer, and neither do I. 



> so, if you want to understand dogs, you focus more on the nature of adolescent wolves.


And why would I do that when I can compare dogs to dogs? I believe we can understand the social behavior of dogs without reference to wolves. The only thing that's been demonstrated to me in comparing dogs to wolves is that great harm can be caused through misunderstanding, especially in terms of the dog-human relationship. Only evidence that is empirical has value IMO.



Chris_Texas said:


> Respectfully...
> 
> Terriers and Wolves and GSDs and Foxes and Boxers are ALL members of the same species, the Canidae Family.


Respectfully back...
Bonobos and Humans and the Gorilla and Orangutans and Chimpanzee are all members of the same species, the Hominidae Family.



dog-man said:


> Carles Vilà of UCLA,[5], who has conducted the most extensive study to date, has shown that DNA evidence has ruled out any ancestor canine species except the wolf.


Did he rule out those that are extinct and have yet to be discovered?



dog-man said:


> i believe you are referring to pitbulls, which were originally bred for dominance.


So dominance is a character trait?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Okay, CP, everyone...

A 'family' is not a species. The Canidae family is all canines.... not a species. Nor are we the same species as apes. (I think it's more like 98% with Bonobos, but I could be wrong)

It is really hard to define a species. There are many many ways and it really is arbitrarily defined. One of the most prominent ways of defining one species from another is by breeding. Species are populations that can breed successfully with each other and produce viable offspring. Wolves and dogs can do this. It is now widely accepted that domestic dogs ARE genetically considered a subspecies of wolves.

Dogs used to be classed as _Canis familiaris_. And gray wolves as _Canis lupus_. dogs are now classed as _Canis lupus familiaris_, a subspecies of the gray wolf. 


This is relatively recent- within the last few years. (I heard this first in my evolutionary bio class 2 years ago). This is now widely accepted, though still debated. It's hard to distinguish the species line at this point between dogs and wolves.

ETA: Dogs and wolves have always been classed as the same genus as well- Canis. Sure, we're in Hominidae like the other great apes, but there's no other living members of our genus- ****.


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

I have always thought it interesting that people suggest that a term used to describe the relationship of two animals as it relates to a resource(dominant) is hereditary.

Dominance is a combination of an animals weaponry, propensity to violence, and drive to the specific resource. It is not a term that can be used to describe a specific animal with no context to other animals.


----------



## harrise (Jan 9, 2008)

Wait wait wait... A few days ago I thought dogs were whales. Now they're not wolves? I'm lost.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

dog-man said:


> so, if you want to understand dogs, you focus more on the nature of adolescent wolves.


Why wouldn't you just focus on dogs?


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Just a note here on the science first. Species and Family are different locations on the Scientific identification of anything. Kingdon, Phylum, Order, Family, Genus and Species. 

Humans and Bonobos are in the same FAMILY but are not in the same genus or Species. They cannot reproduce together and produce viable offspring. They are pretty far apart genetically. 

Wolves and Dogs are both Canis _genus_ but are NOT the same species. Canis familiaris and Canis Lupus. They can interbreed and produce offspring that can also reproduce. 

Being the same genus is often not good enough to be close enough genetically to produce viable offsrping. Equus caballus (horses) can breed with Equus asinus (donkeys) and produce either a mule (Horse Mother) or a Hinney (horse Father) but those offspring, while exhibiting external and internal sex organs and as adults, exhibit sexually mature behavior, often have sperm or ova that are not viable (are sterile). 

This argument, short of genetic mapping, would seem to indicate dogs are closer in their relationship with wolves _on a genetic basis_ than some other members of the same genus. Wolves and dogs are NOT the same species. They are the same genus. 

As to behavior, Patricia McConnell, in "The Other End of the Leash" has a large section of her book devoted to discussing Dominance and pack behavior in dogs (The Truth About Dominance). In this section she indicates that _dominance_ is not the equivalent of aggression in a hierarchy. .."Social Status isn't always just about the most powerful individual's taking charge, for hierarchies are more complicated that that. High status individuals are often dependent on the support of others in the group and can't maintain their position without it." 

She then goes on to explain that seeking status of leadeership varies greatly between individuals as not every individual wants the status of leadership and all the pit falls associated therewith. She notes that overt displays of submission are not always indications of a dog's position or a lack of desire to be a leader... a dog may show submission to a leader but then subvert that leader at her next opportunity. (Dogs truly are opportunists and it seems to extend beyond getting in the garbage!). 

Last, but not least.. a note to the OP and everyone else, be VERY CAREFUL of Wikipedia. This source, while undergoing some access changes, can have information changed by the uninformed or by those with an agenda. I believe Wikipedia is starting to change this, but up until very recently, if someone wanted to change the description of the moon from a "rocky satellite that orbits a planet" to a "green cheese puff dropped by the dragon god" they could do it. 

To the OP, please keep track of your sources. You take some things out of context and leave the rest of the statement for assumption which, upon reading, can be misinterpreted or misunderstood (which may be your intent or not). Please provide references. Anything else is merely your opinion which is anecdotal and neither fact based or scientific. 

Pack behavior, social hierarchies and the interaction of individuals within a social structure whther of the same species or of different species is extremely scientific. I ask you to please separate anectdotal observations from readings and name your sources. It would lend much credibility to your argument or stance if you did so. 

An anecdotal observation:
Wolves, in winter, when hungry, have been known to lure domestic dogs into their packs for the purpose of eating them.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

RVAMUTT:
I have always thought it interesting that people suggest that a term used to describe the relationship of two animals as it relates to a resource(dominant) is hereditary.

RESPONSE:
that is one of the reasons scientists are fascinated with the study of purebred dogs...traits such as dominance, aggression, etc clearly are hereditary.
the more you breed for it (or the opposite), it does get "fixed" to a large degree.
----------------

PROPHET:
your argument is based on unsubstantiated "fact".

RESPONSE:
i have already referenced the recent DNA discoveries of Professor Vila.
it is a mere matter for you to google his name for articles, and you will see that the scientific community is in full agreement with his basic premise.

the reason there is now so much discussion, is because the matter was of hot debate until about 10 years ago...but his DNA evidence has now closed the argument.
i suspect that you are still referencing literature from before his studies being disseminated.
there are still many open questions, however, regarding many aspects of what the process might have been.


----------



## JenTN (Feb 21, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> An anecdotal observation:
> Wolves, in winter, when hungry, have been known to lure domestic dogs into their packs for the purpose of eating them.


I fear one day they will do the same with the Dog Whisperer


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Just a general tip, not directed at anyone in particular:

If you're trying to make a compelling argument based on accepted scientific data, don't use TV or Wikepedia as your sources.

Personally, I do think my dogs are deserving of the same respect and consideration as my other family members. But equals? Not until they get paying jobs with benefits and start supporting ME.

Carry on. This is all semi-interesting.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

ROSEMARY:
Why wouldn't you just focus on dogs?

RESPONSE:
because there are very few places to study the pack dynamic of dogs...wild dingos is one very good exception.
assuming dogs are actually wolves, then there is much to understand in the instinctual hardwiring of the dog by study of the wolf.
-------------------------

ELANA:
Wolves and dogs are NOT the same species. They are the same genus. 

RESPONSE:
that is no longer true.
based on the evidence of Prof. Vila, the scientific community has changed its categorization.
it is now considered a subspecies.
the major difference between them, why it is even just a subspecies, is the hormonal changes at sexual maturity, which i mentioned before.

-------------------------

ELANA:
dominance is not the equivalent of aggression in a hierarchy.

RESPONSE: 
i agree with that...not sure how it was a challenge, if that was the intent.

------------------------------
ELANA:
To the OP, please keep track of your sources. You take some things out of context ...Please provide references. Anything else is merely your opinion which is anecdotal and neither fact based or scientific. 

RESPONSE:
if you believe i have taken anything out of context, you will have to provide me with specific examples, so i can respond.

as far as references go, i have already mentioned Tamar Geller, Prof Vila, the Siberian Scientist, and a statement from Wikipedia to back up some statements that were challenged.
regarding wolf pack behavior, there are lots of articles on the internet by respected experts that mention many of these observations.

if this was an academic setting, i would provide more "proof" for each statement.
but since it is more casual, i rely on the reader to look up some of the references themselves, if they are skeptical.
if there is a specific challenge, i will be glad to follow up with better references.

as well, much of what i have said is so well established that it would be ridiculous to cite references for every statement out of my mouth.

btw, with all its faults, i find Wikipedia, in general, to be an incredibly accurate and objective resource...i don't understand how it is done.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Laurelin said:


> A 'family' is not a species. The Canidae family is all canines.... not a species. Nor are we the same species as apes.


I was making light of the comment because I didn't see the significance to begin with. They are not the same species, that much is obvious. There are some who would even argue that each dog breed is its own species.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

> if this was an academic setting, i would provide more "proof" for each statement.


And if you are presenting an opinion, no proof is necessary.

When a statement is presented as fact, people are going to be looking for sources.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

WIKIPEDIA: 

A wolf-dog hybrid (also called a wolf hybrid or wolfdog) is a canid hybrid resulting from the mating of a wolf (Canis lupus) and a dog (Canis lupus familiaris). 
*The term "wolfdog" is preferred by most wolfdog proponents and breeders since the domestic dog was recently taxonomically recategorized as a subspecies of wolf. *-------------------------

i found this in a second...there are tons of articles by respected scientists that will repeat this over and over...
Prophet, if you doubt, do some googling and reading, before you keep on repeating the same statement that you believe they are not the same species.


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

And once again wikipedia is not a solid source. You seem to think dominance is hereditary. How would you define doimance?


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

RON: 
When a statement is presented as fact, people are going to be looking for sources.


RESPONSE:
i have already stated repeatedly that i will provide sources for things i call fact, if specifically challenged.
i have already provided some.

for example, i provided the name and basic experiment of the Siberian scientist, regarding the quick domestication of the fox.
i think the reader can google his name, and see if i am correct in my statements.
i am not going to do all the work, or copy/paste long articles on my posts.


----------



## JenTN (Feb 21, 2008)

WIKIPEDIA:


Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

If anyone can edit it, how is it so accurate?


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

And once again wikipedia is not a solid source.

RESPONSE:
no it is not a "solid" source.
but for the purposes of our discussion, i believe it solid enough to show that i am not pulling statements out of my pocket.

if you would like to challenge it, please provide me with your references.
Wikipedia is easy for all to reference.
if there is a strong challenge, i WILL go to original scientific journals.

going to the fenced-in dog park now with wife and pooch.
will respond to other statements later.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> i have already referenced the recent DNA discoveries of Professor Vila.
> it is a mere matter for you to google his name for articles, and you will see that the scientific community is in full agreement with his basic premise.


This isn't the first attempt by a scientist to try and link the wolf to the dog...it's not new. Nor is it the first attempt to use mitochondrial DNA to do it. There's a problem though that scientists have yet to clearly answer...how good is mtDNA data? 

Fossil evidence of dogs even 12 thousand years ago is minimal. There are very few findings that indicate humans had a hand in domesticating the dog. There is some evidence, but it can hardly be called conclusive. So, scientists want to use mtDNA to make the association. A fair enough approach but, if you're going to use a molecular clock like mtDNA you have to know with extreme precision how accurate it is, or it's not accurate at all. 

Despite the "fact" that Dr. Vila uses advanced techniques using mtDNA, he has not answered whether mtDNA runs at a constant rate. He has not answered why there are so few wolf haplotypes. He has not answered the plausibility famines, plaugues, mange, rabies, distemper that reduce variations. Nor has he answered whether mtDNA is constant for every population. So in essence, Dr. Vila, with all due respect, is only proving what we already know...the dog is a descendant of the wolf, but we still don't know in what way. Nor do I believe Dr. Vila would be so bold to call his work the end of the search. 

So in the way we humans branched away from our descendants, so too is the possibility our dogs did as well. We don't study Bonobos to understand how we should raise our children, so I ask again, why should we study wolves to understand how we raise our dogs? I know you can't answer that question because it ends your argument.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

JEN: If anyone can edit it, how is it so accurate?

RESPONSE:
fascinatingly, it is.
someone can put in a temporary inaccurate statement, but it is truly amazing how quickly it is corrected.

choose any subject that you know a lot about...look it up on wikipedia... and then see if you will agree with what i am saying.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

dog-man, feel free to express your opinions. Others will feel free to disagree, As long as it remains semi-civil, it's all good.

I'm not making fun here, but do you need some help with the







and







buttons? If so, you're not the only one. 

If you want to quote from multiple posts, click on







for all but the last one, then click on







for the last post you want to quote. Please edit out everything from the post you're quoting except the relevant portion, but be careful not to edit out the vB codes at the beginning and end.

Wikepedia is great fun and a handy reference. But it is a collection of conventional wisdom, not scientific fact.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

PROPHET:
why should we study wolves to raise our dogs? I know you can't answer that question because it ends your argument.


