# I am scarred to take my dog back to the dog parks



## Tobby-Boys (May 19, 2009)

I have a Beagle-Pit Bull mix and I had a friend move in about 9 months ago with his pure Pit Bull it was like heaven for my dog Toby-Boyz for the first 7 months and one day while BBQ the 2 of them went at it I was able to break them up I scolded the 2 of them and they went on playing.

about 1 week later they went at it again this time in the house I really laid into the 2 of them this time.

I did some research and ended up choosing my dog Toby as the alpha leader because he seemed to start the fights and do the most damage I almost never paid attention to my roommates dog and they were fine for about 3 weeks.

Then Blanco the other dog was playing with my daughter they like to wrestle and play tug a rope , well Toby did not like that and again they went at it now every time Toby sees Blanco he goes after him.

Blanco is now kenneled 70% of the day mainly because my roommate is a crappy master and should just let someone else take Blanco to love him, (that's another post) 

So my question is I am afraid to take Toby to the dog park were he loves to go and I like going as well, good people there. When I walked him tonight, there was a dog running loose that came up and barked at us and Toby did not do anything just lifted his leg on a pole and peed then pulled me on.

Do you think it safe to take him to the dog park? If not how do I re-introduce him to other dogs?

No he is not fixed.

Thank you guys for you help


----------



## zxckelly (Apr 30, 2009)

Is there a reason why he isn't fixed? It could fix a lot of his aggression issues. Unfortunately having two males can be quite an issue especially if they are similar in age and size. If your room mate is truly a poor master (as it sounds like), maybe you can talk him into rehoming his dog?


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

I agree with the neutering suggestion. Why isn't he neutered?
Also, you mentioned your dog pulling you on. Maybe you should try being more assertive with him. If he's pulling you around and stuff like that, he might have the idea that he's in charge, thus making him more prone to displays of dominance with other dogs.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

Neutering is not going to make much, if any, difference in his temperament. 

Pulling on his leash does not mean that he thinks he's the "Alfa," or "in charge," or make him more prone to displays of dominance with other dogs. It simply means he needs more loose-leash training. True Alfas rarely fight, they psychologically rule; it's the middle ranking or lowest ranking dogs who do that. 

It's hard to really know, but, it sounds like resource guarding. Dog parks are risky, and people often bring toys and treats, so this could trigger Toby. You might want to have him evaluated by a behaviorist. In the meantime, implement NILIF into daily life, and work on obedience training.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

I should have made my wording more tentative. Obviously I'm going out on a limb, because there really isn't enough information here for me to make any assumptions about the dog's alphaness. I have read though that dogs should walk next to or behind their person, and that dogs who pull their person around behind them are taking charge. And when dogs take charge over their people, behavioral problems ensue -- including aggression.
I'm not saying this dog _is_ taking charge, though, merely saying he might be based on something I inferred from the poster's wording.

Edit: Neutering sometimes does make a difference. Oh and, by the way, why not do it?

Another Edit: My statement about dogs walking next to or behind their person was ill-considered. I don't think the position of the dog is that important. It's more an issue of the dog pulling.


----------



## Tobby-Boys (May 19, 2009)

It's my wording when I said he pulled me i just ment he was not interested at all in the other dog he just wanted to keep walking. Both dogs know I am the Alpha.

He is not Neutered mainly becouse the Vet said that if I Neuter him it will not calm him down the hyperness is just in him. I also work 10 hours a day and would not be able to give hime the proper care while he heels.

Sorry this is probly a dumb question but what is NILIF??


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

The biggest issue is training, on your dog and your room mates. I don't see why your dog is allowed to free roam, and his dog is stuck in a kennel when you're home. If someone is home both dogs should be out, if no one is home both dogs should be crated.

Your dog doesn't seems to know you're alpha. He wouldn't be forcing his dominance on another dog if you're the Alpha. There is only one Alpha. He'd have no reason to want to dominate the other dog, and if you were truley Alpha he would know that him even trying to be dominant of the other dog isn't excepted. 

What could be an issue is not knowing if they are playing, and when it goes to far. Once it starts to seem violent you shouldn't run in scolding. You need to distract them, make a noise, clap, call them over. Make them completly forget they were fighting. 

As for the dog park, I don't see the real issue, other than the other person's dog should be under control if it's running around barking. 

Sadly, you need to step it up on your training. Let you dog know what he can and cant do... and once he knows that he wont do it. And walk the dogs more, less energy is less agression.

Also neutering isn't the answer to this problem... just an answer to any future breeding you might not want happening.


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

Your dog is the aggressive a-hole and yet the OTHER dog is the one crated 70% of the time?

No, do not take your dog to a dog park. He is aggressive. You need to get control of him before inflicting him on other innocent dogs.

