# my take on the "alpha" theory... (it's wrong!)



## minischnauzer (Apr 23, 2007)

The traditional mindset of just about any dog owner (you can see it everywhere - any internet article talks about it, the 'professional' dog trainers say it as mantra, Cesar Milan teaches it on his show) is that you must be the "alpha" of the pack. I've been doing a lot of reading on the latest studies and findings in animal (dog) behavior and wanted to share why I believe it's wrong. At its core, this theory, which is derived from the observation of wolf packs, assumes that 1) dogs are wolves, 2) that we can communicate our alpha status to dogs in a language they understand, and, most importantly, 3) dogs consider us a part of the pack. 

First of all, dogs are not wolves - hundreds of thousands of years of living with humans (and selective breeding) has ensured that dogs are not like wolves, although they share a similar DNA. They don't behave like wolves do, and because they've adapted to living with humans, they no longer share the same rigid social structure of a wolf pack. Secondly, no matter what you do - don't acknowledge your dog when you come through the door, eat first, keep your dog off high places, walk out of the door first, etc., you cannot effectively communicate with your dog in a language that your dog understands instinctively: you cannot wag your tail, move your ears a certain way, or mimic a rigid body shape. Undoubtedly, your dog understands and obeys you (because it's been bred to obey your signals), but he/she knows you're not another dog, and it doesn't treat you like another dog. Lastly, and this is most important: it's true that you have to teach your dog manners and that it must know to listen to you when you say something, but that doesn't make you the "alpha" of the pack. The dog knows that you're not a dog - you're not part of a pack that your dog would form with another dog that is living in your home. In other words, you cannot be an "alpha" of a pack because you don't belong to his pack, at least as far as the dog is concerned.

Another myth is that dogs form packs (hence, hierarchies) everywhere they go. Dogs will form packs with other dogs that they spend a lot of time with - and these are the dogs that they will truly challenge for dominance, if the need arises - and not with dogs they see only regularly. The dog running around a dog park mounting, growling, and barking at others isn't trying to be the alpha of a pack (there is no pack, assuming the dogs at the dog park meet randomly), it's an anxious, maladjusted dog who doesn't know how to effectively interact with others... These are the dogs that start useless fights by bullying the "wrong" dog, and bully the young and the weak. These are the dogs your dog needs to stay away from and, if it's your dog, that you need to retrain to be less anxious. (As was explained to me by a board certified animal behaviorist - he's a vet that only works with behavior - think of a dog park as a Christmas party at your company. It's fun to go and interact with others, but it's not something you'd want to do every day because it's too stressful: there are too many people, you don't know what's going to happen next because you don't know who'll be there and who doesn't, and you have to modify your behavior instead of just relaxing. As a result, the dog experiences anxiety.)

I've got nothing against Cesar Milan as a person, but his methods of dog training are draconian; I think it's irresponsible to air a show that teaches people how to train their dogs based on a method devised by a person who has no formal education in the field. He advocates making sure you exercise your dog daily for 2-3 hours... I absolutely agree that every dog needs a job (or else he'll find one!) but exercising him to the point of exhaustion and then bullying him (every time the dog does something "wrong," Cesar "bites" it on the chest and makes an abrupt sound) is akin to what they do in prison camps, where they first break down the body so they can break down the mind. I believe people don't walk their dogs enough in this country, but there is no need to go to extremes! I've seen Cesar's dogs on TV - take, for example, the pitt bull Pablo: he is always hanging his head, rarely makes eye contact, and mirrors Cesars' movements to the "T". Anyone who knows dogs can see that this dog is dejected if not outright depressed! And my joy in dogs doesn't come from having a robot that does everything I do and has no personality - I have lively, fun boys who make my life happy (or at least interesting) with their individual personalities but who listen to me when I need them to. 

The board-certified behaviorist I consulted recommends positive reinforcement when it comes to everything. I agree with this theory on almost all counts except for the part where I'm not supposed to say "No." According to the vet, saying "no" doesn't teach the dog anything - you have to explain what is proper. I stick to the middle ground - I believe that saying "no" works so long as I then communicate what is proper. I also believe that punishment has a place in training, but should be used a lot less and only in very serious circumstances. 

I can recommend several books that I found really interesting on the topic for those that are interested, including a three volume tome by Steven Lindsay called the Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training. The three books are fairly expensive, but are worth the read for anyone not wanting to pay a professional to tell you the same thing. I also found that Canine and Feline Behavioral Therapy by Bejamin Hart was also very good, although a lot more concise than the three volumes. All of these books are aimed at professional veterinarians so that they can diagnose and advise clients on how to treat their animals.


----------



## klip (Jul 22, 2008)

Wow its going to be interesting to see how people respond to this. Hopefully not just the usual kneejerk reactions!

Its very important to keep an open mind about these things and to always re-evaluate what you think you know. 

What I find interesting is this:

Some people seem to have a natural ability to work with dogs. It seems to be on an instictive level. They are not always the best people to give advice, as the reasons they give for why their methods work, are not always correct. They just _know_ how to act, and then try to make up methodologies in retrospect.

Then when their methods dont work for others, they dont re-evaluate their methodology - no - they say "you are not alpha enough" or "you are comunicating stress to your dog" or some such unprovable thing. 

What you say about dog parks is very interesting, and does make me understand the situation differently, and it does make sense.

What I've come to realise is this: Dogs are different. People are different. The training method has to work for both. So something that works for you, is not neccesarily going to work for some-one else. Its important to take it seriously if some one says:
"I tried that and it does not work for me".

But then, I'm a teacher so its my job to figure out what to do if people dont understand me.


----------



## minischnauzer (Apr 23, 2007)

The reason I started the thread is that I'm fed up by people in "positions of authority" spewing dog-related advice that borders (and, at times, surpasses!) on cruelty and which some people who lack the knowledge and/or experience apply to their animals. 

I did a basic google search on dog obedience just as an example and came upon this guy's site: Ed Frawley with Leerburg Kennels. Seriously, this man prides himself on having raised over 350 litters of german shepherds and having worked with dogs for 45 years. In the section on first introducing a young puppy into your home, he says such absolutely idiotic things as: "What better way to establish our leadership than to control every aspect of the pups (sic) life." [http://leerburg.com/308.htm - page 13] and that they lock the puppy in a crate in the garage when they "tire" of it or "when I don't have time for it" [then don't get a puppy!] and let it scream it's head off because "oh well, such is life." 

On page 19, this moron writes "we never allow our puppies to be around other dogs or puppies. If we are raising two pups at the same time we never allow them to play together. We want our pups to look at us as their source of fun and excitement and not another dog." [see page 19]. This stupidity is the reason there are so many maladjusted dogs that lack even basic socialization! 

I just couldn't read the rest because it was too maddening. But my point is that these "experts" are not only advocating an outdated theory, but are also teaching people to be bullies to those who cannot defend themselves - and that, in my opinion, is unforgivable. I wanted to get the "other side" out there and, hopefully, someone will listen.