RESPONSE:
read Tamar Geller's book (at least some articles first to see if you are intrigued), and then see if you still have that question, or if it has at least been weakened.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Just from a quick search, Tamar Geller looks like just another trainer. It's like me using, say, Cesar Milan as an authority on why to look at wolves to raise dogs. Equally irrelevant unless you know her sources, because I assure you, Tamar Geller did not do the research herself.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> So in the way we humans branched away from our descendants, so too is the possibility our dogs did as well. We don't study Bonobos to understand how we should raise our children, so I ask again, why should we study wolves to understand how we raise our dogs? I know you can't answer that question because it ends your argument.


Thank you CP!

We do generalize societal hierarchies of other species to our own and to other species to help explain _existing_ behavior, but the nitty gritty of behavior within a species is specific. 

Add to this the complexity of one species (Humans) interacting with another species (dogs) and you have something extremely complex that no single study can adequately explain or discuss. 

Beyond that there is the complexity of the influence of environment (nurture) vs. genetics (nature) and locating that line where one stops and the other begins.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> ead Tamar Geller's book (at least some articles first to see if you are intrigued), and then see if you still have that question, or if it has at least been weakened.


I'm extremely intrigued by Tamar, but for obvious reasons.








My evolution as a male makes it hard to look past her extremely good looks, but why would I read a dog trainer's book to understand mtDNA? I will read her book, but I'm sure I'll find her research in mtDNA underwhelming.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Respectfully back...
> Bonobos and Humans and the Gorilla and Orangutans and Chimpanzee are all members of the same species, the Hominidae Family.


This turns out not to be the case. The primary definition of species is the ability to breed. Humans are members of the Species **** Sapiens in the family Hominidae. Humans cannot and never could breed with Chimps. 

Wolves and Pugs however, are in the same SPECIES -- they can interbreed and are no less fundamentally identical than, say, an African Pygmy and a Manhatan Bank Executive.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

dog-man said:


> going to the fenced-in dog park now with wife and pooch.
> will respond to other statements later.


You go to dog parks? 

I read somewhere that dogs that go to dog parks have a 67% chance of reverting to wolf-like aggressive tendencies and eating their entire families.

Actually, the dog park sounds like a good idea. I should load up my little pack and do the same thing.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Chris_Texas said:


> This turns out not to be the case. The primary definition of species is the ability to breed.


This is true but the definition doesn't end there. Their classification is also the result of other measurable differences in morphology. And wolves and dogs have significant morphological differences. But the animals classification, really, has no importance other than the legal implications...as in whether the animal needs protection.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I was making light of the comment because I didn't see the significance to begin with. They are not the same species, that much is obvious. There are some who would even argue that each dog breed is its own species.


No, it's not obvious that they're not the same species- at least genetically. That's why dogs are classified as the same species as wolves NOW. They used to not be, who knows if they'll continue to be in the future. Taxonomy is constantly changing and being redefined. 

All I'm saying is that dog-man's statement that dogs and wolves are the same species



> ELANA:
> Wolves and dogs are NOT the same species. They are the same genus.


Elana, dogs are not classified as _Canis familiaris_ anymore. If they were then they and wolves would be considered in the same genus but not the same species. Now domestic dogs are classed as _Canis lupus familiaris_. Wolves have always been _Canis lupus_. So now dogs and wolves share the same genus and species. 

The order is Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, subspecies... As of the most current scientific data and method of classifying, dogs and wolves are in fact the same species. There's really no way you can argue that. Whether or not you agree with the modern classification is something else.



Curbside Prophet said:


> This is true but the definition doesn't end there. Their classification is also the result of other measurable differences in morphology. And wolves and dogs have significant morphological differences.


There is no set way to define a species. It is not cut and dry. If you say morphological changes- well, dog breeds are very different looking from each other, aren't they? That's not enough. 

CP, just look up modern taxonomy. Wolves and dogs are in fact classed as the same species. You can't argue that they're not classed that way. It's a perfectly valid way of defining species- one that defines most other species in fact. It's debated amongst scientists but this is a fuzzy line. Are domestic dogs different enough to be a different species from wolves? Most scientists seem to think not.

ETA: I'm not trying to be rude, but for those of you who haven't taken bio or been in school in a while, you would have learned this differently- that dogs and wolves are not the same species. This didn't change until I was in college. Things are constantly changing. In fact now there's more than two types of elephants, did you know that? I didn't until recently.

ETA 2: I'm not trying to say that you should study wolves to apply training to dogs... it's not the same thing. However I am simply attempting to back up the claim that wolves and dogs are the same species *as of now.* As I've said, things constantly change...


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

dog-man said:


> RESPONSE:
> read Tamar Geller's book (at least some articles first to see if you are intrigued), and then see if you still have that question, or if it has at least been weakened.


Just thought I'd add this, since you repeatedly refer to this book.

I *have* read Tamar Geller's book, before I got my dog, and even then I found it an extreme waste of time. Most of the book is about her personal life and her feelings which, while nice, has nothing to do with learning about dog behavior. She sees some similarities between wolf and dog social behavior as she watched a wolf pack, but had no background from which to determine if what she saw really meant was she thought it does: they were just limited observations from which she drew interesting but unsubstantiated conclusions. 

IMO she is just another glorified "trainer to the stars", and while I applaud her use of positive training methods, I wouldn't go around citing her beyond that. 

She is, however, marginally better than Wikipedia. A new professor actually attempted to cite wikipedia to our classroom last term, and was nearly laughed out of the room. He won't be back. Any site that can change content from minute to minute without and sort of prefilter cannon be used as a viable source. It's one thing to say "I saw this on Wikipedia, thought it was interesting, and would like to discuss it", and another entirely to use Wikipedia as a source of facts.


----------



## caveman (Mar 16, 2008)

dog-man said:


> subsequently, treating them as an “equal” in your household is a natural feeling for them, similar to the beta wolf’s status in the pack.
> as long as the head of household manifests calm assertiveness (as Cesar Milan says), they will not try to dominate others in the household, as long as they too are treated with beta respect.
> 
> interestingly, the only person who comes in our home, and oinest treats with disrespect, is the Mexican cleaning lady.
> (btw, she loves us for the dignified way we treat her, but oinest must still sense her “omega” status.)


to the op,

i'm curious on this part of your post. i'm am not trying to start anything here either. 

do you think her "omega" status has anything to do with her race or her job status? just curious?

i think some animals just don't like some people period.

imo, it doesn't have to do with race,job status or if they "alpha,beta or omega"

i don't think it was fair to label her an "omega" status.

she could be the head of her household??

again, not trying to start an argument, just my opinion.


vaughn


----------



## JenTN (Feb 21, 2008)

caveman said:


> to the op,
> 
> i'm curious on this part of your post. i'm am not trying to start anything here either.
> 
> ...


I was wondering the exact same thing myself, but just held my tongue (or fingers I guess).


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Laurelin said:


> If you say morphological changes- well, dog breeds are very different looking from each other, aren't they? That's not enough.


Why it's not enough is what some want to exclude. the morphological differences in our dogs is the result of artificial selection, not natural selection. Someone explain to me why a 150lb St. Bernard has smaller teeth, skull, and brain than a 150lb wolf? You can only explain it in terms of natural selection, and any animal that's succumbed to this kind of pressure is not a wolf. 



> Are domestic dogs different enough to be a different species from wolves? Most scientists seem to think not.


Again, this isn't a new revelation. In 1982, J.H. Honacki suggested that the dogs named be changed to Canis lupus familiaris, to reflect on its descendant. What Honacki is saying is that our dogs are not far enough down the line to classify them much differently than wolves. I don't have a problem calling dogs a descendant of the wolf according to established nomenclature, but to call the dog a wolf has only gone to convolute the evolution of canine taxonomy. 

I have a problem with this, especially in terms of how the animal is protected, because the closer and closer we call dog a wolf, the less protection our wolves will have. That's all that's important in taxonomy and to our members of congress. It then begs the question, why should we try to combine political events with a favorite hypothesis about the origin of a species? And if you're a Darwinian evolutionist, well, all animals, including humans, have a common ancestor. So who really cares about the animals taxonomy other than what the legal repercussions will be? 

Personally, there's only one good way of thinking species...what niche did the animal adapt to? In this way you can segregate sexual isolation as a wolf does not have the same niche as our dogs. Wolves do not compete reproductively in the wild to live a symbiotic relationship with us, now do they?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

All your conjectures are well and good but how are you more apt to define a species than the majority of scientists now? Many ascribe to the biological species concept- that is a group of animals that can interbreed and offspring are viable are thus a species. 

First quote I think you mean artificial selection. 

Now, to say wolves and dogs are the same species is not to say a wolf is a dog or a dog is a wolf. They're separate subspecies. Modern nomenclature does in fact suggest that dogs are not far enough from wolves to be their own species. 

So since wolves do not compete with dogs in the wild to be with us, what about feral dogs? 

As I've said this particular classification has been very highly debated over time, but the current most commonly accepted system of taxonomy involving the domestic dog is that it is the same species as the wolf.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Tamar Geller did not do the research herself.
__________________
RESPONSE:
yes, she did extensive research with wolves herself.

Prophet, her work is not on DNA...it is with wolf packs.
yes, she gets my wolf hormones moving, too...not so easy at my advanced age.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Extensive? Wow. Could have had a lot of people fooled.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

EXPERIMENT:




RonE said:


> dog-man, feel free to express your opinions. Others will feel free to disagree, As long as it remains semi-civil, it's all good.
> 
> I'm not making fun here, but do you need some help with the
> 
> ...


i think i had success...thank you


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Just to clarify my stance...

I'm not arguing that dogs and wolves are the same thing or should be compared to each other. It's just the statement that they're not the same species that I don't agree with. According to certain methods of taxonomy they are. They are considered the same species today. I'm not saying I actually agree with that new classification but rather pointing up that it exists and is a valid classification by one of the more common methods of defining a species. 

Just pointing out to those unaware that the dog is now classed as _Canis lupus familiaris_. 

Whew.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Laurelin said:


> All your conjectures are well and good but how are you more apt to define a species than the majority of scientists now?


I gave you my position in stating the utility of the nomenclature. But I also have not denied our dog is a descendant of the wolf. What the nomenclature is, however, does not explain how two animals can occupy the same niche, as the wolf is a dog argument wants to. It's an ecological rule that they cant, and if the "scientists" are ignoring this (they aren't), that would be foolish, and it doesn't take an expert in the field to see that.

Just take the word "dominance" for example. It has a scientific definition too, and it is a fallacy to call dominance a character trait. Why it is called a character trait is because of silly notions that wolves are dogs, so studying wolves defines what dominance is in dogs. We've been down that path, and many dogs have suffered from this unsubstantiated notion of dominance theory. The OP is asking us to follow the same path of error, again, and I find this a futile exercise.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

caveman said:


> to the op,
> 
> 
> do you think her "omega" status has anything to do with her race or her job status? just curious?
> ...


yes, there could be other factors...when i brought it up, i noted it was interesting, not that it proved anything.

he actually likes her quite a bit...it is her initial appearance that gets him going every time...something he does not do with others that he likes and is used to...personally, i think it fits very well with the "omega" theory...but it is pure speculation, as you say.

it is her job in the house which makes me think he considers her an omega...she is actually quite a strong woman.
when her "husband" once hit her when drunk, she held him to the window (close to hanging out), letting him know what would happen the next time he tried it.
-------------------------------

it is possible that Tamar Geller is not to be taken too seriously.

i did not read her book, and i may have been fooled by her publicity people.

i referred to her, because it was an easily accessible resource, and i liked her use of wolf research to "prove" the benefits of being an affectionate "alpha".

i have read other articles on the subject of the wolf/dog connection, and how it relates to dog training.

as well, my own reading on wolves has provided me with tremendous feelings of insight to oinest and his friends, in ways that have proven to be effective.
nothing like success to make you feel correct.

if others have found success by studying dogs in other ways, that is fine with me.
i'm not sure where the resistance to using wolves to understand dogs is coming from, unless someone is saying it is the only way to proceed.

there are many experts who tout it...others may not.
i personally think it is obvious once the DNA evidence of the wolf-dog connection has been proven to be so strong.

obviously, people can draw wrong conclusions, based on incorrect observations or faulty conjecture...there are many variables to be considered.

trainers from 40 years ago used the wolf-dog connection to come up with wrong ideas about being a heavily dominant alpha leader to ones dog.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

dog-man said:


> it is possible that Tamar Geller is not to be taken too seriously.
> 
> i did not read her book, and i may have been fooled by her publicity people.
> 
> ...


So, just out of curiosity, why were you telling people to read her book as if it were full of important factual information when you yourself hadn't bothered to do so?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

So you're telling me that you think your dog knows what a house cleaner's job is and it's rank in human society values? (Not that I'm saying they are lowly people).


----------



## harrise (Jan 9, 2008)

... and I STILL say wolves and whales are NOT dogs. All of this would be quite moot if those dang scientists would actually study dogs. Pet dogs, I mean.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Shaina said:


> So, just out of curiosity, why were you telling people to read her book as if it were full of important factual information when you yourself hadn't bothered to do so?


first of all, when i first brought her book up in this thread, i said that i had not read the book.

i had read articles about the book, had gone to her web site, etc, and it fit in well with other things i have read from experts.

she seems responsible enough (isn't being Oprah's dog trainer enough for everybody?), and her message of affectionate leadership is one which i want to publicize.