Please do the world a favor and neuter him. The last thing you need is to have him breeding.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Tobby-Boys said:


> I did some research and ended up choosing my dog Toby as the alpha leader because he seemed to start the fights and do the most damage


I'd love to see your research. Where did you get the idea that an alpha dog starts fights and does damage?? That's absolutely incorrect. And *YOU *don't get to choose who is the alpha dog, the dogs decide that among themselves. You stay out of it. 

What I see here is that Toby does not see you as a strong leader (And I don't mean a bully, but a strong, confident leader) and he is stepping up to try to fill the void, but falling short. 

The way you describe Toby's behavior is not indicative of an alpha dog. An alpha dog does not start fights or boss the other dogs around. He is usually laid back and the other dogs defer to him (or her). They are NOT bullies or fighters or mean or any of that. They are confident and calm. 



> Then Blanco the other dog was playing with my daughter they like to wrestle and play tug a rope , well Toby did not like that


This shows me that Toby doesn't see you as the leader. Why would he need to jump in to protect the family if he thought you were doing your job? Toby is insecure in his position. I would start NILIF with him right away and forget about making him alpha because it puts too much pressure on him that he's not ready for. 



> So my question is I am afraid to take Toby to the dog park were he loves to go and I like going as well, good people there.


I wouldn't be afraid to take him to the dog park. But instead of socializing with other people, watch your dog. Observe his interactions with the other dogs. 

Toby's problem is not with other dogs, it's with his home environment. And the insecurity he feels about his position among the family, including Blanco. 



> No he is not fixed.


Get him fixed. There's no reason for a mix-breed dog not to be fixed and it could cause trouble with other intact dogs or bitches in heat at the dog park.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

tw1n said:


> The biggest issue is training, on your dog and your room mates. I don't see why your dog is allowed to free roam, and his dog is stuck in a kennel when you're home. If someone is home both dogs should be out, if no one is home both dogs should be crated.
> 
> Your dog doesn't seems to know you're alpha. He wouldn't be forcing his dominance on another dog if you're the Alpha. There is only one Alpha. He'd have no reason to want to dominate the other dog, and if you were truley Alpha he would know that him even trying to be dominant of the other dog isn't excepted.
> 
> ...


While I agree the rest, testosterone definitely has behavioral effects, in all mammals, and neutering can and does lower certain drives and behaviors.

Might help in this case, might not, hard to know what's actually going on even when you know and can watch the dog much less over an internet forum.


----------



## Toby4Life (Jun 2, 2008)

Too much male posturing going on here if you ask me.

IMHO you should forget the whole Alpha/Pack Leader stuff and just work on more training with both of your dogs. 

As far as going to the DP - I'd advise to stay away. If you have a dog that looks like a APBT and there is any doubt whether he will behave around other dogs than do the rest of us Bully owners a favor and don't go. The last thing these dogs need is to be put into a bad situation which could potentially feed fire to the already horrible image most people have of them.


----------



## Tobby-Boys (May 19, 2009)

Well thank you for the help I cant say that answered the question:

the few that answered about the park 1/2 said sure and the other 1/2 said no

Sorry I'm probably not going to get him fixed I understand Toby is a mutt and we shouldn't let him breed and we will do our best to stop that, but the Vet did say it wouldn't do anything for his hyperness or "his want to protect what he believes is his" 

I have looked into NILIF thank you very much today is the first I have heard about that and I will start that training right away. I am also working on his "Resource Guarding" Issue as it seems that can be adjusted with NILIF and some other behavioral modification training.
_
Just a side note, with so many post that contradict other postings it seems like their are more emotional responses then actual experience or knowledge (not claiming I have the knowledge that's why I asked the question) but what if I would have taken one post as gospel I could of ended up hurting other dogs or people if I had not done some research and unfourtantly allot of people don't do the research needed to make the right decision. Just saying some emotional posts should be left out of certain topics and only the first hand knowledge and experience should be shared. 


*Again thank you very much for your advice and turning me on to NILIF.*_


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

I was wondering if you have ever had any trouble with Toby and other dogs besides Blanco? I assumed you didn't as you said you went to the dog park and you both loved it. Ever had any trouble or fighting there? That's why I said I didn't think you should stop going. I assumed you haven't had trouble with any dogs - only at home. I just wanted to explain why I said what I said.  

If you HAVE had trouble with Toby fighting with other dogs, then I'd say stay away from the park. 

I hope my post didn't come across as emotional, but I do tend to get a bit "preachy" at times, especially as regards the misconceptions out there about alpha dogs. If that's how my post sounded, I apologize.