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

The only thing you can get two trainers to agree on is that the third one is doing it all wrong.

That about sums up my opinion of other people's opinions on how everyeone else but themselves or their "behaviorist" does things.

I live with a pack of dogs 24/7. I eat, sleep, live and work with them. My dogs grew up as dogs should - socialization with humans but primarily in a dog pack with their momma and siblings. They have taught me more about dogs than any book, trainer, behaviorist, website, tv show or forum. Granted, I've heard several behaviorists echo what I already believe to be true and those tend to be the "experts" I gravitate towards when I am pondering something.

I don't use the word Alpha because there is no commonly accepted definition for it anymore - if there ever was. I do like Cesar's pack leader terminology b/c that IS something people can understand. 



> What I've come to realise is this: Dogs are different. People are different. The training method has to work for both.


Very true.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

minischnauzer
Yes we had some posts about Ed Frawley a month or so back. He got his real start selling Schutzhund videos and was never that involved in the training end. The 45 years is a exaggerated statement also. One thing he is, is a business man. I really don't know if he himself has ever started and trained any dog to a title of any kind. 30 yrs ago when he started out in the Video business I had ordered some VHS tapes of German Schutzhund Championships.

That being said I doubt Leerburg Kennels is the main problem with all the maladjusted dogs in the country. 

Now I have said this before, just because a Vet operates on your dogs and gives the yearly shots does not make them any kind of behaviourist problem solvers. Yours may be the exception to the rule. As a dog trainer I promise I will not spay or neuter a dog. I sometimes wish the Vets would do the same and stay out of my business(minor Vent)

I would be interested in knowing your qualifications and experience with the 4 legged rascals.


----------



## blunder (Sep 2, 2008)

As a general statement, a trained dog does not have alpha related problems.
This is also a reason that I am a firm believer in "ENS". From day #3 the pup becomes comfortable being held upside down, which acts as a modifier to the alpha syndrome.

Where the alpha logic gets scary is when people think their dog needs to be "alpha rolled", because the only dogs that need it are they ones that you wouldn't dare do it to. Any dog that will let you roll it, has no need of it.

Where I disagree with you tho' is if you are going to use operant conditioning to train a dog, why only use 1/4th of the equation? Understand when you are using negitive punishment et-all, because you will use them even if you don't know that you are.


----------



## minischnauzer (Apr 23, 2007)

[deleted as irrelevant]


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

blunder said:


> As a general statement, a trained dog does not have alpha related problems.
> This is also a reason that I am a firm believer in "ENS". From day #3 the pup becomes comfortable being held upside down, which acts as a modifier to the alpha syndrome.
> 
> Where the alpha logic gets scary is when people think their dog needs to be "alpha rolled", because the only dogs that need it are they ones that you wouldn't dare do it to. Any dog that will let you roll it, has no need of it.
> ...


You know I have wondered about the alpha roll since I joined the forum. Just under 50 yrs of dog work and I have never rolled a dog. With puppies, they can do no wrong(my opinion) so I never rolled one. I have told people on forum if their puppies bite their hands buy cheap leather work gloves so you don't get hurt and get mad at your free spirited puppie. Spent almost 15 yrs doing protection work and in that period met quite a few alligators, the last place I wanted to be was on the ground trying to roll them.

*Where the alpha logic gets scary is when people think their dog needs to be "alpha rolled", because the only dogs that need it are they ones that you wouldn't dare do it to. Any dog that will let you roll it, has no need of it.*

Exactly, but you are the 1st to word it properly, maybe people can understand it.
Again, I just keep saying puppies can do no wrong, why would anybody do an alpha roll.


----------



## minischnauzer (Apr 23, 2007)

I'm afraid I have no idea what ENS is - I doubt you mean an electronic network system, or the environment news service, but that's all I could come up with as far as acronyms. And you label being an "alpha" as a syndrome and somehow wish to hold the dog upside down for it? To me, that's like telling a parent to hold an assertive kid upside down until he's "cured." This falls into the "bullying" category - along with "alpha rolling" - of intimidating a dog into compliance instead of getting to the root of the issue. [Such as: Is the dog acting out because he's scared? Because he's establishing boundaries? Physical cause?] 



blunder said:


> As a general statement, a trained dog does not have alpha related problems.
> This is also a reason that I am a firm believer in "ENS". From day #3 the pup becomes comfortable being held upside down, which acts as a modifier to the alpha syndrome.
> 
> Where the alpha logic gets scary is when people think their dog needs to be "alpha rolled", because the only dogs that need it are they ones that you wouldn't dare do it to. Any dog that will let you roll it, has no need of it.
> ...


----------



## blunder (Sep 2, 2008)

minischnauzer said:


> I'm afraid I have no idea what ENS is - I doubt you mean an electronic network system, or the environment news service, but that's all I could come up with as far as acronyms. And you label being an "alpha" as a syndrome and somehow wish to hold the dog upside down for it? To me, that's like telling a parent to hold an assertive kid upside down until he's "cured." This falls into the "bullying" category - along with "alpha rolling" - of intimidating a dog into compliance instead of getting to the root of the issue. [Such as: Is the dog acting out because he's scared? Because he's establishing boundaries? Physical cause?]


Here ya go
http://www.breedingbetterdogs.com/achiever.html


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

minischnauzer said:


> It's interesting that you took my post as a personal affront, immediately requesting my qualifications.
> 
> To answer your question off the bat: I'm not a veterinarian, nor do I make a living as an animal behaviorist. In fact, I'm about as far away as it gets from the field: I have an undergraduate degree in international business management with a concentration on Western Europe and a JD, with the bulk of my practice centered on corporate defense. Rest assured, I have no evil plan to take over your "business" and was unaware I was infringing on your business interests by posting my opinion on the issue (the title of my post is "my take on the 'alpha' theory"). [I could mock you by requesting your qualifications for having decided that vets are invading your 'business' by offering behavior advice -- but that would be infantile  ]
> 
> ...


Minischnauzer
Gee, I actually thought you had an interesting post, I did not take anything as a personal affront and I did not think asking what your experience was would be out of line. I did not think mentioning that I was a dog trainer would ring your bell either. I just thought asking would show a general interest in your thread. I guess that's why I gave thread a little more info on the Leerburg kennel beef. Not a problem with the diagnosing I would not be very good at that. I actually had you diagnosed as an interesting intelligent person. You can see I'm not real good at diagnosing anything.


----------



## minischnauzer (Apr 23, 2007)

blunder said:


> Here ya go
> http://www.breedingbetterdogs.com/achiever.html


I've had only a brief moment to look into the theory and will admit that I've found no scholarly journal that has published any study involving early neuroligical stimulation. 