RBark said:


> So you're telling me that you think your dog knows what a house cleaner's job is and it's rank in human society values? (Not that I'm saying they are lowly people).


yes...i THINK he does know it is considered low rank.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

dog-man said:


> first of all, when i first brought her book up in this thread, i said that i had not read the book.
> 
> i had read articles about the book, had gone to her web site, etc, and it fit in well with other things i have read from experts.
> 
> she seems responsible enough (isn't being Oprah's dog trainer enough for everybody?), and her message of affectionate leadership is one which i want to publicize.


I missed that you stated you hadn't read that book: if that's the case I apologize, though I still don't see recommending it without having read it.

You cited it as a source of information on the dogs as wolves thing, not as a positive training methods source, so I don't know how the second portion of your response has relevance. 

Being Oprah's trainer tells me nothing.



dog-man said:


> yes...i THINK so.


The only way your dog would think that your housekeeper is viewed as a lesser being would be if *you* think that's the case, and your dog picked up on it. So yes, if you view your housekeeper as a inferior human due to her background or career, your dog, being a human-perceptive fellow in keeping with his domesticated nature, would likely act accordingly.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> isn't being Oprah's dog trainer enough for everybody?


Yes, I've been waiting for Oprah's view on mtDNA for a while now, because I can't understand my relationship with my dog until she gives us her view.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Shaina said:


> Being Oprah's trainer tells me nothing.
> .


that was said as a joke, but i have often found on forums that it doesn;t get picked up.



Shaina said:


> You cited it as a source of information on the dogs as wolves thing, not as a positive training methods source, so I don't know how the second portion of your response has relevance.
> .


incorrect. this was my original statement on page one:

I have not read the book, but i have read various articles:

The Loved Dog, by Tamar Geller

she uses her research on wolf behavior to understand effective methods of raising a well-adjusted dog.
--------------

i told Prophet to read it, because i didn't think he would listen to my OPINIONS.
i still think this was good advice, because from what i read in the articles, i think she has done enough wolf research, that i would bet there are some compelling arguments in her book.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> i told Prophet to read it, because i didn't think he would listen to my OPINIONS.
> i still think this was good advice, because from what i read in the articles, i think she has done enough wolf research, that i would bet there are some compelling arguments in her book.


I think I heard you quite well, otherwise I wouldn't have rebutted with my arguments. None of which you answered, but I understand. But like I said previously, I'm sure I'll find her research underwhelming. I'd rather rely on those who truly study wolves, like David Mech, and the researchers at Wolf Park, than some lady who's trying to appease Oprah and her audience all under the guise of "research". Hopefully my library has a copy, otherwise, I won't be reading it.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Shaina said:


> The only way your dog would think that your housekeeper is viewed as a lesser being would be if *you* think that's the case, and your dog picked up on it. So yes, if you view your housekeeper as a inferior human due to her background or career, your dog, being a human-perceptive fellow in keeping with his domesticated nature, would likely act accordingly.


i find statements like this, from people who don't know me, very funny.

the cleaning lady often tells my wife how we are the only family who truly treat her with dignity.
i drive her home when it rains...when she needs to bring her daughter, i make sure she is happy...offer her ice cream, toys etc.
i am also the only one that serves good lunches, plus dignified presentation...i will even cook rice and beans special for her, her favorite dish.

just today, we had an interesting situation.
another family shares the services of this woman and her cousin with us.
the other family insisted today that they get her the entire day, and we get the "lazy" cousin.
she was crying to my wife that we convince our friend that they both do half by us and half by them...because the other family gives her hard jobs to do...and we are just trusting and kind.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I highly doubt your dog considers the cleaning lady lower ranking because of her job. There's no way a dog could understand that at all... If she's not there that often he probably just doesn't consider her one of 'his' people.


----------



## Mudra (Nov 1, 2007)

dog-man said:


> f
> 
> 
> 
> yes...i THINK he does know it is considered low rank.



Up until this part, I considered this thread interesting. Reading this line make me sick to my stomach. I'm sorry. Dogs do not discriminate. People do. I feel sad for your mexican helper. Being a house helper does not make anybody an OMEGA. I have nothing against you dog-man. But this statement and your comparison of your helper as OMEGA simply because she is a house helper, is simply unacceptable.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

dog-man said:


> i find statements like this, from people who don't know me, very funny.
> 
> the cleaning lady often tells my wife how we are the only family who truly treat her with dignity.
> i drive her home when it rains...when she needs to bring her daughter, i make sure she is happy...offer her ice cream, toys etc.
> ...


And yet, by your earlier statement it becomes quite obvious that you *do* think of her as a lesser person because of her career.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

actually, Prophet, i found your inability to respond directly to referenced information that i provided, to consider it not worthwhile to provide more for you.
the DNA research i cited should have been enough to make you soften your position, even if you still don't consider it proven fact.

there are many expert sources besides Tamar Geller...i still think she would be a good and interesting start.

but i won't spend my day researching sources, if you don't show the capacity to consider altering your opinions when confronted with scientific consensus.



Shaina said:


> And yet, by your earlier statement it becomes quite obvious that you *do* think of her as a lesser person because of her career.


which statement is that?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I gave you my position in stating the utility of the nomenclature. But I also have not denied our dog is a descendant of the wolf. What the nomenclature is, however, does not explain how two animals can occupy the same niche, as the wolf is a dog argument wants to. It's an ecological rule that they cant, and if the "scientists" are ignoring this (they aren't), that would be foolish, and it doesn't take an expert in the field to see that.
> 
> Just take the word "dominance" for example. It has a scientific definition too, and it is a fallacy to call dominance a character trait. Why it is called a character trait is because of silly notions that wolves are dogs, so studying wolves defines what dominance is in dogs. We've been down that path, and many dogs have suffered from this unsubstantiated notion of dominance theory. The OP is asking us to follow the same path of error, again, and I find this a futile exercise.


I think we're actually on similar pages.

Let me see.

We can agree dogs are as of now classified as a subspecies of the gray wolf. 

Previously they were not. 

The validity of the biological species concept being used to define a species is debatable. 

Dogs are not wolves.

You should study dogs if you want to observe dog behavior- not wolves.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Mudra said:


> Up until this part, I considered this thread interesting. Reading this line make me sick to my stomach. I'm sorry. Dogs do not discriminate. People do. I feel sad for your mexican helper. Being a house helper does not make anybody an OMEGA. I have nothing against you dog-man. But this statement and your comparison of your helper as OMEGA simply because she is a house helper, is simply unacceptable.


obviously, many people took my statement different than it was intended.

i think dogs are very perceptive...and the fact that she is doing "servile" work in the house is picked up on...you can disagree.

i know it has nothing to do with my own perceptions of her status.
i respect all honest labor, and encourage this to my children.


----------



## Mudra (Nov 1, 2007)

*it is her job in the house which makes me think he considers her an omega...*

This statement. If you're thinking this is what your dog is thinking, it is because it is WHAT YOU ARE thinking. Dogs dont think that way. If he dislikes her, its not because she's an OMEGA/helper. He just doesn't like her period. In the same way that we sometimes like certain people and dislike others.


----------



## harrise (Jan 9, 2008)

Oh man, so since I do the "servile" work around here, I've effectively omega'ed myself? Rats. Wish I had a cleaning lady to raise my rank.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dog-man said:


> i think dogs are very perceptive...and the fact that she is doing "servile" work in the house is picked up on...you can disagree.


I highly doubt it. I think dogs are perceptive as well... My dogs seem to know when I'm uncomfortable or upset by someone. I don't however expect them to understand human perceived hierarchy. There's no way a dog can know the difference between blue collar and white collar work.



harrise said:


> Oh man, so since I do the "servile" work around here, I've effectively omega'ed myself? Rats. Wish I had a cleaning lady to raise my rank.


I'm sorry, that made me laugh!


----------



## Mudra (Nov 1, 2007)

dog-man said:


> obviously, many people took my statement different than it was intended.
> 
> i think dogs are very perceptive...and the fact that she is doing "servile" work in the house is picked up on...you can disagree.
> 
> ...


I dont know where you get the idea that your DOG knows she's doing servile work at your house. Dogs are perceptive, that I agree. But they are perceptive of our emotions and behaviour. They can sense when we are happy, nervous.. etc.. etc..



harrise said:


> Oh man, so since I do the "servile" work around here, I've effectively omega'ed myself? Rats. Wish I had a cleaning lady to raise my rank.


I gotta stop cleaning after my dogs as well. They MIGHT start thinking I also am OMEGA. =P


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

MUDRA: He just doesn't like her period

i've already stated that he likes her quite a bit...however, when she shows up, he acts like he can't help but be rude.
you don't have to agree with me that dogs can percieve these things...i happen to believe it.

and to make blanket statements about my own attitudes, without responding to the anecdotes i provided, is really quite rude.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

What makes you believe he can sense that she's doing servile work as you stated it? What makes you think it's the work and not something else? 

Dogs are not people and don't understand these complexities.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> actually, Prophet, i found your inability to respond directly to referenced information that i provided, to consider it not worthwhile to provide more for you.


Actually I don't think you understood the significance of my argument, and how it did address your reference specifically. So yes, it is pretty worthless to debate with you since my counter arguments are, simply, not aligned with yours, thus I'm inflexible. 



> the DNA research i cited should have been enough to make you soften your position, even if you still don't consider it proven fact.


It would have if we learned something new from your reference. No one is arguing that dogs are descendants of wolves. What I'm arguing is your weak argument that studying wild wolves gives new insight into studying domesticated dogs.



> there are many expert sources besides Tamar Geller...i still think she would be a good and interesting start.


Well, I wouldn't consider her an "expert", nor do I think I'll find her arguments novel. 



> but i won't spend my day researching sources, if you don't show the capacity to consider altering your opinions when confronted with scientific consensus.


Hitler tried to alter opinions too, thankfully his "perfect" view met the resistance of the Allied Forces. But again, the scientific consensus *is* only that dogs are descendants of wolves...this isn't new knowledge. Nor is your argument that wolves are dogs in "fact", new. It's the same argument used to justify dominance theory and the inhumane acts that followed it. So no thank you, I've seen this comedy of errors before.


----------



## Mudra (Nov 1, 2007)

I wrote in my first post that up until the mention of your helper, I FOUND this thread interesting. I even said, I have nothing against you. If explaining to you that BEING A HELPER does not make someone an OMEGA is rude, then I am rude.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> What makes you believe he can sense that she's doing servile work as you stated it? What makes you think it's the work and not something else?
> 
> Dogs are not people and don't understand these complexities.


i think there are vast differences between different breeds of dogs in their capacity to understand these complexities.

poodles, border collies, german shepherds, goldens and others at the top of the intelligence lists can be quite fascinating little fellas.

i can't cite proof or evidence of any sort...only my own perceptions, which i believe to be very accurate in certain areas (and which many here clearly do not think so.)

my conclusion is that oinest is totally clued in to an amazing level of complex perceptions....while there are other pooches who have the sensitivity of a slug.



Mudra said:


> I wrote in my first post that up until the mention of your helper, I FOUND this thread interesting. I even said, I have nothing against you. If explaining to you that BEING A HELPER does not make someone an OMEGA is rude, then I am rude.


sorry, mudra, i got your posts mixed up together with Shaina.

now i will hear it from Shaina.

let's drop this point now.


----------



## harrise (Jan 9, 2008)

So, my stupid sled dogs don't conceptualize "servile" work as a "smarter" breed would? I'm going to go hang out with my stupid dogs now, goodbye thread.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dog-man said:


> i think there are vast differences between different breeds of dogs in their capacity to understand these complexities.
> 
> poodles, border collies, german shepherds, goldens and others at the top of the intelligence lists can be quite fascinating little fellas.
> 
> ...


Both my breeds are commonly listed as some of the most intelligent dogs out there. Don't let the little lap dog look fool you. People often describe papillons as the border collie of the toy group and it's with a reason. The last study I saw listed them in top ten, but even then those studies are highly debatable. An independent dog might be more intelligent than one that is easily trained. It's a hard thing to test so don't consider those things completely true... Dogs work with people differently depending on their jobs. Some are more likely to be independent thinkers and others are going to be very tuned in to their people. 

That said, the paps are the most intelligent, human oriented breed I've been around. That's what you get for breeding for hundreds and hundreds of years for companion dogs. They are very very perceptive (In a way that no breed I've owned can match) but no dogs are that perceptive, I'm sorry. The idea of a servant is just not in their 'vocabulary' so to speak.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Dog -man.. which do you live on, the Connecticut coast of the coast of LI? If it is LI, sound side or Ocean side, north or south fork (all the CT stuff is pretty much Sound Side)?

I did not know that the taxonomy of dogs had changed. This was from a biology text that has some age. I also missed CLASS in the taxonomy post. 

However, all that aside, Patricia McConnell states, in "The other End of the Leash" that "genetically dogs are wolves, pure and simple." She goes on to state that genetically, there is little difference and that we can learn some things about dogs by studying a wolf pack. 