----------



## Toby4Life (Jun 2, 2008)

Tobby-Boys said:


> Well thank you for the help I cant say that answered the question:
> 
> the few that answered about the park 1/2 said sure and the other 1/2 said no
> 
> ...


Actually I did answer the question of whether or not you should return to the DP:

"*As far as going to the DP - I'd advise to stay away.*"

As for the emotion and contradictory advice you received - Welcome to the forum!! People have different opinions and on a forum you are sure to hear everyones.  For the other people you are referring to who don't do the additional research and take what people on a forum say as gospel; they have bigger problems than dog aggression.  IMO, a forum isn't the place to go to try and cure aggression anyways. Good luck either way.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

the reason for neutering is to prevent unwanted litters.

as far as the aggression..

a. NO DOG PARK. NO OFF LEASH.

b. www.pbrc.net has a protocol called "crate and rotate" I believe this would be highly applicable in your situation.

you want to minimize the chances of your dog initiating aggressive displays. aggression is a self reinforcing behavioral pattern. the more your dog gets the opportunity to aggress, the more likely he is to do just that. NO contact with other dogs for now.

nilif is a very good start. call it "doggie boot camp" if you will.

but its not the end all.

first I would drop the alpha idea. it isn't scientifically feasable. 

look at it this way...

there is a cd player in your dog's head. the cd in it is playing one track on repeat with the button stuck. your job is to figure out how to skip to a less intense track.

so say there is a point in the track where the track forward button will work for a few seconds. this is your "threshold". its the point in the behavioral "loop" where you can hit the forward button and move past the unacceptable behavior.

think back on the times he has become aggressive and jot down all the details you can recall. there should be a point, right before he launched into full threat display where he stiffened. 

that's probably your threshold.

to hit the button...you need to work first on being able to direct his attention towards you amidst a variety of high level distractions.

teach and reinforce a focus cue. 

then teach and reinforce a steady stay. one where you can do just about anything with him remaining stationary.

generalize these two cues and then chain them. 

then you will be ready to redirect under distraction.

and if all this sounds confusing...seek assistence from a qualified behaviorist in your area.


----------



## Tobby-Boys (May 19, 2009)

Thank you guys very much; I am trying my hardest with Toby because he has shown how good he can be inside the house.

Anyways I hope my last post didn't come off wrong I appreciate all of you taking the time to talk with me. I will be posting how things are going in the near future.

Again Thank You guys for all the advice and now I am just trying to figure out how to do it all.


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

I don't really think everyone's posts contradicted eachother. Although most were preachy, the common answer was you need to work on controling your dog. 

And I think everyone also agreed that you should step up and work with your room mates dog too.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

FourIsCompany said:


> I was wondering if you have ever had any trouble with Toby and other dogs besides Blanco? I assumed you didn't as you said you went to the dog park and you both loved it. Ever had any trouble or fighting there? That's why I said I didn't think you should stop going. I assumed you haven't had trouble with any dogs - only at home. I just wanted to explain why I said what I said.
> 
> If you HAVE had trouble with Toby fighting with other dogs, then I'd say stay away from the park.
> 
> I hope my post didn't come across as emotional, but I do tend to get a bit "preachy" at times, especially as regards the misconceptions out there about alpha dogs. If that's how my post sounded, I apologize.


Same thought here, if you have been to a dog park and not had any issues with fighting or aggression I don't see why you should stay away. But I would watch very closely if I went, and leave if any aggression was shown.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

canteloupe said:


> I should have made my wording more tentative. Obviously I'm going out on a limb, because there really isn't enough information here for me to make any assumptions about the dog's alphaness. I have read though that dogs should walk next to or behind their person, and that dogs who pull their person around behind them are taking charge. And when dogs take charge over their people, behavioral problems ensue -- including aggression.
> I'm not saying this dog _is_ taking charge, though, merely saying he might be based on something I inferred from the poster's wording.
> 
> Edit: Neutering sometimes does make a difference. Oh and, by the way, why not do it?


ARRRGH! Enough of the DW!!!! * Dogs pull becaues they have not been trained to NOT PULL.* It has NOTHING to do with ALPHA and LEADER or any of that pure and utter NONSENSE. Dog walking ahead or behind is NOT AN ISSUE for anyone but the dog owner. I have a neck injury. I don't need to be twisting around looking for my dog. She needs to be walking at my side or in front. She has never givien any indication of "taking charge..." She is worked mostly off leash. She is *trained.* 

Dogs pull because the dog thinks he HAS to pull. The owner has LET him pull and has not taught the dog to walk nicely on a leash, has not taught the dog a "by me" or "heel" cue.. has noth *taught* the dog. 