The closest article - "Effects of early gentling and early environment on emotional development of puppies" by Angelo Gazzanoa, Chiara Maritia, Lorella Notarib, Claudio Sighieria and Elizabeth Anne McBridec in Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 110, Iss 3-4 supports your thesis:

In recent years much interest has been focused on early experiences and numerous studies have been carried out in order to understand their effects on the behaviour of adult animals. The aim of this preliminary study was to assess the effects of early gentling and early environment on the emotional stability of puppies. Forty-three dogs (16 females and 27 males) from seven litters were used. Four of these litters (in total 23 puppies) were raised in a professional breeding kennel, while the remaining litters lived in their owner's home, in a family atmosphere. Half of every litter was gently handled daily from the 3rd day postpartum until the 21st. In order to assess the puppies’ emotionality, an isolation test followed by an arena test were conducted on every puppy at the age of 8 weeks. Video recording of the tests allowed the measurement of each puppy's vocalization and exploratory activity. Data were analysed with the Newmann–Keuls’ test comparing four groups: non-handled puppies raised in family (NHF); handled puppies raised in family (HF); non-handled puppies raised in a professional breeding kennel (NHB); handled puppies raised in a professional breeding kennel (HB).

The results suggest that early environment strongly influences the emotional stability of puppies when put in isolation: latency to the first yelp was longer (p < 0.05) in the HB group (89.46 ± 66.42) compared to NHB (45.90 ± 52.76), NHF (13.10 ± 12.17) and HF (17.90 ± 14.32), and in the NHB compared to NHF and HF; duration of vocalizations was shorter (p < 0.05) in the HB (36.77 ± 54.16) and NHB group (72.80 ± 60.57) compared to NHF (149.78 ± 19.52) and HF (132.50 ± 45.24). Moreover, early gentling had a cumulative positive effect on the emotional development of puppies. For both environments, handled puppies were calmer. In fact, they showed longer latency to vocalize and handled puppies (HB = 119.00 ± 39.85; HF = 97.12 ± 33.56) spent significantly more time (seconds) in exploratory activity (p < 0.05) compared to the corresponding non-handled puppies (NHB = 64.90 ± 34.06; NHF = 57.00 ± 26.61).

Therefore, it is concluded that the deliberate inclusion of gentling during early puppyhood would be advantageous to the emotional development and welfare of the puppy, in particular for those at risk of limited or poor tactile stimulation in the early weeks.


However, too much stress can have averse effects: 

"Chemical adrenalectomy reduces hippocampal damage induced by kainic acid" by Becky A. Stein and Robert M. Sapolsky (British Journal of Animal Behaviour; Volume 473, Issue 1) which studied the effects of stress on the brain, and found that "Glucocorticoids (GCs), the adrenal steroids secreted during stress, have numerous catabolic effects which include damage to neurons of the hippocampus, a principal neural target site for the steroids. In the rat, the extent of GC exposure over the lifespan is a major determinant of the rate of hippocampal neuron death during aging."


"Social dominance, aggression and faecal glucocorticoid levels in a wild population of wolves, Canis lupus" by Jennifer Sands and Scott Creel (same journal; volume 67, Issue 3); and which found that "Adrenal glucocorticoid (GC) secretion is an important component of the response to stress in vertebrates. A short-term increase in circulating GCs serves to redirect energy from processes that can be briefly curtailed without harm, allowing energy to be directed towards eliminating or avoiding the stressor. In contrast, prolonged elevation of GCs can cause a broad range of pathologies, including reproductive suppression."

See also: 

Pottinger, T.G., 1999. The impact of stress on animal reproductive activities. In: Baum, P.H.M., Editor, , 1999. Stress Physiology in Animals, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 130–177.

Moberg, G.P., 1985. Influence of stress on reproduction: measure of well being. In: Moberg, G.P., Editor, , 1985. Animal Stress, American Physiological Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 245–267.


----------



## SMoore (Nov 9, 2007)

I do agree with the OP about many things and that many of cesar's methods should not be used on the every day house pet. I also feel he labels dogs as "red zone" aggression cases where they really aren't (imo) most of the dogs he seems to label as red zone are just dogs that are poorly socialized, etc..

I think though with some pretty tough aggression issues that some of the harsher training methods are needed. dog on dog aggression can usually seem to be helped with redirection but if a dog is human-aggressive i think some of the harsher methods might be needed, but thats just my opinion.

If his methods can save an aggressive dog from being put down, im all for it.

I personally dislike him.


----------



## blunder (Sep 2, 2008)

> I've had only a brief moment to look into the theory and will admit that I've found no scholarly journal that has published any study involving early neuroligical stimulation.



try here

Battaglia, C.L., "Loneliness and Boredom" Doberman Quarterly, 1982. 
Kellogg, W.N. & Kellogg, The Ape and the Child, New York: McGraw Hill. 
Scott & Fuller, (1965) Dog Behavior -The Genetic Basics, University Chicago Press 
Scott, J.P., Ross, S., A.E. and King D.K. (1959) The Effects of Early Enforced Weaning on Stickling Behavior of Puppies, J. Genetics Psychologist, p5: 261-81.


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

I think a lot of people have made a lot of money and added a lot of letters after their name publishing this or that. Ultimately, dogs are not complex. If you observe with an open mind and an open heart + an elementary understanding of conditioning they're quite simple. I think that's why a lot of "experts" hate Cesar. How dare this "common person" without an alphabet soup after his name dare tread on their territory. Exercise, discipline, affection. Yeah. It can really be that simple. Be a pack leader - provide for your dogs needs and provide clear, reasonable and consistent rules, boundaries and limitations and you will have a well balanced dog.



> Where the alpha logic gets scary is when people think their dog needs to be "alpha rolled", because the only dogs that need it are they ones that you wouldn't dare do it to. Any dog that will let you roll it, has no need of it.


I like the way you said this. 

(I only have an undergraduate degree in psychology)


----------



## Criosphynx (May 15, 2008)

Having read probably 99% of the pages on Ed's website, all i can say is i think its easy to find things you don't like, if your looking for them. 

I learned ALOT from his site. I also had enough of a brain to realize som' of that stuff wouldn't work on a soft dog like mine, so i discarded it. He is also quick to give up on dogs with "weak nerves". That said, I still can take alot of knowledge out of his point of view.


Same with Caesar Milan. If your trying to pick him apart its easy. I think that goes for most trainers/styles. Sure, som' of his methods don't work for the reasons hes says. Like the alpha roll. It works because its aversive, not because "its what dogs do".

I think the show has brought dog training to the front of alot of otherwise uninterested peoples minds. I see that as a good thing. 

The only thing i really take from the "pack mentality" is that i need to be a leader and a protector. I don't however have to go through doors first all the time to be a leader and a protector, thats just silly.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

lovemygreys said:


> I think a lot of people have made a lot of money and added a lot of letters after their name publishing this or that. Ultimately, dogs are not complex. If you observe with an open mind and an open heart + an elementary understanding of conditioning they're quite simple.