HOEWEVER, she goes on to state:
"But in another sense, a very important one, dogs aren't wolves at all. Domestic dogs are not as shy as wolves, they are less aggressive than wolves, they are less likely to roam, and they are far more trainable. You don't see a lot of people herding sheep with wolf/dog hybrids. Take it from me as a biologist and a sheep farmer, it wouldn't be pretty. Dogs actually behave like juvenile wolves." 

She goes on to say: 
"Regrettably, in the last several decades, popular conceptions about wolves and dogs have oversimplified their similarities.." Which seems to be EXACTLY what OP has done here. 

You said you read this book, right???


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> my conclusion is that oinest is totally clued in to an amazing level of complex perceptions....while there are other pooches who have the sensitivity of a slug.


I actually find slugs and snails also have complex perception. Try this after your next morning rain when the snails are out. Blow a puff of air into the snail's "face?", and time how long "he?" stays in "his?" shell. When "he?" decides to uncoil, blow another puff of air in "his?" "face?". Time how long he recoils this time around. Keep doing this, and tell me what you learn about snail "intelligence?", and then tell me if you'll insult dogs in the same way you did here.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

dog-man said:


> incorrect. this was my original statement on page one:
> 
> I have not read the book, but i have read various articles:
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, I do not have the book on hand since most of my books are currently boxed up. If my memory serves, her research consisted of observing a single wolf pack for fairly narrow windows of time with no background experience or knowledge. I believe you were most correct when you said that "Tamar Geller is not to be taken too seriously." You simply need to find and read more credible sources.



dog-man said:


> which statement is that?


I was referring specifically to this statement:


dog-man said:


> yes...i THINK he does know it is considered low rank.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> However, all that aside, Patricia McConnell statesHOEWEVER, she goes on to state:
> Dogs actually behave like juvenile wolves."
> 
> She goes on to say:
> ...


yep, read the book...and i agree with the all the statements you quoted from McConnell...and i am impressed that you were quick to admit a mistake.

i stated in this thread that dogs are like juvenile wolves.

i also don't believe it good science to oversimplify their similarities.

i don't believe i have been guilty of that.

my premise from the beginning is that it is not a contradiction to one's leadership position with a dog, to treat the dog as an "equal" but subordinate member of the family.

similar to a child in the family...they are cherished...their needs are valued...although, they are expected to follow the directions and authority of the more experienced members of the family.

i do not believe it necessary to treat a dog as low on the heirarchy.

i tried to explain this concept with the idea of the beta and omega wolves.

this is not my original idea...i also think it effective.

even some who disagreed with me, seemed to anyway use this method...but not because of learning from wolves, but from elsewhere.
----

oh yeah, i live on the south side of LI...not the side to CT

FROM OPRAH"S WEBSITE:

After her two years in the army, Tamar headed to the desert to think about her next step. It was there that she met a team of wolf researchers. "What was very striking to me when I was sitting there observing the wolves was to see how loving they are and how they teach their young," she says. "I was blown away. No aggression." Tamar then developed a plan to train dogs based on the wolf behavior she saw.

Today, Tamar uses The Loved Dog method—which emphasizes manners, not obedience.
"The main difference between this method and other methods is that I look at dogs and I raise them as if they are a part of the family versus train them and I want them to be submissive and they have to obey," Tamar says. 
"I want them to be family members. I want them to be able to express who they are."

I DON'T SAY YOU HAVE TO TREAT HER WITH SCIENTIFIC AWE.
BUT I THINK THE OBSERVATION OF THE LOVE AND LACK OF AGGRESSION IN TEACHING THE PUPS IS PRETTY INTERESTING.
i find her conclusions refreshing.
i used her "technique" before i read about her...and i found it to have fantastic results...not only in obedience, but in developing a dog with emotional depth (my opinion).
-------------------

one example of my "discipline" method:
if we are at the beach, and he is off-leash, and he looks like he wantS to check out someone (let's leave the ethics of that issue for now...been there, done that)...
if i use a firm tone to tell him stay, he very well might not listen.
if i repeatedly say GOOD BOY in a happy, excited tone, he will almost always listen, IMMEDIATELY.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

dog-man said:


> and i am impressed that you were quick to admit a mistake.


No admission of anything by quoting something and from a source you neglected to bother with at the beginning. 

BTW are YOU ever wrong? Oh tht's right.. You are the man with the Highly perceptive dog while the rest of us idiots own slugs.. yeah.. i for got THAT.. sorry for the omission.. 

AND BTW, CP is RIGHT. I kept a land snail as a child.. I had 'him' in an open pan in the corner of my room for an entire winter. Not only was 'he' intelligent, 'he' actually had a home base. Much to my Mother's dismay, 'he' left silver trails all over my bedroom walls at night, but every morning found 'him' eating a piece of apple or a carrot or a piece of lettuce I had left 'him' _in the pan _ with the moist soil, leaves and twigs I had there for 'him.' 




dog-man said:


> i stated in this thread that dogs are like juvenile wolves.
> 
> i also don't believe it good science to oversimplify their similarities.
> 
> i don't believe i have been guilty of that.


I beg to differ. 



dog-man said:


> similar to a child in the family...they are cherished...their needs are valued...although, they are expected to follow the directions and authority of the more experienced members of the family.


Personally I have no attachment to children, nor have I ever. 



dog-man said:


> i do not believe it necessary to treat a dog as low on the heirarchy..


Yeah.. maybe not YOURS but all of ours who you have repeatedly insulted because we all must know by now that oinest is some sort of pedestal dog that was put on this earth as an anthropomorphised almosta human who can do no wrong (except his recall isn't always reliable) and who can judge, much like his master, that the cleaning lady is a lesser being.. and slugs even lesser.. (including land snails because they are just slugs with shells agfter all). 



dog-man said:


> oh yeah, i live on the south side of LI...not the side to CT


I called it. I am guessing Westhampton or Westahampton beach.

PLEASE READ 'CULTURE CLASH' BY JEAN DONALDSON BEFORE YOU WRITE ANOTHER POST. PLEASE. 
Oinest is not all you think he is. He is JUST ANOTHER DOG. 

Oh yeah.. BTW.. if you train a dog properly the dog's personality shines on thru. That is the identifying feature of a GOOD DOG TRAINER.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> BTW are YOU ever wrong? Oh tht's right.. You are the man with the Highly perceptive dog while the rest of us idiots own slugs.. yeah.. i for got THAT.. sorry for the omission..
> 
> .


somehow, i don't remember saying everyone has stupid dogs...i was describing the wide variety of intelligence in the dog world.

btw, i had a pet caterpillar as a kid, named Herbie.
i had opened up a cocoon, and he was halfway developed in to a butterfly.

he was surprisingly interesting.
wouldn't compare him to a dog, however.

ELANA:
Personally I have no attachment to children, nor have I ever. 

RESPONSE: that is a shame.

recently, i corrected my daughter when she was changing her 1 year o;d son's diaper.
she just grabbed him and pulled down his pants.
i told her to first explain to him what she was about to do.

it was a joke (somewhat).
but it is part of my philosophy to treat the baby with dignity.



Elana55 said:


> we all must know by now that oinest is some sort of pedestal dog that was put on this earth as an anthropomorphised almost human who can do no wrong.
> 
> .


i am very glad i was able to get that across...i do agree totally with that statement...no sarcasm.

now i know why Wilbur from Mr. Ed didn't want to tell any one about Ed.


----------



## LMH (Jan 2, 2008)

dog-man said:


> yes...i THINK he does know it is considered low rank.


LOL - You win for having the dumbest post I have ever read.



dog-man said:


> i find statements like this, from people who don't know me, very funny.
> 
> the cleaning lady often tells my wife how we are the only family who truly treat her with dignity.
> i drive her home when it rains...when she needs to bring her daughter, i make sure she is happy...offer her ice cream, toys etc.
> ...


And all the while your doing this is it out of pure kindness or simply a way of inflating your ego and keeping your "rank" so to speak. You sound very egocentric.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

LMH said:


> And all the while your doing this is it out of pure kindness or simply a way of inflating your ego and keeping your "rank" so to speak. You sound very egocentric.


I was thinking the same, LMH...but you phrased it much more eloquently than anything I attempted to write.



dog-man said:


> if i use a firm tone to tell him stay, he very well might not listen.
> if i repeatedly say GOOD BOY in a happy, excited tone, he will almost always listen, IMMEDIATELY.


And look, you didn't even need to study wolves to figure that out. It's common sense.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> if i use a firm tone to tell him stay, he very well might not listen.
> if i repeatedly say GOOD BOY in a happy, excited tone, he will almost always listen, IMMEDIATELY.


It's called classical conditioning. This isn't a new concept either.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

LMH said:


> LOL - You win for having the dumbest post I have ever read.
> 
> And all the while your doing this is it out of pure kindness or simply a way of inflating your ego and keeping your "rank" so to speak. You sound very egocentric.


I love winning contests...what's my prize?

you can question my motives...that's ok.
i wish more people would be kind and respectful to others, even if it was from possible impure motives.



Curbside Prophet said:


> It's called classical conditioning. This isn't a new concept either.


i have said my ideas are not original...however, i get the impression that this technique is over-looked, with the emphasis by many towards a more firm obedience method.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> FROM OPRAH"S WEBSITE:
> 
> After her two years in the army, Tamar headed to the desert to think about her next step. It was there that she met a team of wolf researchers. "What was very striking to me when I was sitting there observing the wolves was to see how loving they are and how they teach their young," she says. "I was blown away. No aggression." Tamar then developed a plan to train dogs based on the wolf behavior she saw.


How else are you going to sell books if you don't have an interesting life story that led you to dog training? And why not chose a philosophy that everyone has been saturated with, but make it PC and popish?



dog-man said:


> i get the impression that this technique is over-looked, with the emphasis by many towards a more firm obedience method.


Now that's sense I can identify with if you're speaking of classical conditioning fallout that results from being overly firm..


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

-----------------

Laurelin,

when i was researching which type of dog to get, i had a top choice in each size bracket.
for the small dogs, a papillon was my top choice.

i liked them on paper and in "person".

intelligent, alert, affectionate and responsive


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

dog-man said:


> somehow, i don't remember saying everyone has stupid dogs...i was describing the wide variety of intelligence in the dog world..


I used to hold this idea too.. that beagles and **** hounds were "stupid" and GSD's were "smart" but I was WRONG. 
I have seen **** hounds in agility. These dogs are smart, but to train them takes an effort because they were bred to be indiependent.. so a really GOOD dog trainer will take taht and use it to their advantage and have a really well trained dog.

Meanwhile, there are those, like you, who have dogs taht are realtively easy to train but you choose not to put a really reliable reacll on the dog for fear of damaging his "personality.' This is similar to the parent of an obnoxious child saying, while the child annoys someone, "Oh he is just LIKE that..." 



dog-man said:


> btw, i had a pet caterpillar as a kid, named Herbie.
> i had opened up a cocoon, and he was halfway developed in to a caterpillar...


In the cocoon they should be 1/2 way developed into a moth or butterfly. Sorry you killed ol' Herbie.. never let him develop. I raised endangered butterflies for awhile. They have their own intelligence as well. I am glad you have admitted your mistake. 



dog-man said:


> ELANA:
> Personally I have no attachment to children, nor have I ever.
> 
> RESPONSE: that is a shame....


Not to me it isn't. I love my freedom. THAT is what I cherish. 



dog-man said:


> recently, i corrected my daughter when she was changing her 1 year o;d son's diaper.
> she just grabbed him and pulled down his pants.
> i told her to first explain to him what she was about to do.
> 
> ...


Good thing you weren't my dear ol' Dad. Correcting ME for what I do with MY CHILD.. I might have freaking decked you. I surely would ahve told you where to get off and at what port. 




dog-man said:


> i am very glad i was able to get that across...i do agree totally with that statement...no sarcasm.
> 
> now i know why Wilbur from Mr. Ed didn't want to tell any one about Ed.


Yeah yeah yeah.. everyone who has ever had a dog feels this way about their first dog. 

Trust me.. You have a LOT to learn. Read the book I suggested by Donaldson and learn something. REALLY LEARN SOMETHING. 

When you become a self appointed expert after owning one dog, and you know everything, it is time for you to get a new hobby. (Sarcasm intended)

Oh yeah.. and I get ALL my best Ideas from Oprah. I just LOOOVE Martha Stewart too. If it were not for these two people the earth might just stop spinning on its axis.. LOL


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Now that's sense I can identify with if you're speaking of classical conditioning fallout that results from being overly firm..


that's part of it...but what i like about Geller's idea is that the dog should be treated like family.
the question in my mind, in any technique, is "would i raise my child like that?"

do i just want an obedient kid, or do i want him to develop all his emotional potential.
freedom has its dangers, but it just might be worth it.

i wish i had a dog before kids...i would have used some learned techniques on the kids.
gotta find the right balance of love and rules.



Elana55 said:


> Not to me it isn't. I love my freedom. THAT is what I cherish.


i can relate to that...all decisions we make have an up side and a down side.


----------



## LMH (Jan 2, 2008)

Shaina said:


> I was thinking the same, LMH...but you phrased it much more eloquently than anything I attempted to write.