Before going to the dog park or anywhere else with other dogs, you need to do a lot of basic training. Glad to hear you are invoking NILIF. You also need to teach your dog to heel, lie down, sit, come when called and to stay. You need to teach this in about 20 different places too so the dog generalized the behavior to your cue, not to your cue only at home or only in the yard.. dogs do not generalize traiing to new places unless we make the effort to train them in new places until they "get it."

I would also suggest you enroll yourself and your dog in a basic obedience class. Your dog will see other dogs there and you will have to work him with other dogs present. You may be required to alter him before attending class but that depends on the class and not all require this. IF your dog does show aggression, you will be asked to leave. Classes, BTW, are typically 1X a week for 6-10 weeks and are usually not very expensive. The investment is worth its weight in gold. If your dog shows aggression towards other dogs in a class, you will need to get advice (behaviorist etc.).

You need to have a 100% reliable recall on your dog b4 going to a dog park. This means the dog comes when called no matter what when you call. You will need to teach this recall in several different places before going to a dog park so you know for sure your dog will come when called any time, any place and no matter what the distractions are. 

I suggest you read two books that will teach you more about dog behavior.

"The Other End of the Leash" by Patricia McConnell
"The Culture Clash" by Jean Donaldson

You will come away with a better understanding of what dogs do and why they do it. 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> the reason for neutering is to prevent unwanted litters.
> 
> as far as the aggression..
> 
> ...


Take every word of this post to heart. The poster knows her dogs and especially understands Pit Bulls and Pit mixes. Please do exactly as she says. She has her resources, 1st hand experience training and rehabilitating dogs and her reasoning correct.


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> ARRRGH! Enough of the DW!!!! * Dogs pull becaues they have not been trained to NOT PULL.* It has NOTHING to do with ALPHA and LEADER or any of that pure and utter NONSENSE.


For the most part that's correct, but at some point when you allow your dog to lead you arround by pulling they feel they are in control. 

Pulling to pull is because they haven't been trained not to. 

Pulling to lead you around, and you following. WILL 'cause the dog to think it's Alpha.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

tw1n said:


> For the most part that's correct, but at some point when you allow your dog to lead you arround by pulling they feel they are in control.
> 
> Pulling to pull is because they haven't been trained not to.
> 
> Pulling to lead you around, and you following. WILL 'cause the dog to think it's Alpha.


I'm curious how you came to this conclusion?


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

pugmom said:


> I'm curious how you came to this conclusion?


Well, I imagine it depends on the breed. 'cause I think I read that part in an article about boxers... 


but honestly, does it not make sense that if you allow your dog to pull you around, it's going to begin to think it can just pull you around?

It might not think it's the alpha alpha... but it'll sure think it's incharge of the walks.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

ok so "alpha dog" concept was originally based on studies of captive wolf populations and their social organization. it was extrapolated to dogs because of a general consensus among scientists that domestic canines are direct descendants of wolves.

there are a few major problems with this.

a. the studies were based on CAPTIVE wolf populations. behavior is a response to enviroment. and captive environment significantly differs from wolf interactions in a natural environment.

in a natural environment, wolf packs are simply family units...with the "alpha pair" being the breeding parents and the rest of the pack appears subordinate because they are either last year's cubs...or this year's cubs...children of the alpha pair


b. the contention that wolves are anscestors of dogs is still being debated...the data isn't 100 percent conclusive.


c. one might logically assume that since dogs live with humans, the studies of captive wolves would be the more applicable set of data since those wolves live with humans too. BUT..dogs are domesticated and integrated fully into our lives. Wolves..even captive ones are not and their behavior patterns reflect that lak of domestication.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Forget Alpha, a dog can get expectations to be able to decide to do whatever it wants to though, even of it knows you don't want it to, which can be a problem.

It could also easily be viewed as the dog being in control.

If a dog has the expectation that it can drag you anywhere it wants to go any time it wants to go there and does so the dog thinks it's in control of the situation and probably is.

Behind beside or in front has nothing to do with it, the dogs expectations does. And it's not just on a walk, it can be any activity if the dog hasn't had rules set as to what is acceptable and an expects it to be allowed.

My girl walks behind from the end of the leash and goes up in front to the end of the leash, and it's not an issue. Her walking gait is just faster than mine so she walks, slows, walks, slows because my natural speed isn't hers. If I pick up speed and match hers she stays right beside me. Where she is makes no difference, she rarely pulls on the leash at all.

Speaking of which, it's time for her morning walk...


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

This is all part of "dominance" theory that has been debunked over and over.. yet because it is "on TV" (and lets face it, if it is ON TV it MUST be true ) people continue to promote it. 

Dogs do not alpha us. They do not dominate us. They are nice, intelligent animals with a ton to offer us in our relatilonships with them. They are highly intelligent and they are trainable. They do not "think they are in control." 