Bob Bailey, who has a few of those letters after his name has a saying that parallels this; he says, training *is* simple, but adds, it is *not* easy. Even though it may not take much understanding to care for a dog, raising one can be complex and dependent on many factors outside of one's control. As more and more people become educated in how to raise a dog more and more people are interested in how dogs learn. This science makes lives easier for both human and dog. I guess the problems a dog can have are only as complex as the dogs you have. 



> I think that's why a lot of "experts" hate Cesar. How dare this "common person" without an alphabet soup after his name dare tread on their territory.


I disagree. Many of those "experts", or do you really mean "critics"?, are successful in their own right, are respected by their peers, and are dedicated to the welfare of dogs. And if anything, the popularity of Cesar's show has created more territory, not minimized it. As more and more people bring their dogs into their home, more and more people have come to realize (perhaps by watching Cesar's show) that their dog problems are not something they have to live with - they can seek the guidance of a professional. The criticism over Cesar is a concern for the safety and well being of dogs and their owners...not some fear of Cesar's message.


----------



## minischnauzer (Apr 23, 2007)

lovemygreys said:


> Ultimately, dogs are not complex. If you observe with an open mind and an open heart + an elementary understanding of conditioning they're quite simple. I think that's why a lot of "experts" hate Cesar. How dare this "common person" without an alphabet soup after his name dare tread on their territory. Exercise, discipline, affection. Yeah. It can really be that simple. Be a pack leader - provide for your dogs needs and provide clear, reasonable and consistent rules, boundaries and limitations and you will have a well balanced dog.


I strongly disagree. In my opinion, dogs, like humans, primates, and other multi-celled organisms, are quite complex. What we view as "dog problems" stem from a myriad of issues (nature v. nurture may be a term you remember from undergraduate days). Take anxiety problems, for example... A pregnant bitch subjected to stimuli that maintain a constant state of fear in the animal will give birth to offspring that are more reactive and emotional, have a higher chance of suffering from learning problems, and also suffer from changes in "normal" reproductive behavior down the line. Studies have also shown that even something as unpredictable as fetal position can have lasting emotional effects on the animal - in rats and mice, in utero exposure of females to androgens led to increased urine marking and mounting and decreased reproductive success later in life... and, of course, increased anxiety. Puppies with mothers that were not as "active" in their care were less likely to be well socially developed and more fearful, as well as be poor "parents" themselves. Although there is a canine genome project, we do not know which genes are responsible for elevated anxiety levels or aggression, although scientists believe that it's not one or even several genes but the protein codes that influence the absorption of seratonin and tryptophan. In other words, a dog's anxiety could come from a genetic predisposition, improper socialization, diet, hormonal levels in utero and at different developmental markers, etc., etc., etc. 

And precisely because dogs are complex creatures there are so many experts out there, advocating that their system works. But the thing is that I'm not even hawking a system... I'm just stating my opinion on the fallacy behind the "traditional" view of what you term being "a pack leader." Call it what you want - as long as you take care of your dogs and don't abuse them, to me it frankly doesn't matter. I call myself a parent - you call yourself a pack leader; I'm not a scientist and I could care less for the "proper terminology." I wish you and yours the best of luck. What DOES get to me, however, and what I do a lot of pro bono work in, is animal cruelty - and people that advocate bullying, intimidation, and other physical punishments should themselves be subjected to the same, in my opinion. I think these theories should be prefaced with something along the lines of "there are other schools of thought out there" and that you don't have to constantly put your dog "in its place" to be a responsible parent (pack leader).


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

Ok, here's my two cents:

I agree with the OP that the idea of the alpha leader as Cesar Milan describes it is antiquated. As the trainer of the obedience school my dog and I went to said, "if you let your dog walk through the door first, eat first, or win a game of tug o' war, he will not take over your mortgage" - (although if my dog did pay my mortgage, she could eat anything she wants!). 

However, I'm not a total believer in the positive reinforcement model either. I do believe you should reward the good behaviour but I think that a bit of negative reinforcement is required. No, we cannot speak to our dogs in their language but dogs are simple: they will repeat behaviours that result in a positive consequence and will not perform behaviours which result in a negative consequence. 

I'm no expert but I do think that you have to exert your authority over your dog - after all, he is a dog and not a human. I don't mean submit your dog to extreme measures like the alpha roll but to use positive and negative reinforcement in a firm but consistent manner. I won't get into the debate about whether dogs are wolves or not as I don't know enough to even scratch the surface of that subject but in a wolf pack, a mother would nip a cub for exhibiting unacceptable behaviour (negative reinforcement). A mother would offer her cub positive reinforcement if he performed a behaviour that is acceptable. Dogs operate in the same way (as do humans); so whether they are wolves or not, they learn the same way. Dogs have a simple way of thinking: "if I sit, I get a treat." They don't think in an abstract manner and beyond the present. 

There are a lot of good points made in this thread so keep 'em coming!


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

I about gag whenever I hear someone start parroting Cesar Milan, pack theory, dominance theory, and insist that all is takes is to be "calm and assertive," and to give exercise, discipline, and then affection. While I give CM credit where credit is due, I cringe when I see him do completely unnecessary things to a dog (i.e., flooding, pinning a dog down, using leash corrections and force with a dog displaying fear aggression to other dogs). 

I, too, believe that dogs are decidely NOT as simple as some would have us believe, but, rather, highly complex creatures who deserve to be treated with respect for who and what they are. Using isolation (Ed Frawley), or the dominance theory (Cesar Milan) is unnecessary, and just plain abusive, imho. I'm not an expert, nor do I profess to be one, but, I _have_ lived with dogs for six decades, and have learned a great deal about them, and how they learn. In my experience, the quickest way to get my dogs' cooperation in doing things _my_ way has been through developing a relationship built on mutual trust and respect. Without knowing I was using OC +R, that is exactly what I was doing (and how I raised my children), along with some CC in there. I never use corrections or punishment of any kind with a puppy or an adult dog who was learning, but I would "correct" a dog I believed "knew better," having been trained and proofed on that training, but was balking for whatever reason. So yes, I see myself as the parent, or leader, but I do not delude myself into thinking I am a "pack member," and as such have to show dominance over them, or they will try to take over as pack leader. The idea is absurd! My two 7-yr. old dogs received their basic house manners and obedience training long ago, I don't really do any "refresher" training, they're allowed on my furniture, sleep with me, and often share a taste of this or that from my fork or spoon. Even so, they don't beg when I have food, they move when I say "beep beep," come when called, I give them affection _first_, yet they don't try to "take over" even though I'm an easy-going owner! In all the years of having dogs, not one has ever tried to dominate me, and they all were well behaved despite not having been "trained" per se.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Criosphynx said:


> Having read probably 99% of the pages on Ed's website, all i can say is i think its easy to find things you don't like, if your looking for them.
> 
> I learned ALOT from his site. I also had enough of a brain to realize som' of that stuff wouldn't work on a soft dog like mine, so i discarded it. He is also quick to give up on dogs with "weak nerves". That said, I still can take alot of knowledge out of his point of view.
> 
> ...


sphynx
What you said.