I think I better bow out now because the next thing I write won't be so eloquently put-Haha.
And unlike some people I always make my true motives of my actions apparent whether impure or not.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> Good thing you weren't my dear ol' Dad. Correcting ME for what I do with MY CHILD.. I might have freaking decked you. I surely would ahve told you where to get off and at what port.


everything depends how you say it and the relationship.
my daughter genuinely laughed.
she loves me, and asks my advice on all sorts of issues.

as a teenager, her friends could not believe the subjects she felt comfortable discussing with me and my wife.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

dog-man said:


> i wish i had a dog before kids...i would have used some learned techniques on the kids.


I for one am GLAD you did not. This gives me Faith that there is a supreme being who watches over me....


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> When you become a self appointed expert after owning one dog, and you know everything


no, i don't consider myself a know-it-ALL about dogs.

i know nothing about rehabilitating rescue dogs, or how to deal with a dominant breed.

i do not know how to deal with pregnant dogs, or their new-born pups.

i only know the basics of nutrition (although my vet tells me to keep on doing whatever i have been doing.).

i do not know about training for any sort of competition (or any tricks)...i was inspired early on by the book: Rover, don't roll over

however, i researched for years the traits of different dog breeds...it was a hobby even though i couldn't have a dog, due to work circumstances (now i work from home).

once i decided to get a dog, my goal was to raise the sweetest dog possible.

i read books and articles on how to choose the right dog for me.

i read about methods of raising a dog, with a focus that the dog should be the ultimate sweetheart, to children, adults and all other dogs and animals (he once caught a squirrel firmly in his mouth...let it go and went into a play crouch...the squirrel was fine)

yes, i think i am somewhat of a layman semi-expert on the subject.

and my experiment worked incredibly.

and people who meet my pooch confirm it.

if you would like to learn some interesting insights, don't be so quick to poo-poo my ideas.

i am interested to learn as well, and have learned much from these discussion forums...especially from people who are knowledgeable AND open-minded.


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Hitler tried to alter opinions too, thankfully his "perfect" view met the resistance of the Allied Forces.


Please tell me the purpose of this post. Was it simply to compare the OP to Hitler? I'm no fan of this pack mumbo jumbo either but I find this quote slight unsettling.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

dog-man said:


> no, i don't consider myself a know-it-ALL about dogs.
> 
> i know nothing about rehabilitating rescue dogs, or how to deal with a dominant breed.
> 
> ...


Er......

My dog, Ollie, LOVES everyone.

He LOVES everything.

Plays with all small critters.

He's the sweetest dog ever!!!

And he's had ZERO training to do it.

I don't know what you're a expert in? It takes a expert idiot to raise a dog bad, but your everyday joe can raise a nice dog. It takes a hell of a lot more than being nice to raise a exceptional dog.

I adore Ollie. I also adore Kobe. As far as Siberians go, they are well trained. They have the freedom to be dogs- to dig, to destroy stuff, to play. My happiness is just sitting back and watching him be a dog, without ever having to correct him.

He's NOT exceptional. Not in the least. I adore him - but the dogs many other owners on this forum are exceptional.

I've seen many people here do some amazing stuff. Oinest sounds just like pretty much every golden I've ever met, and that's NOT a bad thing at all. But that's a far cry from being a semi-expert on the subject.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 24, 2006)

Dogs and wolves share the exact same DNA. I believe the old saying is the difference between humans and chimps is 1%, the difference between dogs and wolves is 0%.

I've got a program though tivo'd I'll have to get the name of the show, maybe I can find some clips on the internet of it, that shows dogs and wolves think VERY differently.

Short example)

In this study, they placed two buckets down, with bait underneath one.

The wolf was given a visual clue as to what bucket the bait was under (to which he paid no attention). When the wolf was released he ran right to the wrong bucket, but eventually found the bait.

You already know what the dog did. Of course he paid attention to the visual clue and ran right for the baited bucket.

In the second "experiement", they placed a piece of meat attached to a string inside a metal crate. The wolf immediately ran to the crate and quickly pulled the string to get the meat.

The dog did just as well.

Next, they placed the meat on the string like in above, but tied the meat down.

The wolf was released. He clawed and pawed and even pulled the crate by the string to try and get the meat. He couldn't do it.

The dog persisted for not even a minute before whining and returning to the handler.

So put simply, dogs still hold the same clever, intelligence that wolves have and can think well on their own, but what they have, that wolves don't, is the knowledge that us humans are smarter 

I think there's nothing wrong with having knowledge about pack structure in wolves, but I think it would be naive to think there is no flex in pack structure with domesticated dogs when compared with wolves.

Dogs have been with humans for thousands of years, and while it hasn't changed their DNA, it has most definitely changed the way they think.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

dog-man said:


> Spicy,
> 
> i believe you are referring to pitbulls, which were originally bred for dominance.
> 
> ...


No Pit Bulls were not originally bred for dominance. If you would like to know more about the Pit Bulls origins, breeding purposes, history, ect you can read up on the early Bull and Terrier crosses. 

I didn't do the breeding, I just got a pup from the breeding. The dam to the litter is dominant. 

Oh I agree with the right owner that would know how to handle a dominant dog. That is why certain breeds are real bad for certain people, like a lot of guardian breeds might be dominant. It was a big switch for me to start working with guardian breeds, training and all that, compared to Pit Bulls who typically try to appease my every whim. 

One litter of corso we looked DH wanted the very dominant one, I said NO WAY! That would not be a good selection for us at all.

I understand on the average family thing now. It just sounded as though before only betas should be selected period, so then I wondered where the others ended up at. When selecting a pup do you think its important to watch them interact? I know about the temperament testing and the breeder knowing of the temperaments but for me I like to actually see them interact with one another. 

I think I have more trouble with an omega over an alpha. It all depends on the breed though. This is complicated.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

RBark said:


> Er......
> 
> your everyday joe can raise a nice dog.


correct...it doesn't take a semi-expert to raise a sweet golden.

however, there is a lot of information which needs to get out to the public, and it is not.

1) all breeds are not equal...any pup can be made sweet and obedient by proper training and upbringing, but some breeds are more wired for it, so it is easier to accomplish.
however, as small puppies, the differences are not as noticeable, so too many people end up with the wrong type of dog for them.

2) not all breeders are equal...you need to look for a breeder that cares about temperament (and health).
good breeders talk about this quite a bit among themselves, but don't spread the message...they really DON'T want the ignorant public coming to them.
for good reason, they want knowledgeable, experienced dog people coming to them.

3) choosing the right pup out of a litter is important...some people will prefer the omega or alpha...but the beta would be best for many ordinary families.

4) if choosing a dog from a shelter, there are different tests to determine the type of dog he will be once he gets home.

many shelter workers are often not forthcoming with this info, even if they are educated enough to know about it.
(who wants to spoil a dog's chance at happiness, if someone seems to like him.) i hope this tendency is changing.

people should read up on these tests before they choose.

5) if you treat a dog "like a dog", you will just have a dog.
if you respect the dog like a human, while understanding that many of his needs are different from humans, you will end up with a special dog.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Hmmm ok so I just read the last 2 post. 



RBark said:


> Er......
> 
> My dog, Ollie, LOVES everyone.
> 
> ...


Yeah same here. 

Not all of mine are angels, or at least not without training. But there is a few who are, it depends on the dogs temperament. Love everyone they meet, excited to see them, play with each other, is good with smaller animals. They haven't been trained to be nice and good, they just are.



Alpha said:


> Next, they placed the meat on the string like in above, but tied the meat down.
> 
> The wolf was released. He clawed and pawed and even pulled the crate by the string to try and get the meat. He couldn't do it.
> 
> ...


That to me isn't an end all experiment. It really depends on the dog. I have some which would do the same as that dog, well one which would start "yelling" at the item then look at me, as she's rather boisterous about it. I have others which would do the same as the wolf, no way they would give up that easy, "not even a minute" they would try "forever". What kind of crate was this?


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Spicy1_VV said:


> No Pit Bulls were not originally bred for dominance. If you would like to know more about the Pit Bulls origins, breeding purposes, history, ect you can read up on the early Bull and Terrier crosses.
> 
> .


i have read extensively about the first crossings of bull and terrier dogs.
the purpose of the crossing was to create the ultimate fighting machine.

the tenacity of the terrier with the powerful jaws of the bulldog.

good breeding in recent generations has created an incredibly joyful dog to own, if you are careful in your selection and upbringing.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

dog-man said:


> correct...it doesn't take a semi-expert to raise a sweet golden.
> 
> however, there is a lot of information which needs to get out to the public, and it is not.
> 
> ...


#1-4, you are preaching to the choir. Here on DF, positive training prevails. Curbside, who you've been arguing with all this time, is a excellent and very knowledgable person on positive reinforcement. I'd like to say I'd happily hire him over the chick if I wanted training- but I might want some service, so sorry Curb!

#5, Ollie is not a human. I respect him as a dog. You seem to think that means I think he's "below me". But that is incorrect. I own some giant snakes, I respect them as snakes. Do you think I should treat my snakes as a human? Treating them as a human will make them unhappy, violent, and insecure.

Treating Ollie like a dog just means he's allowed to be a dog, whether it's with me or on his own. I don't leave decisions up to him - because he doesn't think like a human. If he makes a incorrect decision, is it his fault? No, it's mine. Therefore, I set him up to succeed.

There is no place for dominance theory in our relationship - in that, you treat your dog less of a human than I do (in your terms, anyway). I respect the fact he's a dog, I respect that there are situations he can't decide the appropiate course of action.

On the other hand, I entrust him with my safety when he's in front of my bike and pulling me extremely fast. One error, he's going to get me to faceplant into the pavement.

He's never made the error. The only error is that I did not understand how to think the way he would upon making decisions. And so, my decision to evade an obstacle was different than his decision to evade an obstacle.

Soon, I will be rigging my other dog up to a sled. I will be even less out of control, because I will need to have faith in him. But what is the difference here?

My dogs are born, bred, raised to pull. As such, I can put faith in him to make the appropriate course of action.

Your dog was not born and raised to be a human. You can't put the faith in him as a human - you can only put faith in him as a dog. That is the ULTIMATE respect you can give him, because if he doesn't live up to your human expectations, I assure you, it just means he lived up to his dog expectations.

Treating your dog with respect is second nature to everyone on this forum. That's what most of us do. Most of us go above and beyond the call of duty to love and respect our dogs. You will find very few people concerned with being their dog's alpha here.

What people ARE arguing, however, is that the wolf heirarchy has no relevance in this aspect. Positive training is not as uncommon as you seem to think it is, nor is it revolutionary. In all this, you're preaching to the choir.

Sure, wolves may be genuinely wonderful and nice raising their pups. SO what?

Positive training works, regardless of how the wolves do it. You seem to be trying to make a nonexistent connection to prove a point that we are already well aware of.

(Edited out, I'll leave that one to Spicy.)


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

dog-man said:


> i have read extensively about the first crossings of bull and terrier dogs.
> the purpose of the crossing was to create the ultimate fighting machine.
> 
> the tenacity of the terrier with the powerful jaws of the bulldog.
> ...


I'm not sure where you did your "extensive research" at but you need to check again. 

You previously stated they were bred for dominance. Now to be the ultimate fighting machine. Anymore lessons you can give us?

What do you mean by recent generations as APBTs had *much less* of a bad rap decades ago and were considered a great family companion, a valued breed. In recent generations (starting in the 80s) they have been destroyed by bybs because of huge popularity, being owned by people who have no business owning any dog and those now breeding human aggressive temperaments. There are still great correct dogs in existence by those preserving the trustworthy, loving temperaments, but far too many poorly bred dogs that should be culled.


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

You can not breed an animal for dominance! If you think you can then you do not know what dominance is.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

rvamutt said:


> You can not breed an animal for dominance! If you think you can then you do not know what dominance is.


sorry, but all books on dog breeds i have seen extensively discuss the different hereditary breed traits.
dominance is one of the main traits to be discussed breed by breed.

that is the fascination of scientists in many fields with purebred dogs...these traits are clearly heriditary.



Spicy1_VV said:


> You previously stated they were bred for dominance. Now to be the ultimate fighting machine. Anymore lessons you can give us?
> 
> .


dominance is one of the important traits you want to breed for when you want to create a fighting dog.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

dog-man said:


> sorry, but all books on dog breeds i have seen extensively discuss the different hereditary breed traits.
> dominance is one of the main traits to be discussed breed by breed.
> 
> that is the fascination of scientists in many fields with purebred dogs...these traits are clearly heriditary.


Many people are stupid. Because of this, many people confuse dominance with stubborn.

If I ask my dog to shake hands, and he doesn't, is he challenging me?

If my dog runs up to me and nips me, is he challenging my position?

NO!

Many breeds are stubborn. I have never known pit bulls to be dominant. Some are, but they are stubborn. 

My dog is also independent. If he does not do as I ask, it's not dominance, he's independent from me.

Most people can't differnate between dominance and stubborn/independent.


----------



## the mama (Dec 28, 2007)

dog-man said:


> yes, i think i am somewhat of a layman semi-expert on the subject.
> 
> and people who meet my pooch confirm it.
> 
> ...