Now, we can just not bother to train a dog and the dog will pull. Not because the dog is worrying about who is in control but because the dog has been taught by the handler that he can pull us to that next enticing smell or marking post or whatever. he just knows, 'Hey, if I go, and I pull hard enough I can go and get to smell stuff I want to and that is fun." 

Now, the thing is, ppl will believe what they want to and I know that. It is just interesting to see someone train a dog not to pull.. they don't way a word and, if they get it right, the dog has refocused his attention from the environment to the handler and is not pulling. 

It isn't an alpha issue. It is an issue of what the dog finds more interesting. We, as trainers and handlers, are always competing with the environment for our dog's attention. It is actually that simple.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> in a natural environment, wolf packs are simply family units...with the "alpha pair" being the breeding parents and the rest of the pack appears subordinate because they are either last year's cubs...or this year's cubs...children of the alpha pair


That doesn't change the fact there is an alpha, regardless if it's parental nature with subordinate offspring. The pack is still subordinate to the alpha.

Studies also say that the big difference between dogs and wolves behaviorally is that dogs seem to be stuck permanently in what compared to a wolf would be a permanent juvenile state of maturity.

That could lead right back to the theory that we humans take on the analog of the parental alpha and leader and the dog is the analog of the subordinate juvenile that never outgrows that juvenile state. A product of breeding for that quality for thousands of years.

So I don't just poo poo all over alpha or pack leader ways of thinking out of hand due to a couple of persons studies and correction of wolf behavior and pack structure when applied to dogs as some do. Best to keep an open mind and apply critical thinking I say.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Wolves have a linear pack structure. Dogs do not. 

On top of all that we are talking two different species. 

Zim has resources to back up what she says. Curbside Prophet had some links in another thread that were very good on this very subject. Of course, I don't have those links at hand *sigh*

An open mind is fine. I just don't see dogs Alpha-ing people. Never have. I do see a lot of poor training, lack of training and poor handling.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> That doesn't change the fact there is an alpha, regardless if it's parental nature with subordinate offspring. The pack is still subordinate to the alpha.
> 
> Studies also say that the big difference between dogs and wolves behaviorally is that dogs seem to be stuck permanently in what compared to a wolf would be a permanent juvenile state of maturity.
> 
> ...


you don't "poo poo" all over it because of another couple person's studies 

ill be back with the appropriate references. I gotta go to work.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> Wolves have a linear pack structure. Dogs do not.
> 
> On top of all that we are talking two different species.
> 
> Zim has resources to back up what she says. Curbside Prophet had some links in another thread that were very good on this very subject. Of course, I don't have those links at hand *sigh*


I'm sure I've read them, and agree with the findings and corrections on pack structure. But I haven't seen the question I just raised addressed. What I have seen is people taking the fact that recent studies have changed the way we look at wolf pack structure and we now view it as a family unit led by a parental pair. Good work.

I read studies on wolf vs dog behavior as well, and recent ones have also said that in dogs vs wolves dogs seem to have a behavioral state that is a permanent juvenile state.

As well your logic seems contradicting.. Apply the same logic to dogs as you would wolves. Since the theory of pack structure using non related wolves has been debunked, why would you expect non related dogs to be a useful basis?

Has dog behavior in a familial basis been studied as well? Mother and all pups left in the wild to their own and pack structure studied over several generations? Not that I'm aware of.

I see it as quite plausible that we are an analog of a parent (alpha) and the dog the juvenile subordinate.



> An open mind is fine. I just don't see dogs Alpha-ing people. Never have. I do see a lot of poor training, lack of training and poor handling.


Keep in mind, your definition and concept of Alpha is likely quite different than mine. There is a quite wide separation I would bet. Alpha-ing to you likely means something including human concepts of domineering or forceful behavior while mine stems from animal behavior observation.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

I love the Mech discussions! LOL I've had them so many times, though, I don't have any desire to get involved in that particular discussion again. 

I will say that I base *my *opinions about *alpha, leadership and dominance*, *NOT *on wolf studies or anyone on TV, but strictly on my own observations. 

The problems with these discussions is that the above terms are not used based on agreed-upon definitions, so they mean something different to each participant, and the debate swirls round and round, each person with their own definitions and nothing really gets discussed except for how wrong everyone else is. LOL 

Let's just say that I agree with TxRider once again:



TxRider said:


> I
> Keep in mind, your definition and concept of Alpha [Leadership and Dominance] is likely quite different than mine. There is a quite wide separation I would bet. Alpha-ing to you likely means something including human concepts of domineering or forceful behavior while mine stems from animal behavior observation.