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

poodleholic said:


> I about gag whenever I hear someone start parroting Cesar Milan, pack theory, dominance theory, and insist that all is takes is to be "calm and assertive," and to give exercise, discipline, and then affection. While I give CM credit where credit is due, I cringe when I see him do completely unnecessary things to a dog (i.e., flooding, pinning a dog down, using leash corrections and force with a dog displaying fear aggression to other dogs).


I don't gag when I hear people dismiss Cesar outright. It does tell me I can probably stop reading b/c the person understands little-to-nothing about dogs. It's a time saver, if nothing else.



Curbside Prophet said:


> I guess the problems a dog can have are only as complex as the dogs you have.


Can you explain this, please?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

lovemygreys said:


> Can you explain this, please?


I was thinking along the lines of someone who may own a dog where this or that didn't work as easily as it was said on TV, nor helped, and they don't know where to turn to next...say a dog with true separation anxiety, pica behavior, learned helplessness, or other fears and phobias. I know owning a dog with these problems is complex and can tax even the most resilient person. If you've never owned one of these dogs "as seen on tv" is not as cookie cutter as we wish it were.


----------



## klip (Jul 22, 2008)

I'm interested in the statement that the dog does not consider you to be part of its pack.

While I agree that the whole pack behaviour thing has been over simplified and misunderstood, I also think that it cannot be true that the dog does not consider humans as part of their pack.

I do believe we have oversimplified the meaning of "pack" to a dog, and mostly have a oversimplified understanding of the pack hierarchies and their implications. 

I think dogs are a lot more flexible than we think they are - for example, that most dogs are capable of understanding that a human smile is not a snarl, and some dogs even imitate this. Or that most dogs learn that a human staring into their eyes is not a sign of aggresion - as it is if a dog stares at them.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

flipgirl said:


> a mother would nip a cub for exhibiting unacceptable behaviour (negative reinforcement).


Actually, this would be positive punishment. For it to be negative reinforcement mama dog would have to continue to nip the pup until the pup performed the appropriate behavior. The difference is the target behavior. Punishment attempts to end a behavior, reinforcement attempts to gain a behavior.

For example, say you want your dog to sit, but she stands instead. If I wanted to punish standing I would give her a severe leash jerk, enough to force the dog into another position. That position could be sitting, but for a soft dog it may be cowering and peeing on one's self. In this instance the target behavior is standing. Now if the dog stood and I annoyingly jerked on the dogs lead until she sat, and only sat, and I ceased jerking on her lead once she sat, this reinforces sitting...the target behavior is sitting. If pup bites on mama's teet too hard, mama punishes this behavior, she does not attempt to reinforce softer suckling.

There is a place for punishment in dog training. The contention is whether physical punishment is humane, and there are many examples from Cesar's show where the dog clearly indicates he is under a lot of stress from Cesar's physical manipulations...this is the reason for the criticism and IMO, rightfully so. However, by definition positive punishment need not be scary, harsh, or fearful, so there is reason to believe there is a more humane way.

Sorry to use your statement as an example flip, but I thought it would be helpful.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

CP

I now see my problem,
I do what I do until the dog does what it's suppose to do.( my explanation )

*Actually, this would be positive punishment. For it to be negative reinforcement mama dog would have to continue to nip the pup until the pup performed the appropriate behavior. The difference is the target behavior. Punishment attempts to end a behavior, reinforcement attempts to gain a behavior.*

(your explanation) could that not be tomato, tomoto


----------



## minischnauzer (Apr 23, 2007)

klip said:


> I'm interested in the statement that the dog does not consider you to be part of its pack.
> 
> While I agree that the whole pack behaviour thing has been over simplified and misunderstood, I also think that it cannot be true that the dog does not consider humans as part of their pack.
> 
> ...


Look, this goes back to the way you define "pack," and to the fact that there are very acute differences between wolves and dogs.

Generally, a pack is "a number of (wild) animals living and hunting together." The idea that the members of the group are of the same species is implicit in that because our understanding of social interaction of dogs comes from observing wolves in packs, and wolves (even if raised in captivity, and even if mated with dogs to make hybrids) will not necessarily obey human commands, even if they learn them, whereas they will follow the pack leader that represents their "alpha." (Who is not a human being.) Also, wolves that live in zoos and who have been exposed to humans for long periods of time do not accept scientists as part of their "pack" (a member with whom they may mate and hunt) although they do not outright attack them, either... so obviously, wolves can understand the difference between another wolf and a human being. 

Undoubtedly, so can your dog. And although the dog can differentiate between you (a human) and another dog, it may still consider you a part of its "family" (a non-technical term that I'll use to differentiate the concepts) and protect you accordingly. To highlight yet another difference between dogs and wolves, it should be noted that although dogs will guard you even if you are what some in this thread call a "pack leader" - wolves will not. This is because wolves that are the real alphas will decide whether to stay and fight or to flee, whereas the non-dominant members will stay back and let them figure it out. Also, wolves have dominant pairs (male and female) that lead a pack whereas dominant household dogs that belong to a "pack" are singular individuals, male or female.



lovemygreys said:


> I don't gag when I hear people dismiss Cesar outright. It does tell me I can probably stop reading b/c the person understands little-to-nothing about dogs. It's a time saver, if nothing else.


Well, at least you keep an open mind.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> (your explanation) could that not be tomato, tomoto


From the mind's POV, no, they are diametric. Since punishment does not attempt to gain behavior, what you get after you punish a behavior can not be predicted. As a competent trainer my wage isn't earned by gambling on the unpredictable. Owner's want the desired behavior now, so if I'm looking to reinforce the desired behavior, I'm one step ahead of that trainer who's seeking to punish inappropriate behavior. It's called behavior economics.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> From the mind's POV, no, they are diametric. Since punishment does not attempt to gain behavior, what you get after you punish a behavior can not be predicted. As a competent trainer my wage isn't earned by gambling on the unpredictable. Owner's want the desired behavior now, so if I'm looking to reinforce the desired behavior, I'm one step ahead of that trainer who's seeking to punish inappropriate behavior. It's called behavior economics.


Just suppose and that's not a hard stretch of the imagination(since I have stated many times being not the brightest bulb in the box) that I am doing exactly all the proper things, but lack the abililty to explain what I'm doing. Duuuhhhh! That's my story and I'm going to stick with it.
Now I have mentioned to you before that when you get done explaining things I have no idea what you said. To put a cap on it, have I not always told you to understand the caliber of the man you are talking to


----------



## starry15 (Jan 20, 2007)

Dogs have to be taught right or wrong. You let a few things slide in training and let them get away with little things then they start testing you seeing how many buttons they can push and how many things they can get away with. Then they do something way out of line and you get mad and they look up at you with that cute little puppy face and you give in! That is when the "Alpha" idea comes in. Your dog no longer is living under your control, your living under your dogs. You have to show the dog that you the owner and they must do as you comand. That is basically being the "alpha" but in different words. You have to have control over your dog! 