IMO: you don't make statements like someone who feels they are a layman semi-expert. You make statements that sound as if you feel you are, decidedly, an expert.

Maybe you do have interesting insights. However, I find it hard to listen objectively to your insights, based on the history I've experienced with your last thread (hatred among dog owners), and now this one. When you post, I rarely see anything close to humility or interest in others' insights. It almost sounds as though you are preaching, and dang it, why won't we just accept your gospel? It's very, very hard to stomach. I'll tell you... I'm considered open-minded to a fault by my family and friends. But reading some of your replies raises my hackles and keeps me from actually gleaning any valid information you may be sharing.


----------



## JenTN (Feb 21, 2008)

How many times do people have to say that dogs are not humans and should not be treated like them

I don't give people a treat and praise every time they do something I request- but I do with Bo. I don't do a happy dance and scream "yes, Todd" when my husband takes a s*it, but I do with Bo. 

Bo sleeps in a crate and is in a crate when I can't watch him because if he's not he will chew and pee and poop. That's certainly not his decision, I have to make it for him as his owner. It is my job to protect him and my family.

I'm sorry, but if dogs were able to think for themselves and make wonderful decisions, they wouldn't eat things that will make them get an obstruction, nor would they relish poo so much, IMO. Don't they know poo will give them worms??? Geez.

My dog works best for bribes, praise, and consistancy. If left to his own devices, he would eat rocks, sticks, paper, walnuts, anything he can and he would pee and poo anywhere he likes. I have to make decisions for him for the good of our household.

I love my dog. I respect my dog and his LIMITATIONS. You seem to think your dog has no limitations, which is quite dangerous, IMO.

Also, be weary of the crap on the 'net about dog breeds. I did a ton of research, and one site said the Basenji was like #2 for best dog with kids, while another listed them as "never own in a house with kids". Looots of conflicting and flat-out wrong info floating around.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

dog-man said:


> dominance is one of the important traits you want to breed for when you want to create a fighting dog.


APBTs are not typically a dominant breed. I'd have to question someone who thinks people managed to breed such an extremely dominant dog that it will fight for 1-3hrs just to secure its "position". 

If someone told me Tosa Inus are a dominant breed and fight for this I'd believe that. APBTs no. How much APBT experience do you have?

No dominance it not an important trait when breeding pit dogs. Please research a breed before you think you are an expert on it. 

APBTs do NOT fight for dominance. They fight because they are DA with a fight drive. They fight because they have a compulsion to do so that is bred into them. A dominant dog either fights for dominance (wishing to climb the latter) or is at the top and fights when challenged/threatened by another. Just as an alpha or higher ranking wolf would, as this thread is comparison of wolf and dog. An APBT fights because the love of the fight has been bred into them. If you have studied breed traits then you realize that traits have been bred into certain breeds? Some other breeds have selective traits bred in, hound dogs which obsessively trail, have a compulsion to find whatever scent passes their nose. Bays and cries to be set free to trail. Have you not read of this selective breeding. 

Other breeds fight for dominance, resource guarding, jealousy, ect. APBTs do not. They are not trying to be dominant, or wanting to be alpha above the other dog, they do not fight until one submits, they do not fight to be top dog and be happy with that, nor is that (dominance) what has been bred into them as an excelled pit dog. This doesn't mean APBT will never fight for "normal dog" reasons it just isn't the factor of why they fight nor what they were bred for. Many APBT who fight for "normal dog" reasons also simply have scraps in similar fashion. 

A very dominant APBT which fights because of this say with its house mate might make one of the worse pit dogs ever. At home that dog fights for dominance, maybe easily broken up with a yell or doesn't even seriously harm the other dog, maybe even a serious fight with possibility for great injury if not broken up. However put the dog in the pit with another dog that isn't going to be looking for dominance and the dog will quit, because it just fights for dominance, not because it loves to fight and has the gameness to not quit. This is the same with pit who is very aggressive without the gameness also. Many highly aggressive dogs are thought to be curs. It is a bluff, they put on a good show of aggression but don't have the will to really stick it out. The will for dominance only sustains the dog so long in a fight. Dog aggression only sustains the dog so long in a fight. People often do not understand the APBT, even those with a dominant or DA APBT, they believe this dog would be a good fighting dog but it would not. Even a very dominant dog doesn't give a hoot once it realize it can't win and is getting very hurt. 

I have one alpha bitch adult and one pup showing alpha type personality. None of my other dogs are extremely dominant or alpha type. 

Please read some books or talk to some old timers. If you truly wish to at all learn about the APBT.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

the mama said:


> IMO: When you post, I rarely see anything close to humility or interest in others' insights. It almost sounds as though you are preaching, and dang it, why won't we just accept your gospel? .


well, you're not the only one who thinks so.

however, in my defense.
i don't want people to agree with me.
i want them to consider the ideas, and discuss...that's it.

i believe what i say...and i learn quite a bit from these forums.
but my best discussions are with people who are not so hostile to "new" ideas.

i had previously been on a British forum...my ideas were not unique at all.
and even many who disagreed with me were very open; especially if they knew that there are experts out there with these opinions too.
in America, everyone seems to be very protective of their chosen philosophy.

i lost the site name, and decided to try here.



Spicy1_VV said:


> APBTs are not typically a dominant breed.
> 
> No dominance it not an important trait when breeding pit dogs. Please research a breed before you think you are an expert on it.
> 
> .


i did not say dominance is an important trait when breeding pit bulls nowadays...quite the contrary.

however, it was very important to the original breeders, who wanted a killer in the ring.


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

dog-man said:


> sorry, but all books on dog breeds i have seen extensively discuss the different hereditary breed traits.
> dominance is one of the main traits to be discussed breed by breed.


Its hard to debate when you make statements like this. What is dominance? Can you define it for me? Because most books I've read would define it as a description of the relationship between too animals as it pertains to a specific resource. How can a term used to describe a relationship and not an animal be hereditary?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dog-man said:


> i did not say dominance is an important trait when breeding pit bulls nowadays...quite the contrary.
> 
> however, it was very important to the original breeders, who wanted a killer in the ring.


You misread her. She said pit dogs as in dogs that fight in pits, not modern day pet pit bulls.


----------



## Max'sHuman (Oct 6, 2007)

Great post RBark! And also Spicy, themama and JenTN....

I have been following this thread since it started but refraining from posting based on my previous frustrations with the thread themama mentioned. Plus I figured somebody else could say it better. Jen and RBark you guys just said everything I've been thinking as I've been reading this. Dogs are dogs and should be treated as such. Relating dogs to wolves does not neccesarily help us come up with better training methods. We already have good ones. 

And my dogs "judgement" led him to eat half a pack of Bazooka gum, wrappers and all, tonight. Which I am sure is going to come out colorfully tomorrow. I don't think he makes the best decisions for himself. Which doesn't mean I don't love or respect him or treat him with dignity. It just means that I gotta remember to put my candy away in the kitchen. Because he doesn't have the judgement to know what is good for him nutritionally. He just knows what smells tasty. Which apparently also includes rabbit poo.


----------



## JenTN (Feb 21, 2008)

Max'sHuman said:


> Great post RBark! And also Spicy, themama and JenTN....
> 
> I have been following this thread since it started but refraining from posting based on my previous frustrations with the thread themama mentioned. Plus I figured somebody else could say it better. Jen and RBark you guys just said everything I've been thinking as I've been reading this. Dogs are dogs and should be treated as such. Relating dogs to wolves does not neccesarily help us come up with better training methods. We already have good ones.
> 
> And my dogs "judgement" led him to eat half a pack of Bazooka gum, wrappers and all, tonight. Which I am sure is going to come out colorfully tomorrow. I don't think he makes the best decisions for himself. Which doesn't mean I don't love or respect him or treat him with dignity. It just means that I gotta remember to put my candy away in the kitchen. Because he doesn't have the judgement to know what is good for him nutritionally. He just knows what smells tasty. Which apparently also includes rabbit poo.


Awww...If Max poo's a bubble, can you take a picture of it?? Bo is nuts over bubbles


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

dog-man said:


> .
> i did not say dominance is an important trait when breeding pit bulls nowadays...quite the contrary.
> 
> however, it was very important to the original breeders, who wanted a killer in the ring.


Please read and comprehend what I just said. Did I not say *PIT DOG*. You lead me more and more to believe you don't know anything about the APBT. You obviously don't care to learn and believe you are an expert on all subjects. They often did not wish for a killer dog in the *BOX*, (perhaps those looking for a gamblers dog would) they wished for a game dog. Considering less pit fights ended in death compared to those that did and that dogs would be picked up and saved from death. Then there is the little fact that dogs can chose not to scratch causing their loss and the other dog a win means no need for a killer.  

Death most often came after the match due to blood loss or shock. Infection would be one to came later if not given proper medical care.

Do you know any original old time breeders? Have you researched and studied the historical writing? How about the dogs themselves. It seems obviously not.


----------



## Max'sHuman (Oct 6, 2007)

JenTN said:


> Awww...If Max poo's a bubble, can you take a picture of it?? Bo is nuts over bubbles


LOL...I'll bring the camera, but my neighbors are going to think I'm WEIRD. Does that actually happen? YUCK!


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Spicy, i may have been incorrect with the word "killer"
i am not so familiar with dog fighting.

but the statement of the original breeders breeding for dominance stands...not sure why you find that hard to believe.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

dog-man said:


> Spicy, i may have been incorrect with the word "killer"
> i am not so familiar with dog fighting.
> 
> but the statement of the original breeders breeding for dominance stands...not sure why you find that hard to believe.


Did you read her post?

Pit fights are based on dog aggression, not dominance.

If it was dominance, it would end when the other dog submits.

That's not the case, it's a fight to the death. So they are bred for dog aggression.

Sorry for having to dumb it down for you Spicy.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

dog-man said:


> Spicy, i may have been incorrect with the word "killer"
> i am not so familiar with dog fighting.


If you are not familiar with it then don't speak on it. Don't mean to sound rude at all, but if you don't know about a breed, its breeding and purpose it might be an idea. At least you admit you are wrong on something. 



> but the statement of the original breeders breeding for dominance stands...not sure why you find that hard to believe.


No they bred for fight drive and gameness.

Why? To answer

1. Because APBTs who fight for dominance quit in about 10mins or so. 

2. Because lines of non dominant dogs have consistently produced game dogs and even fastlane dogs. 

Its cool RBark, some people will just never understand. I'm not sure if they read the whole thing or just the beginning. I thought I explained it pretty good.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

> on a different thread, I had mentioned that i try to make oinest feel equal to all members of our household….and nevertheless, he respects me as leader.


Equal status is equal in status. My dogs are dogs, and while well taken care of and loved, are not my equal. They do as I say because they've been trained to do as I say. They also respond in kind to my grandchildren (who have been taught to properly interact with dogs). 




> the omegas, on the other hand, are quite an abused bunch.
> they seem to fill some needs of the pack (they are “watch-wolves”, warning of strangers, although waiting for the alpha to decide how to handle the situation.)
> 
> however, all the beta wolves make them feel like dirt.
> often, the omegas can’t take it anymore, become “lone wolves”, and eventually try to start their own family


And you're talking about wolves, because . . .???






> subsequently, treating them as an “equal” in your household is a natural feeling for them, similar to the beta wolf’s status in the pack.
> as long as the head of household manifests calm assertiveness (as Cesar Milan says), they will not try to dominate others in the household, as long as they too are treated with beta respect.


Oh Please, spare us.





> interestingly, the only person who comes in our home, and oinest treats with disrespect, is the Mexican cleaning lady.
> (btw, she loves us for the dignified way we treat her, but oinest must still sense her “omega” status.)


 She's a human being, your dog is a dog. Duh. Your dog is picking up on your emotions (which dogs CAN do), so your bigotry is showing. 



> if an owner, on the other hand, treats his dog like an “omega”, lowest in the hierarchy of the household, the pooch might very well display some of the negative traits of the omega wolf:
> fearfulness, insecurity, jealousy of new babies, etc.


ROFLMAO!


Look, if you're for real, I'm sorry (you're then, obviously, a newbie to owning dogs, and just really excited over all this new stuff you're "learning" about wolves).


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I don't believe it Oinest has struck again. I take a day off and Heeeee's Baaack. Just glancing at a few of his replies which evidently are pressing a whole bunch of buttons on DF, I was wondering what if Oinest is a figment or an invention of dog-man to press buttons. I don't know the percentage of his replies that are straight out of magazines or books etc etc etc. I would hazard a guess somewhere between 75 to 90%. On one thread Oinest the wonder dog approached a couple of on leash dog at the beach who acted with aggression and he was all upset (I guess because they did not like the wonder dog.) If he was a real dog lover would he not have been feeling more compassion for the on-lead aggressive dogs. Now he is a wolf expert. I think he's just doing a early April Fool's joke on DF, have fun everybody I'm gonna have fun reading more. Oh dog-man what kind of dog is my avatar, should be very easy for you. It's a pure-bred from another country.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Folks I finally have to say this.

The OP has a partially trained dog he worships. He has never owned a dog before. He has read a few books. He is now the world's latest expert on dogs, training, behavior etc. He knows it all, because he has one dog and that is all the experience he needs to know it all. 