TxRider and I may have different definitions, but I can bet that most people who are citing Mech have very different definitions than I do.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

FourIsCompany said:


> I love the Mech discussions! LOL I've had them so many times, though, I don't have any desire to get involved in that particular discussion again.
> 
> I will say that I base *my *opinions about *alpha, leadership and dominance*, *NOT *on wolf studies or anyone on TV, but strictly on my own observations.


Glad you brought it up.

Mech does indeed use the term alpha, and defines it. He uses it in several instances including the historical "dominant alpha" context in larger multiple litter packs.

I tend to follow his more correct definition and concept when I speak of an alpha concept.

But to say that alpha concept in a wolf pack and a ranking structure including dominance is debunked is simply wrong. It's just been modified a bit.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

you make a lot of assumptions tx...

helloooo trumpetjock!!!!!!


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

TxRider said:


> Glad you brought it up.
> 
> Mech does indeed use the term alpha, and defines it. He uses it in several instances including the historical "dominant alpha" context in larger multiple litter packs.
> 
> ...


What exactly do you think an alpha is?

Just point blank definition please, no frills.

edit -- should have specified: In a wolf pack.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 27, 2008)

Do you really think dogs live their whole lives waiting for the chance to be our alpha?

A. We are not dogs, and they know that, therefore they do not see us as another dog they need to dominate.

B. A dog is not going to get the idea in his head that he is alpha because he's pulling you on a leash, pulling simply is a way to get were they want to go, simple as that.

C. Wolves are not dogs, dogs are not wolves. Just as people are not apes, and apes are not people. Although we may have similar genetics and think similarly, that doesn't mean we think the same or act the same. Wolves live in highly structured PACKS. Even when a pack of feral dogs get together and form a pack, it is very loose with the hierarchy constantly changing. 

It is scientifically proven that dogs do not think like wolves, nor act like them in many ways. In a wolf pack, during breeding season the alpha male and alpha female court for a long time, months. This makes it so the other lesser females in the pack go through pseudo pregnancies and produce milk like they are pregnant. This makes it possible for the other females to nurse the pups if the mother is away, or if the mother gets killed, the puppies won't die.

Dogs do not do this. They do not time out anything, they simply just mate and do not properly care for the puppies, nor does it matter who breeds as in a wolf pack where only the alpha male and female breed.

If you need the book name, I'll try and look it up.


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

Every animal, people included have a pack structure. There will always be a leader, and there will always be those who follow the leader.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 27, 2008)

And those are within a species.

Dogs are not planning to take over the world..

At least not that I know of...


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

tw1n said:


> Every animal, people included have a pack structure. There will always be a leader, and there will always be those who follow the leader.


I don't believe the presence or absence of a leader is in question. You are correct, there are absolutely zero social animals that have truly egalitarian groups.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you make a lot of assumptions tx...
> 
> helloooo trumpetjock!!!!!!


What assumptions would those be?


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

tw1n said:


> Every animal, people included have a pack structure. There will always be a leader, and there will always be those who follow the leader.


I would have to disagree.....not every animal lives in a pack structure at all


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

Well duh... that's the cats silly.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

tw1n said:


> Every animal, people included have a pack structure. There will always be a leader, and there will always be those who follow the leader.


this is incorrect.

there are many species who are NOT social species. meaning that unless its breeding season they will tolerate NO other of their species anywhere in their territory. 

and even among social species "pack" structure is incorrect terminology.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 27, 2008)

Yes such as leopards, they will not tolerate another in their territory except for breeding, and that's between male and female. After breeding is done, they part ways and the female raises the babies on her own.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> What exactly do you think an alpha is?
> 
> Just point blank definition please, no frills.
> 
> edit -- should have specified: In a wolf pack.


So I'm supposed to be able to define something that someone like Mech writes at least pages to describe in a sentence or two and is a complex and sometimes transient thing? I don't think that's possible, sorry.

I would say it's the breeding pair and more so the breeding male of the pair as described here.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/wolf_mech_dominance_alpha_status.htm

Similarly I believe humans taking on that parental role with dogs might be a close analog, with some comparative studies showing that dogs are like wolves in many ways behaviorally, basically never maturing behaviorally though and stuck in a more juvenile behavioral state due to our selective breeding for that quality over thousands of years.

We obviously haven't bred out all primal canid or "wolf like" behavior though, we selectively breed for hunting, prey and social behaviors to our benefit.

It's at least an issue worthy of consideration and possibly study.

Feral dogs living wild have been shown to be monogamous and form familial pack structures but it appears to not be very well researched.



Pepper said:


> Dogs do not do this. They do not time out anything, they simply just mate and do not properly care for the puppies, nor does it matter who breeds as in a wolf pack where only the alpha male and female breed.
> 
> If you need the book name, I'll try and look it up.