I herd of Cesar millan but I have no idea who he really is other than a dog trainer. I don't have cabel TV to watch his shows and I never bothered to utube him either. I have no idea what his training methods are nor do I care. Everyone has diffrent methods and I believe that there is no one certain training method you can use to train a dog. You have to use different ones to see what one works best on your dog.


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I was thinking along the lines of someone who may own a dog where this or that didn't work as easily as it was said on TV, nor helped, and they don't know where to turn to next...say a dog with true separation anxiety, pica behavior, learned helplessness, or other fears and phobias. I know owning a dog with these problems is complex and can tax even the most resilient person. If you've never owned one of these dogs "as seen on tv" is not as cookie cutter as we wish it were.


Oh, I've owned and fostered plenty of tough cases. Our 'specialty' in greyhounds is adopting the dogs that no one else wants or can handle. Spooks, history of bites/aggression to animals and/or people, separation anxiety, 'uncrateable', escape artists, "not housetrainable".... BTDT. The basic principles still apply to these dogs and the handler's attitude. Solving some individual quirks may require some thinking outside the box, but all dogs still need the basics met.


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Actually, this would be positive punishment. For it to be negative reinforcement mama dog would have to continue to nip the pup until the pup performed the appropriate behavior. The difference is the target behavior. Punishment attempts to end a behavior, reinforcement attempts to gain a behavior.
> 
> For example, say you want your dog to sit, but she stands instead. If I wanted to punish standing I would give her a severe leash jerk, enough to force the dog into another position. That position could be sitting, but for a soft dog it may be cowering and peeing on one's self. In this instance the target behavior is standing. Now if the dog stood and I annoyingly jerked on the dogs lead until she sat, and only sat, and I ceased jerking on her lead once she sat, this reinforces sitting...the target behavior is sitting. If pup bites on mama's teet too hard, mama punishes this behavior, she does not attempt to reinforce softer suckling.
> 
> ...


----------



## klip (Jul 22, 2008)

minischnauzer said:


> Generally, a pack is "a number of (wild) animals living and hunting together." The idea that the members of the group are of the same species is implicit in that because our understanding of social interaction of dogs comes from observing wolves in packs, and wolves (even if raised in captivity, and even if mated with dogs to make hybrids) will not necessarily obey human commands, even if they learn them, whereas they will follow the pack leader that represents their "alpha." (Who is not a human being.) Also, wolves that live in zoos and who have been exposed to humans for long periods of time do not accept scientists as part of their "pack" (a member with whom they may mate and hunt) although they do not outright attack them, either... so obviously, wolves can understand the difference between another wolf and a human being.
> 
> Undoubtedly, so can your dog. And although the dog can differentiate between you (a human) and another dog, it may still consider you a part of its "family" (a non-technical term that I'll use to differentiate the concepts) and protect you accordingly. To highlight yet another difference between dogs and wolves, it should be noted that although dogs will guard you even if you are what some in this thread call a "pack leader" - wolves will not. This is because wolves that are the real alphas will decide whether to stay and fight or to flee, whereas the non-dominant members will stay back and let them figure it out. Also, wolves have dominant pairs (male and female) that lead a pack whereas dominant household dogs that belong to a "pack" are singular individuals, male or female.


I'm not convinced by this.

You state that most people are mistaken in their belief that their dogs consider them to be part of their pack - or more acurately - their dogs consider _themselves_ to be part of a pack that the humans belong to as well.

Then you say - this is not true, dogs are not part of the pack.

You justify this by defining pack in much more narrow terms that most people do - and in itself, that makes this observation not particularly helpful.

"OK - so maybe dogs consider themselves to be part of the _family_ (which is what most people mean when they say pack) but when _I_ say pack, I mean creatures of the same species that can mate with one another etc"

I think you are quite correct in stating that its often ridiculous for a human to try to talk "dog" by doing certain suposedly canine body language things - dogs are so tuned into body language, they are quite capable of reading humans in human terms. 

The fact that dogs can distinguish between dogs and humans does not mean that some of their behaviour may not still be influenced by their sense that they and their humans are partof the same ... ok lets call it "clique" .

Most people use this whole pack thing to try to figure out why their dogs behave the way they do, and to try to figure out how the humans can use this hopefully predictable tendency to help control their dogs.

For that reason its helpful to challenge to what extent, and exactly how a dog's behaviour is predictable by this whole pack theory thing. To say that dog's dont consider themselves to be part of a pack - and then to go on to define pack in very narrow terms is a circular argument.

Also I am now confused, because you started out making a convincing case for how dogs are not like wolves and therefore their behaviour cannot be predicted by studying that of wolves - but when you speak about packs, you back it up by citing studies of wolves.

Is it possible that dogs - possibly uniquely - are capable of forming packs with animals that are not the same species that they are?  Even if they are aware that humans are not dogs?

We are always telling one another how dogs "do not generalise". Possibly dogs do not think in categories like humans - but simply by individuals? They meet a living creature and can see by its attributes that its likely to be the kind of creature that may bite them, but is also potentially lots of fun to play with and talks really fluently. They meet another creature, who they can tell by the way it looks and past experience, that this is one of those things that speaks in a really confusing way - but can also produce food, and should be closely watched.

I dont think dogs go the further (human) step to say - "that's a dog" and "that's a human". They dont think about it. They just react.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Just wanted to jump in to say that if dogs are to be compared to wolves, it is important to keep in mind that they are neotenised - that is the equivalent of wolf pups - in many respects (psychological and physical). So, perhaps it may be more useful to consider whether pack behavior is developed in young wolves rather than adults, and if so, to what extent? IMO, dogs are more mobsters than true packing animals.. 

Also, what do we mean by "pack"? I think recently the concept of a wolf "pack" has been revised (by David Mech mainly) - wolf packs seem to be really just be wolf families. So perhaps a dog views the member of its household as its pack to the same extent that the household also makes up its family.




Curbside Prophet said:


> Also, what do we mean by "pack"?


 I’ve finally had some time to read through the bulk of this thread and here are some bits of research that I could find that apply to this question and the topic being discussed:

(Frank & Frank, Applied Animal Ethology, 8, 1982, 507-525): From the Abstract, pg. 507:  



> Social development and behavior are compared for 4 Eastern timber wolves (C. lupus Zycaon) and 4 Alaskan Malamutes (C. familiaris). The two groups were born a year apart, but all were fostered at approximately 10 days of age on the same lactating female wolf, reared jointly by the authors and the foster mother, housed in the same facility, and subjected to the same regimen of maintenance and social contact with adult members of the animal colony. It is suggested that many of the observed group differences can be attributed to selection in domestic dogs for prolongation of juvenile behavior and morphological characteristics... It is suggested that the disintegration of ritualized aggression in dogs is, in part, a consequence of neotenization....