He won't listen and he is never wrong and his mind is completly closed to anything that counters his statements. He enjoys inciting the regular posters to this forum as well as the forum moderators. His threads are mainly baiting opportunities and he is enjoying the attention. 

My suggestion here is to cease and desist with feeding this fire. That is what the "ignore" option is for. 

Now, OP, if you have a question and you are seeking answers, we will gladly answer your questions. 

If OTOH you want us to fall down and worship you, your limited knowedge and experience and your partially trained dog, you are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

rvamutt said:


> What is dominance? Can you define it for me? Because most books I've read would define it as a description of the relationship between too animals as it pertains to a specific resource. How can a term used to describe a relationship and not an animal be hereditary?


i will quote from "The right dog for you", by Daniel Tortora, Phd, who rates breeds based on various traits, one of them being "dominance to strange dogs".

"The dominance dimension relates to the probability that a dog will assume a dominant or submissive posture given another dog or person attempting to dominate it."

i interpret this to be strongly related to the desire of a dog to be alpha.

when oinest (a beta) goes into a dog park, and is surrounded by the pooches, he assumes a rigid stance, and allows the others to sniff him first, and waits until they're satisfied...however, if one tries to mount him, he snarls.

an omega dog will often roll over at that point.

fights break out when an alpha comes in, and he doesn't want to allow the others to sniff him first.

in the aforementioned book, a staffordshire bull terrier is rated among the highest for high dominance to other dogs.
i think it is clear that his original roots as a fighting dog is responsible for that.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

dog-man said:


> in the aforementioned book, a staffordshire bull terrier is rated among the highest for high dominance to other dogs.
> i think it is clear that his original roots as a fighting dog is responsible for that.


I'm pretty sure they were bred for hunting rodents actually. 

http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/ant/BF12526.shtml

A whole lot of dominance needed to hunt mice, eh?


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

Or perhpas one could argue that a dog that immeadiately takes up a "dominant" posture is simply either poorly socilaized or bad at reading body langauge. Or perhaps the dog simply has a higher motivation to that resource (territory). 

I can't debate with you because tou have no ideas of you own, you simply quote books.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

rvamutt said:


> I can't debate with you because tou have no ideas of you own, you simply quote books.


if i say my opinions, i am told to quote sources.

now, i quoted a source, i am criticized.

and what is funny, in the post you are responding to, i both quoted a source, and then added my own understanding.



trumpetjock said:


> I'm pretty sure they were bred for hunting rodents actually.
> 
> http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/ant/BF12526.shtml
> 
> A whole lot of dominance needed to hunt mice, eh?


no, terriers in general were bred to hunt rodents...the bull terriers were bred specifically as a fighting machine.
the site you are quoting is being misleading.


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

The thing is dog-man, you obviously lack experiance and thats ok, but you also fancy yourself an expert. Reading a few books and raising a dog does not make one an expert on dogs. You know very little about dominance, less about its application, and yet you continue to argue.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

You were criticized because your own thoughts do not support what the author stated. 

Your interpretation is singular in that alphas do x, always. They don't. 

Furthermore, you continue to want to attribute dominance as a character trait of alpha. When if, you clearly read the author's quote, he too indicates that dominance is an attribute of the relationship between two dogs. Therefore, dominance is not a character trait, nor can it be a trait of alpha. It's simply a means to describe the outcome of the winner.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> You were criticized because your own thoughts do not support what the author stated.
> 
> Your interpretation is singular in that alphas do x, always. They don't.
> 
> .


actually, i don't remember using that sort of wording "always".

i talk about a tendency.

and if you have the book, the author clearly explains how various studies have show that these tendencies are heriditary.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Elana that is a good point. Someone else though might come across this and learn something though. 

At least in my case pit bulls and fighting isn't a nice subject but for anyone wishing to own an APBT it can be important for them to understand. Otherwise they could make a mistake that leads to tragedy. 

I probably won't post too much more. Its hard to put in layman's terms to where some people can understand it.



dog-man said:


> i will quote from "The right dog for you", by Daniel Tortora, Phd, who rates breeds based on various traits, one of them being "dominance to strange dogs".
> 
> "The dominance dimension relates to the probability that a dog will assume a dominant or submissive posture given another dog or person attempting to dominate it."
> 
> ...


What do fights at a dog park have to do with pit fights? In your words an alpha doesn't want the other dog to sniff, so a fight breaks out. Not anything to do with APBTs. You are just making assumptions on all dogs. A dog doesn't have to be an alpha/be reacting with dominance for it to attack/start a fight. 

Did you ever stop and think that perhaps a SBT is rated high for dominance just on the grounds of it being DA and not actually being dominant? This is about APBTs not SBT. I don't have much knowledge on SBT except that in this country (US) they are hardly if ever used for pit fights and have been much further removed from their history then APBTs.

APBTs usually are not dominant yet so many breeds who have no fighting origin are deemed dominant breeds. 

This is the big question. *Since APBTs do not fight for dominance why would it be important to breed them for such a trait?*

Considering you are not an all knowing deity who was around almost 200yrs ago when they were created you have no idea. I at least make assumptions off modern pit dogs. Bred for fight drive/gameness, and to produce the next generation of "good fighting dog". I don't believe that the breeding changed so much over the years. Perhaps it was refined some. Even though a long time span I don't think they just stopped breeding dominant dogs and changed this breed over. 

You don't seem to have researched dominance well enough let alone pit dogs. There isn't a way to have knowledge on something you have not researched/experienced.

Dogs who fight for dominance will fight until one submits. APBTs will not, would continue the assault while the other dog has rolled over, tail tucked and crying wanting to get away. If ti were dominance they would instead stop the attack as the other dog has given up and they have won/held their rank. 

Dominance does not cause a dog to whine and scream at the mere scent of another dog. Wag their tail or get excited about possibly fighting. 

Dominance does not lead to long drug out fights that could go until the death.

If you think that then again you don't know about dominance. 

I've had truly fight driven APBTs and I've had dominant APBTs. 2 very different things. In my own case my alpha bitch is further removed from history (6 gens back or so). She would fight for dominance if need be, she will warn others, yet she wouldn't be a good pit dog. I have a new female pup who behaves dominantly and so does both her sisters, they again are further removed from history and what an odd litter for all 3 to be dominant. 

Another female isn't an omega but certainly isn't dominant. I've owned dogs of this line before and they are much like her. She will never be tested of course nor were the others but it is doubtful that they were all curs. I could honestly care less but the fact is some might have been very good pit dogs, it'd be very unlikely for them to all be curs just because they are not dominant dogs. The bloodline in fact yielded many fastlane and top fighting dogs. Her great grandsire had long matches 1,2,3hrs, yet somehow these dogs are not dominant and dominance is not required. This doesn't mean that a dominant APBT wouldn't have been a good pit dog, however if thats the reason they were fighting for then they would be curs. 



rvamutt said:


> Or perhpas one could argue that a dog that immeadiately takes up a "dominant" posture is simply either poorly socilaized or bad at reading body langauge. Or perhaps the dog simply has a higher motivation to that resource (territory).
> 
> I can't debate with you because tou have no ideas of you own, you simply quote books.


A dog which reacts to another dog in the nature described or with aggression may quite frankly be lacking confidence and be scared. People confuse their dogs signs many times as being dominant, protective, "able to take any dog" just because the dog has an aggressive reaction. 

That is why I don't understand this poster. Comparing apples to oranges. Dogs which act aggressive or fight for dominance, territory, self defense, fear, ect. 



dog-man said:


> no, terriers in general were bred to hunt rodents...the bull terriers were bred specifically as a fighting machine.
> the site you are quoting is being misleading.


The only one being misleading is you to yourself. Many of the bull and terriers were used for vermin (mainly rodents and some others) and ratting contest. You simply can not change these facts by your own "expert opinion". Many were found to excel at pit fighting. Which is a lot different then specifically creating a "fighting machine" as you like to put it. An animal is not bred to be any kind of machine no matter the task, they can be developed and maintained for a specific purpose if they are good at it. 

APBT are unnatural canines because they had self preservation bred out. Unlike wolves who don't want to endanger their survival through fighting or most others dogs don't want to become seriously injured or die.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> actually, i don't remember using that sort of wording "always".


No, but you always repeat this statement on dominance, as if that's what it means to be "alpha", and you are using the term incorrectly. It's ok if you learn the proper definition, really, it may even help your argument. 



> i talk about a tendency.


Yes, my terrier has a tendency to chase fuzzy objects, that's what her breeding intended. Chase is part of the predatory sequence, and those behaviors are enhanced in my dog. But this says nothing about her character, only the behavior. 



> and if you have the book, the author clearly explains how various studies have show that these tendencies are heriditary.


I don't need the book to understand that all you can identify in a dog is the observable behavior. You can't measure "nice" or "intelligent" without defining what that behavior is.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I don't need the book to understand that all you can identify in a dog is the observable behavior. You can't measure "nice" or "intelligent" without defining what that behavior is.


actually, "nice" is a inherited trait.

the breeds are rated based on: sociability and friendliness with children, strangers, and dogs....affectionae and playfulness etc.


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

Do you really want to start using words that have you can't quantify like "nice". That means something different from person to person. If I have a breed that typically takes a bit to warm up to strangers (Chihuahuas come to mind) but once she does she's great would you call her not nice? How about the person who only sees her for a minute to rate her for some "What dog for me" book.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> actually, "nice" is a inherited trait.
> 
> the breeds are rated based on: sociability and friendliness with children, strangers, and dogs....affectionae and playfulness etc.


Actually, a dog's "niceness", "sociability", "friendliness" are inferences. You can't measure covert behaviors. If you think you can, what am I feeling at this very moment as I respond to you? How would you measure it? 

I applaud those who try to make these comparisons, as they have way more guts than I to attempt such a thing, but in the end the hypothesis at the beginning is the hypothesis at the end. Personally, if we're going to chase tails, I'd rather a dog do that, only because he has one.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Dude, CP...

back to the beginning of the thread, but I saw what you're talking about about the wolf/dog same species classification causing problems. Apparently it's not so bad to breed wolfdogs now because after all wolves and dogs are the same species and wolf/dog mixes are exactly like mixed breeds. So it's okay to breed them because they have no more special needs than other dog 'breeds'. 

Unless you're posting on other boards to make your point.


----------



## erijane (Mar 30, 2008)

real intresting reading material thanks for posting-


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Apparently it's not so bad to breed wolfdogs now because after all wolves and dogs are the same species and wolf/dog mixes are exactly like mixed breeds. So it's okay to breed them because they have no more special needs than other dog 'breeds'.


Laurelin, i couldn't tell if you were referring to my statements or someone elses.

anyway, the main DNA difference between dogs and wolves is the hormonal changes at sexual maturity, which make wolves aggressive.

many people have a great experience with wolf-dogs up until this point.

this is why a wolf/dog combo is quite dangerous (and stupid), even though they basically are the same species.

the dog is stuck in playful, adolescent behavior, and the wolf is going on to bigger and "better" things...watch your small children and animals.



Curbside Prophet said:


> Actually, a dog's "niceness", "sociability", "friendliness" are inferences. You can't measure covert behavior


i don't know why one has to quantify exactly a breed trait in order to observe it as a "fact".
if one wants affection, you would be best off not getting a Borzoi.
if you want a serious personality, don't get an Irish Setter.
if you want the dog to sleep through a robbery, get a Bull-dog.

and so on, and so on.

as far as not providing a clear definition of dominance, i provided one from Dr. Tortora's book, and then my own expansion of it, on this same thread page above. 

do you not agree that there are strong tendencies of personality traits that differ from breed to breed?
are there some that are getting your hackles up, and not others?
i am confused.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> i don't know why one has to quantify exactly a breed trait in order to observe it as a "fact".
> if one wants affection, you would be best off not getting a Borzoi.
> if you want a serious personality, don't get an Irish Setter.
> if you want the dog to sleep through a robbery, get a Bull-dog.


I have a dear friend who is...for the lack of a better word, spiritual. I love my friend dearly but sometimes she drives me insane with her logic. One day while I was over her house she had commented that her dog was moody. I asked her how did she know her dog was moody? She said her dog was being stand-offish and that her intuition sensed poor energy in her.  So I asked her again, in a way that wouldn't offend her, as we tend to argue a lot, why she believed her dog was not well. She went on to explain how the dog was panting more, pacing more, and stretching more. These are observable behaviors. Would you infer that this is a stand-offish, moody dog? I insisted that she take her dog to the vet. The dog in fact had intestinal blockage that required surgery. 

So why is observable behavior more important? It can be measured, tested, and controlled. You can't test inference without leading back to your own bias. If you know what you're observing, you're more likely to do things like, take your dog to a vet when they are offering behaviors common with pain. The alternate is to infer what the behavior is, be wrong, delay a proactive solution, then the dog ultimately suffers from our inference. 

So it goes to say that if you're testing the "affection" of dogs, and you don't appreciate the behavior of bully breeds, you're likely to find bully breeds less affectionate. This makes your test flawed. 



> do you not agree that there are strong tendencies of personality traits that differ from breed to breed?