All wolves breed, the non breeding wolves in a pack are simply immature wolves that haven't matured enough to leave the pack and go find a mate to breed with. There are exceptions but that's the norm.

As I said before, give a study where wild dogs have several generations of rearing and you'd likely see a more familial pack structure present itself, as well as it could from a dog we have bred so many behaviors out of for our benefit.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=7da61da94d9c0d234ed62e43d30ee784

Given time natural selection would likely push dogs back in to seasonal mating pretty quickly as well as slowly regress more wolf or wild dog type behaviors. Nature would favor those traits for survival if humans weren't in the picture.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> What exactly do you think an alpha is? [...] In a wolf pack.


I'd say the breeding pair. But I don't really know that much about wolves. 

In a dog pack, I'd say the alpha is the dog to which the others defer.

(I know you weren't speaking to me, but that never stops me)


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

And what social roles do these alphas perform?


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Pepper said:


> C. Wolves are not dogs, dogs are not wolves. Just as people are not apes, and apes are not people. Although we may have similar genetics and think similarly, that doesn't mean we think the same or act the same. Wolves live in highly structured PACKS. Even when a pack of feral dogs get together and form a pack, it is very loose with the hierarchy constantly changing.


True but they are much closer, they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, we cannot do so with apes, just like horses cannot with donkeys. 



> It is scientifically proven that dogs do not think like wolves, nor act like them in many ways.


True but wolves and dogs still share more behavior than not. They are far more similar than different. The main difference humans have bred specifically to remove behavior, to increase breeding frequency, to remove monogamy etc. for our benefit.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

It depends on what you mean by "social roles". 

I'm not actually sure if she performs any social roles at all. *TO ME*, an alpha dog is not defined by what _she _does, but by how the other dogs treat _her_.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

FourIsCompany said:


> It depends on what you mean by "social roles".
> 
> I'm not actually sure if she performs any social roles at all. *TO ME*, an alpha dog is not defined by what _she _does, but by how the other dogs treat _her_.


So if they have no social roles all they do is just mate and have other dogs worship the ground they walk on? 

Doubtful.

What social roles do these alphas perform?


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> So if they have no social roles all they do is just mate and have other dogs worship the ground they walk on?


My alpha dog does not mate. (I think you're thinking of wolves) She was fixed years ago. And the other dogs don't worship her, they DEFER to her.



> What social roles do these alphas perform?


Define what you mean by social roles and I'll be happy to answer this question. I don't want to assume.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> And what social roles do these alphas perform?


The alpha roles. 

Pretty much the social roles I perform, in as much as a human can, with an animal who's behavior has been so modified from it's ancestors in a human environment. Basically parental in nature, a loose analog to a wolf pack. I'm the leader.

My dog performs a social subordinate role of an offspring basically, complete with submissive posturing, appeasing posturing, deference for food, coordinated hunting activity, learning behaviors from me, following wherever I go, etc.

From Mech: "in natural wolf packs, the alpha male or female are merely the breeding animals, the parents of the pack, and dominance contests with other wolves are rare, if they exist at all."

I find that to be pretty close to what I observe in good well balanced and behaved dogs and their owners.

I'll be seeing all that submissive and appeasing greeting behavior the minute I get home in fact. I call it her happy dance, but it's the same thing.

At any rate we're far afield now.

Dogs can and will take what they can get. They will attempt any highly self rewarding behavior we allow them to. It's only natural and we're not so different.

If allowed a dog will drag you around and take control of where you go. If allowed most dogs would take control of what you eat etc.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

So what we have established is that in wolf packs, the alpha wolf is just a mating wolf who draws a large amount of respect from the other wolves. Contests for the position are virtually non-existent. They perform no social roles such as enforcement (there is another role in the hierarchy that does this specifically, NOT the leader or alpha).

One thing we missed... if you aren't the alpha, how do you become the alpha? You start your own pack.

That's the only way of becoming alpha, unless the alphas die. There is no conspiracy to gain dominance. There is no competition for leadership. All of the ideas we base our dominance over dogs (in respect to training) on are false, even if we make the assumption that they are identical to wolves in their social mechanics.

If you want your dog to perform a behaviour, teach it that that behaviour is rewarding. No dog in history has EVER performed a behaviour out of respect for a human. They have either done it because the behaviour is conditioned to be rewarding or they are scared to pieces of not doing it (in which the behaviour is ultimately rewarding anyway, because lack of punishment is a reinforcer in and of itself).

Forget dominance. Forget respect. Start reinforcing behaviours you want.


----------



## ValtheAussie (Apr 19, 2009)

I don't get what the big deal is. One of my dogs didn't like being at the dogpark and we never went back there.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

ValtheAussie said:


> I don't get what the big deal is. One of my dogs didn't like being at the dogpark and we never went back there.