A quote from this paper (pg. 517):


> It should be emphasized, however, that social rank is not strictly ordinal. Status relationships among subdominant adults are seldom well defined, and even among dominant individuals are complicated by mate preferences, filial and sibling allegiances (Rabb et al., 1967; Fox, 1973; Lockwood, 1979), seasonal variation in general activity level (Zimen, 1975) possibly occasioned by fluctuations in food resources or hormonal changes associated with the breeding cycle, and by specific events that may confer a temporary or object-related dominance, e.g. possession of food or the birth of pups (Mech, 1970; Fox, 1972).


This relaxation of structure is further enhanced by our provision of food, removal of threats, and in many cases removal of the influence for sexual reproduction (spaying & neutering).

Indeed, even the wild wolf does not live by the strict "pack" structure as described in many popular dog training literature. For example, L. David Mech (Can. J. Zool. 77: 1196–1203, 1999) examined social dynamics in wild wolf packs. He found (pg. 1198):  



> in natural wolf packs, the alpha male and female are merely the breeding animals, the parents of the pack, and dominance contests with other wolves are rare, if they exist at all. During my 13 summers observing the Ellesmere Island pack, I saw none.


Regardless of wolf behavior, the suggestion that the dog behaves as a wolf has been further debunked by a series of elegant experiments conducted by Adam Miklosi's group in Budapest. These studies have found that dogs engage socially with humans in ways that wolves do not, including wolves reared from birth with/by humans. This has been mentioned in this thread, but Miklosi’s work is one place of origin for this understanding. 

In fact, the dog has been suggested as a model for studying human social-cognitive abilities and the underlying neural and genetic contributors (Miklosi et al., Cog Neurosci & Neuropsychology, 2007).

Certainly, there is more; hopefully this gives a flavor of some of the research that is out there.



> In the current pet environment, there really are no 'survival' skills needed, unless the dominant owner keeps alpha rolling you to the point you need to lash back.


 (from Cognitive Canine II: Exploding the Myths, 2002, Authorhouse Books, pg. 105). Generally, then, in a situation not involving basic life elements required for survival, the dog that will prevail is simply the dog that is most persistent in that situation (Cognitive Canine II, pg. 105).

Thus, overall, I suppose the responses are that yes, dogs are social animals; no, dogs' social structures do not resemble those of the wolves (and wolves' social structures do not resemble those described by many trainers); no, dogs' social interactions with humans are not like those of wolves; and in general the concept of "pack structure" as promoted in many popular dog training books is at best vastly oversimplified and at worst getting in the way of most effectively and productively utilizing the social cognitive skills of dogs. I think this is all that’s being said here, and those that employ the law of parsimony have known this for a long time.


----------



## klip (Jul 22, 2008)

Ive read that our fascination with wolves says more about how we are, than about how wolves are. And that what we _think_ wolves are (the primal beast in the dark), is a reflection of ourselves rather than anything any wolf has ever been. 

Maybe the same is true about alpha theory - its a picture of how we would like the world to be, not how the world is. 

I had to look these up: 
noetenization = a process which causes something to stay immature, or to retain the attributes of an infant.

parsimony = an attitude that prefers simpler explanations as being more likely to be acurate than complicated ones.


----------



## minischnauzer (Apr 23, 2007)

Ok, let's see if I can make my argument clearer.



klip said:


> I'm not convinced by this.
> 
> You state that most people are mistaken in their belief that their dogs consider them to be part of their pack - or more acurately - their dogs consider _themselves_ to be part of a pack that the humans belong to as well.


1. Yes, I believe that people are mistaken when they think that their dog considers them to be a part of their "pack," where a pack is a group of homogenous individual animals that mate, hunt, and live together. I'll come back to my definition in a minute.



klip said:


> Then you say - this is not true, dogs are not part of the pack.


2. No, that's not what I say. I say that dogs do not form packs with other dogs they only meet randomly - as in a dog park where they go every day but do not meet the exact same individuals and/or do not spend hours every day together. They DO, however, form what we understand as a "pack" with other dogs that live in the same household, and these are the situations when the true fights for dominance occur.



klip said:


> You justify this by defining pack in much more narrow terms that most people do - and in itself, that makes this observation not particularly helpful.


3. I disagree with both of your points: (1) that I justify the assertion you think I'm making by narrowly defining a "pack" (that dogs do not form packs) and (2) that most people define a pack much more inclusively than I do.

I use the definition of a pack (taken from a dictionary, not from my own opinion; and dictionary definitions are the generally accepted meanings of the word, meaning the majority of the people will use the term "pack" to mean precisely that) to say that [although we cannot tell for sure because we will never truly know what your dog is thinking] your dog most likely does not consider all members of the "family group" (meaning humans, cats, and everyone else that lives in the home) a part of its "pack." And the REASON that a pack is defined so "narrowly," as you put it, is so that it's possible to differentiate the dogs behavior toward members of the "pack" and towards others (term them outsiders, clique members, whatever you wish). As yet another crude example, take the relationship of your dog and a cat -- even if they like each other (mine do, for example), my dog will not treat the cat in the same way it treats another dog (possessiveness of its toys being one example), or try to read its body language in the same way it would with another dog... So that even though it's part of the "clique" (or WHATEVER you want to call it), it's not a part of the "pack." 



klip said:


> "OK - so maybe dogs consider themselves to be part of the _family_ (which is what most people mean when they say pack) but when _I_ say pack, I mean creatures of the same species that can mate with one another etc"


4. yes, this is a fairly accurate restatement of what I was trying to say. The dog obviously recognizes between members of the "family" (those who are regularly in the home and who are considered to be "safe") and between those who are not - by protecting the home from the "non-family members" and treating them differently in some ways.



klip said:


> I think you are quite correct in stating that its often ridiculous for a human to try to talk "dog" by doing certain suposedly canine body language things - dogs are so tuned into body language, they are quite capable of reading humans in human terms.


5. Ok, at least we agree on something 



klip said:


> The fact that dogs can distinguish between dogs and humans does not mean that some of their behaviour may not still be influenced by their sense that they and their humans are partof the same ... ok lets call it "clique" .


6. Ok, I'll agree with that - just about any dog will protect members of its "clique" (family) because that is it's "job" -- what it was raised to do. But the reason I relied on the behavior of wolves who are not dominant (as in they do not protect alphas because its the alpha's job) as proof was because studies have been done on the behavior of wolves but not on the behavior of less dominant dogs in a "pack" of other dogs... but I can attest from personal experience that a less dominant dog will not get into a fight to protect a more dominant dog unless the more dominant dog is fighting already, and the more dominant dog WILL fight to protect what he/she feels is the less dominant dog... To me, that can be seen as proof that dogs differentiate between other dogs and humans.



klip said:


> Most people use this whole pack thing to try to figure out why their dogs behave the way they do, and to try to figure out how the humans can use this hopefully predictable tendency to help control their dogs.
> 
> For that reason its helpful to challenge to what extent, and exactly how a dog's behaviour is predictable by this whole pack theory thing. To say that dog's dont consider themselves to be part of a pack - and then to go on to define pack in very narrow terms is a circular argument.