Actually no, I view each dog as an individual. What I do differentiate between breeds is only what can be bred for...observable behavior. The time I've spent at my local shelter has also taught me that no dog can be predicted by inference. 



> are there some that are getting your hackles up, and not others?
> i am confused.


I'm not appreciative of bite/grab behavior in Corder Collies. In fact, neither do farmers. A BC that bite/grabs is a poor example of his breed. That would get my hackles up, and I'm sure you know for a "fact" what behavior I'm talking about. But if I said I don't like pushy BC's...well, you wouldn't have a clue what pushy exactly is in a BC. Nor does it target what behavior I'm talking about.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> So it goes to say that if you're testing the "affection" of dogs, and you don't appreciate the behavior of bully breeds, you're likely to find bully breeds less affectionate. This makes your test flawed.
> 
> .


i agree that a layperson probably could not make accurate observations themselves.
but there are many serious scientists who have done studies, and found behavioral traits to differ significantly from breed to breed.

this is a useful tool for people looking for the right breed for them.

yes, every dog is an individual...there are many other variables besides breed that need to be addressed.

do you deny that there is much research on this, or is just that you find it completely inaccurate, or perhaps just overrated?

as i had stated on a previous thread, i find that people dedicated to shelter work tend to minimize the importance of breed.
i don't think it is just from experience.
i think it stems from a love of the shelter mutt, and also not taking into account that most purebred dogs in shelters were not from good breeders, that bred for temperament consistency.
a purebred from a puppy mill is likely not to display the traits of his breed, in a way that is relevant to our discussion.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Dang. Good thing I Spayed Atka. 

She was headed for the show ring and I interevened and bought her for herding and agility.. 

and she is good at both (and in herding, not the tending as much as the driving w/o gripping which is not her breed trait)....

..and GSD's are protective and aloof.. and Atka thinks little children were put on this earth to be her buddies and she can't understand WHY, for heaven's sake, EVERYONE in the World Doesn't want a 70 pound GSD in their ARMS.....

I am glad we got THAT straight.
I am going straight away back to the breeder and ask for my money back.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Elana,

i can't respond if you exaggerate my position to the extent that it is no longer my position.

i talk about tendencies, as well refer to the multitude of other variables in determining an individual dogs character.

btw, if i wanted a herding dog, i would first look at border collies, various shepherd dogs...and not a retreiver or hound.
some might do the trick, but i might as well start with a dog bred for that work.
same thing goes for a family looking for a particular personality.
it pays to do all you can to maximize the chances of getting the type of dog you want.
otherwise, he might just end up in the pound, if someone is the type to do that.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

CP
*
Actually no, I view each dog as an individual. What I do differentiate between breeds is only what can be bred for...observable behavior. The time I've spent at my local shelter has also taught me that no dog can be predicted by inference.*

I agree whole heartedly with you, I simplify my explanation to people by saying the only different thing about the breeds is their physical appearance. Each dog in each breed is an individual. To me this is a fact not something I'm assuming or guessing at, or a theoretical study. It's my 40 years of real live dog experiences having trained 90 breeds.(still waiting for my 91st to walk into kennel.)


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> do you deny that there is much research on this, or is just that you find it completely inaccurate, or perhaps just overrated?


There is a lot of study on inferences, but I've found none of the studies valid that have gone on to call x, y, or z inferences are valid. There are more studies, however, on observable behaviors which are valid and useful. 



> as i had stated on a previous thread, i find that people dedicated to shelter work tend to minimize the importance of breed.


This is a nature vs. nurture question, and it can be said with confidence that shelter dogs come from a line of poor breeding practices. Breed traits are not as predictable in a shelter dog than as they are from a reputable breeder, but the shelter environment has to be considered too. So yes, breed traits are of every extreme in shelter dogs and become less important.

There is some utility, however... If I see a dog targetting another dog, I'm more likely to know where this behavior comes from by knowing the breed, and I'm more likely to know how to offset the behavior (in most cases). If I were to say the dog was very "serious", however, I'm not likely to know how to treat the behavior differently from one dog to another. Knowing breed traits (observable behaviors) is still a useful tool, but if you're asking me, inferences are even more laughable when considering the shelter dog. 



> i don't think it is just from experience.
> i think it stems from a love of the shelter mutt, and also not taking into account that most purebred dogs in shelters were not from good breeders, that bred for temperament consistency.


The experience *is* that shelter dogs come form poor breeding, yes. 



> a purebred from a puppy mill is likely not to display the traits of his breed, in a way that is relevant to our discussion.


There's no truth to this statement either. My dog is in fact a puppy mill dog. She is in fact a ratting dog. And it's fact that like her properly bred cousins, her chase behavior is predictable. Is she as "independent" like her properly bred cousins? I think so, but I can't offer you any valid proof of it. I can validate her behavior in chasing squirrels, however. I can test it, I can give you numbers on how many times she chased a squirrel when presented with a squirrel. I can tell you how fast she ran in one trial versus the next. I can tell you how long she maintained the behavior. I can tell you what the onset of the behavior was (the squirrel running away), and what the offset of the behavior was (the squirrel climbed a tree). I can't give you these measurable properties, however, in discussing her "independence". The relevance to this discussion is clear.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

wvasko said:


> CP
> *
> Actually no, I view each dog as an individual. What I do differentiate between breeds is only what can be bred for...observable behavior. The time I've spent at my local shelter has also taught me that no dog can be predicted by inference.*


i totally agree with you if i was to go into a shelter to choose an adult dog...i wouldn't be thinking much about breed...i would do my best to understand the individual dog as he has actually turned out.

however, if i was to go for a purebred pup, who isn't yet developed, it would be very wise to give serious consideration to breed.

i know too many people who chose a breed totally inappropriate for them, on so many levels...but as a pup, he seemed perfect.



Curbside Prophet said:


> There's no truth to this statement either. My dog is in fact a puppy mill dog. She is in fact a ratting dog. And it's fact that like her properly bred cousins, her chase behavior is predictable. Is she as "independent" like her properly bred cousins? I think so, but I can't offer you any valid proof of it. her "independence". The relevance to this discussion is clear.


what i was referring to is the differentiation which many breed experts make between many well-bred dogs and their puppy mill counterparts.

for example, a cocker spaniel, well bred, would be described in many positive terms.
however, the cocker, due to its popularity, has been diminished in quality in puppy mills.
therefore, all praises used on the well-bred ones can't be applied, with any assurance, to the puppy mill ones.

doesn't mean that they won't maintain many traits of their brethren, or that they can't possibly be good dogs.
it's just that the generalizations need to be ignored.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> i know too many people who chose a breed totally inappropriate for them, on so many levels...but as a pup, he seemed perfect.


You're now making my argument for me. People choose inappropriately because they do not choose dogs on behavior, they choose dogs on inferences. Spend a day behind the surrender desk of you local shelter and you will hear every inference in the world. What you're not likely to hear is someone surrendering their golden because he has a mouth too hard for retrieval work. This dog will be surrendered because he's dominant, or stubborn, or strong willed. 



> what i was referring to is the differentiation which many breed experts make between many well-bred dogs and their puppy mill counterparts.


Where are these puppy-mill dogs being tested? Why would an experimenter conduct such a test? What would he be trying to prove?



> for example, a cocker spaniel, well bred, would be described in many positive terms.
> however, the cocker, due to its popularity, has been diminished in quality in puppy mills.
> therefore, all praises used on the well-bred ones can't be applied, with any assurance, to the puppy mill ones.


Why can't they be applied? My dog has excellent chase behavior, and I can test it in relation to her high quality bred cousins. Her breeding included the chase behavior even if she comes from a poor line of breeders, otherwise, she wouldn't be a mini schnauzer. Form follows function. You can't exclude the relevance of observable behavior simply because it doesn't fit your argument. Regardless if a BC was surrendered to a shelter or trialed as a champion, both animals can be tested for out routes, and you may even find a serviceable BC who doesn't plow through a flock at a shelter. 



> it's just that the generalizations need to be ignored.


I don't know anyone who should adopt a shelter GSD who shouldn't know how a GSD behaves. That sounds like a formula for disaster. If the GSD turns out to be something it's not, well, that's the risk one accepts in adopting a shelter dog, and why the commitment to an adopted animal is equal to the commitment one should have in selecting a good breeder.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Where are these puppy-mill dogs being tested? Why would an experimenter conduct such a test? What would he be trying to prove?
> 
> .


ok, i will quote from Dr. Tortora, according to the back jacket of his (old 1980) book, an animal psychologist and nationally known expert in canine behavior.

on the American Cocker Spaniel

...its great popularity has resulted in puppy-mill production, which has produced large numbers of animals with a general degradation in quality and some bizarre temperamental changes and behavior problems.
The puppy-mill variety has been described as "shy-sharp" by breeders - connoting a combination of fear and dominance that causes viciousness.
The well-bred variety is described as "gentle" and exhibiting "playful submission".

Potential behavior problems with the puppy-mill variety include excessive whining and barking, dominance problems; submissive urinating; aggressive guarding of objects and people, house soiling; self-abusive hair chewing; hyperactivity...;hyperphagia, pica; polydypsia; hypersexuality and roaming.

the book doesn't go through such a wierd list with other dogs, just a few.

take it for what you think its worth.]

btw, i had to type this.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Ya, I don't know what to make of those statements other than bad breeding results in bad dogs. Who knew? Not too revealing since many of the behaviors listed can be directly linked to how the dog was nurtured, and not necessarily the result of the dog's nature. This just says don't buy a puppy-mill dog. Stupid me for rescuing one.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Stupid me for rescuing one.


you rescued a puppy-mill cocker?

btw, rescue is different than getting a puppy from a puppy mill.

you had a chance to evaluate the dog as a developed adult...breed generalizations are mcuh less relevant, since you kinda know this dog.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> you rescued a puppy-mill cocker?


No, I meant I rescued a puppy mill dog...a mini schnauzer. 



> btw, rescue is different than getting a puppy from a puppy mill.


Not true, for one not all rescue dogs are adults. Elsa came to me at 12 weeks. Even then, if the dog looks like a mini schnauzer, it will behave as a mini schnauzer. To what degree I couldn't predict since I don't know her breeder or parentage. Again, form follow function. If she didn't behave like a mini schnauzer she would not look like a mini schnauzer. 



> you had a chance to evaluate the dog as a developed adult...breed generalizations are mcuh less relevant, since you kinda know this dog.


The rescue had their temperament test in place, and I had mine. That's all we could evaluate, and the same can be said if she were an adult. Both only tell me how she was on that day, and in that condition. It told me nothing about how she would be today. Temperament tests are highly inconclusive. In many respects she's the opposite of how she tested on that day. After acclimation and training, many rescued adult dogs don't evaluate the same either.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Prophet, 

perhaps you are very skilled and astute at choosing good dogs...
we all need some degree of luck.

not everyone who goes to shelters and rescues is so astute.

and not every shelter or rescue is knowledgeable or helpful enough to make up for that.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> perhaps you are very skilled and astute at choosing good dogs...
> we all need some degree of luck.


With genetics, yes, good luck is better than bad luck. But if you're telling me that bringing home a fearful, excitable puppy was an astute choice, I'd have to disagree with you. No smart person should choose that kind or puppy or it's problems. I don't claim to be smart. Thankfully, yes with luck, her genetics (nature) dictated that her behaviors were modifiable (nurture); as they are in most dogs. Otherwise, I'd still have a horribly fearful and excitable dog. She may develop cancer next year, and die at a young age, but I've chosen that risk. And this kind of risk, again, is not a smart choice if you were looking for some sort of guarantee. 



> not everyone who goes to shelters and rescues is so astute.


The general public is misinformed, this is true, and it's independent whether they go to a shelter or buy from a breeder. It's the exact reason why I argue your inferences. I'd rather the general public enter shelters and find breeders with the knowledge of what observable behavior is and how it addresses their preferences precisely. Instead, the general public is either anthropomorphic or lycanthropic, which is the exact ill of dogdom. 



> and not every shelter or rescue is knowledgeable or helpful enough to make up for that.


Municipal shelters can only provide so much...they are using our tax dollars after all, and educating the public in dog ownership is not high on the list of priorities, to say painting over graffiti, at least in most communities I'd say this is true. And choosing a good rescue is no different than choosing a good breeder. Both are defendant on how well you make your choices.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> .
> 
> Instead, the general public is either anthropomorphic or lycanthropic, .


i had to look up that last word in the dictionary:
"a delusion in which one imagines oneself to be a wolf or other wild animal."

interesting.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

dog-man said:


> i had to look up that last word in the dictionary:
> "a delusion in which one imagines oneself to be a wolf or other wild animal."
> 
> interesting.


You've met your match

You must be happy with the viewing figures your getting Dogman,your causing quite a stir up in here.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

if i had thought about it, i might have come to it.

i knew that the name "Lucas", as in Jerry Lucas, means wolf.
-----------------

it's interesting to see the viewing numbers.
it's not my purpose (i hope).


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

No your quite funny actually,in a strange way.lol


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

thank you.

i often have a fan club, and a posse out to string me up.

i hope that, in all the debate, interesting and useful info is disseminated.


----------