It's not a circular argument as that is not the argument I was making.



klip said:


> Also I am now confused, because you started out making a convincing case for how dogs are not like wolves and therefore their behaviour cannot be predicted by studying that of wolves - but when you speak about packs, you back it up by citing studies of wolves.


Again, I cite studies on wolves because that's pretty much what we have -- the entire theory of alpha behavior COMES from wolves, and so to go and talk about it, it would be silly to not even mention wolf studies... especially since it's been made clear that dogs do not form such strict hierarchial societies.



klip said:


> Is it possible that dogs - possibly uniquely - are capable of forming packs with animals that are not the same species that they are? Even if they are aware that humans are not dogs?


Not uniquely - any domesticated animal that forms a close attachment to a human being has that ability - this includes cats, horses, monkeys, apes, and even dolphins and whales. We underestimate animals -- check out this lion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwqYI2dG-UU



klip said:


> We are always telling one another how dogs "do not generalise". Possibly dogs do not think in categories like humans - but simply by individuals? They meet a living creature and can see by its attributes that its likely to be the kind of creature that may bite them, but is also potentially lots of fun to play with and talks really fluently. They meet another creature, who they can tell by the way it looks and past experience, that this is one of those things that speaks in a really confusing way - but can also produce food, and should be closely watched.
> 
> I dont think dogs go the further (human) step to say - "that's a dog" and "that's a human". They dont think about it. They just react.


I think a fascinating book on how (arguably) animals think is Temple Grandin's Animals in Translation. She argues that animals are like people with autism, they don't see the big picture but a myriad of little details... Because it's not provable, I can't see how I can argue it's true, but if you read the book her argument makes sense.


----------



## klip (Jul 22, 2008)

minischnauzer said:


> First of all, dogs are not wolves - hundreds of thousands of years of living with humans (and selective breeding) has ensured that dogs are not like wolves, although they share a similar DNA. They don't behave like wolves do, and because they've adapted to living with humans, they no longer share the same rigid social structure of a wolf pack. Secondly, no matter what you do - don't acknowledge your dog when you come through the door, eat first, keep your dog off high places, walk out of the door first, etc., you cannot effectively communicate with your dog in a language that your dog understands instinctively: you cannot wag your tail, move your ears a certain way, or mimic a rigid body shape. Undoubtedly, your dog understands and obeys you (because it's been bred to obey your signals), but he/she knows you're not another dog, and it doesn't treat you like another dog. *Lastly, and this is most important: it's true that you have to teach your dog manners and that it must know to listen to you when you say something, but that doesn't make you the "alpha" of the pack. The dog knows that you're not a dog - you're not part of a pack that your dog would form with another dog that is living in your home. In other words, you cannot be an "alpha" of a pack because you don't belong to his pack, at least as far as the dog is concerned.*
> 
> Another myth is that dogs form packs (hence, hierarchies) everywhere they go.



No - I totally agree (as much as I can from a position of ignorance ) with what you say about dog parks and dog packs. That makes a lot of sense to me. I think what confused me is the bit I bolded above. Arent you saying that as far as the dog is concerned, you are not part of the pack?

What I meant is - most people use the word "pack" the way you use the word "family". So they are going to misunderstand you if you say the above. 

I actually agree with most of what you say, its just that I think the above is not very helpful in explaining an alternative to the alpha theory.

Edit: Because it sounds like you are saying - such a dog would accept a dog in that role of alpha, and the reason you are failing is because you are human. Surely that is not what you mean? Or have I got it wrong?

Edit Again: Oh and thanks for that Temple Grandin reference. My husband has been trying to remember the title so I can try and get hold of that book. Souns facinating.


----------



## minischnauzer (Apr 23, 2007)

Sometimes I'm not clear in getting down on "paper" what I have floating upstairs, so I apologize for any confusion. What I meant to say is that in order for your dog to listen to you, you don't necessarily have to be the "alpha," with the "alpha" being defined as the "alpha male/female" of a wolf pack... and because I believe that, I disagree with the trainers who tell owners to treat their dogs in a way they THINK alpha wolves treat the less dominant pack members (eat first, walk out of the door first, be aloof, only pet when it earns it, etc. etc.) 

I believe that my dogs can tell me apart from other dogs, and they know to follow my verbal (and sometimes physical cues) versus following the mostly physical cues they get from each other. I believe my dogs have made a pack of their own between themselves, and although they recognize me as their "family" (and I refer to them as my children), I am not - and cannot be - a part of their pack. 

BTW, I should have written hundreds AND thousands of years...not hundreds of thousands.

I just want to add that it's nice (even though many disagree with me!) to be able to discuss these ideas with others who obviously love their dogs. I've got my ferocious 18lb wolf-descendant laying on my lap as I write and I'm pretty convinced that this kind of love is what it's about in the end.


----------



## klip (Jul 22, 2008)

Cool. That makes sense to me. 

I agree with you that dogs know that you are not a dog, and also the humans are particularly bad at "speaking dog".

I also think though, that there is something in being assertive as opposed to being pathetic, when it comes to being a good trainer. I dont think this has anything to do with "being alpha", but I believe that this is one of the reasons I have been less than successful with some of my dog's problems.

The big, confident, loud-mouthed ladies and gentlemen at my dog club are so much better than me!


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

minischnauzer said:


> homogenous individual animals that…live together…





> They DO, however, form what we understand as a "pack" with other dogs that live in the same household, and these are the situations when the true fights for dominance occur.


Perhaps, but I say this is more untrue than true. An everyday example: the dog-park. There is a *group* of dogs, but the members vary by the day, the hour, and the town. Furthermore, there are people and dogs joining and departing all the time. There is NO pack dynamics here (even for the everyday regulars) but there can easily be relative rankings between a pup and a teen-dog, a teen and an elder-dog, but those are entirely individual and *context* based. 

Now transplant the pushy teen-dog at the dog park into the elder-dog’s living room, and their relative status could instantly reverse - the elder dog did not give a flip about status at the dog-park, but they *do* deeply care about their own status in their own home, and they also feel far more confident there. So the easygoing elder morphs into a snapping, snarling, intolerant adult-dog, and the teen-thug minds their Ps and Qs and shrinks back to pup-size... At least until the pup is walked out the front-door, and leg-lifts at the end of the driveway. Is this ‘packing’ behavior we see? Or, really, the influence of resources and the access to resources on learning?


----------



## klip (Jul 22, 2008)

Or - my Pippin will lord it over Anna most times, taking her toys away, lying in her bed, pushing in front of her for my attention. Anna does sort of ignores him. But whenever he pushes just a little too far - BOOM! YIIIIII!. Anna on top. Pippin _very_ apologetic.

I dont actually think there _is_ a hierarchy between them. I think they have different personalities, and different "breaking points". Different things are important to them.

Trying to watch their behaviour to figure out who is above who in which hierarchy, its just to complicated. They seem to either constantly change - or maybe there just is no hierarchy


----------