Your thread got seriously hijacked.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> Forget dominance. Forget respect. Start reinforcing behaviours you want.


Um... I never got a definition of social roles, but that's okay. 

My dogs defer to me, just as they defer to Cara. I wouldn't presume to guess their motive (fear, respect, love?) but they do what I want. As long as they do, and our home is harmonious and they appear to be happy and well-balanced, I'm not really interested in what it's called. I'm sure they don't care. 

Dominance is a different issue altogether, in my opinion, and has nothing to do with alpha. Dominance is a behavior. Alpha is a position. A position to which all others defer. Alpha rarely displays dominance. 

deference - : respect and esteem due a superior or an elder; also : affected or ingratiating regard for another's wishes

Certainly reinforcement of a behavior is an effective way to continue that behavior.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

FourIsCompany said:


> Um... I never got a definition of social roles, but that's okay.
> 
> My dogs defer to me, just as they defer to Cara. I wouldn't presume to guess their motive (fear, respect, love?) but they do what I want. As long as they do, and our home is harmonious and they appear to be happy and well-balanced, I'm not really interested in what it's called. I'm sure they don't care.
> 
> ...


Your dog defers to you because it is reinforcing to do so (whether through fear of correction, or you being the gatekeeper to all reinforcers. i don't know your training method), not because you are their "alpha".

Social roles are things like doling out punishment, mediating disputes, performing calming behaviours, etc etc. The alpha pair in a pack doesn't do any of the things we tend to think as dominant. They do not punish pack members for acting out. They are rarely involved with disputes, one side or the other OR mediating.

Think of being an alpha like being a great grandparent. Your great grandparents probably never did ANYTHING to deserve your respect. They never once showed you a firm hand. They probably never even rewarded you for a job well done. They probably just sat in their rocker and watched tv. Yet, you would defer to someone like that implicitly, and there is absolutely no way someone not in your ggp's position could obtain that level of respect.

That is what being alpha is. It has nothing to do with the way you train your dog.

Dominance is defined as being limited to a situation, not a relationship. Possession is 9 10ths of the law. Therefore, you are dominant in every single situation because of one factor. It's probably not what you think - it's not your vast knowledge of dog training, it's not your firm personality, and it's not your years of building trust with your dog.

It's your opposable thumbs.

You open doors. You take the ball out of the dogs mouth whenever you feel like it. You control the fridge, the food bag, the leash. Because you are always the winner in every single situation with your dog, you are automatically "dominant". There is no need to put a dog in it's place.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

and by Tj's definition and no other, I will admit to being the dominent member of my multispecies team.



eta

I will say this though...I still don't consider that to qualify me as "leader".

all it means is that I have something she needs to survive in this particular environment...so she will do what's nessecary to get the use of my thumbs.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> Your dog defers to you because it is reinforcing to do so (whether through fear of correction, or you being the gatekeeper to all reinforcers. i don't know your training method), not because you are their "alpha".


To me, it's the same thing. *Alpha is the one to which all others defer.* I said that a few posts back.  I'm not talking about wolves here. I'm talking about dogs. 



> Think of being an alpha like being a great grandparent.


I'd rather think of it as the one to which all others defer. That works for me. I hold the alpha position with my dogs. They defer to me. It's simple. 



> That is what being alpha is. It has nothing to do with the way you train your dog.


I agree that it has nothing to do with the way I *train *my dogs, but I believe it has everything to do with my behavior, attitude and my "way of being" with my dogs. 



> Therefore, you are dominant in every single situation because of one factor. It's probably not what you think - it's not your vast knowledge of dog training, it's not your firm personality, and it's not your years of building trust with your dog.


As I said before, I don't see dominance having anything to do with alpha. Dominance is a canine behavior. This is a display of dominance, one rarely performed by Cara, but I caught her doing it here: 










And clearly, B'asia, the GSD is deferring to her. I don't think of dominance as playing a role in the human/dog relationship. I don't "speak" dog, so I don't hold my tail high and put my head over their shoulders or paw them for attention or hump them in play. Those are dominance displays and they happen between dogs. I am not a dog. 

Having opposable thumbs just makes me the keeper. It does nothing to make me dominant or alpha. If that were true, then all pet owners would automatically be alpha and have well-balanced packs... and they don't.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> Your dog defers to you because it is reinforcing to do so (whether through fear of correction, or you being the gatekeeper to all reinforcers. i don't know your training method), not because you are their "alpha".


Dogs have also been selectively evolved to defer to us as well. It's in their nature.



> Social roles are things like doling out punishment, mediating disputes, performing calming behaviours, etc etc. The alpha pair in a pack doesn't do any of the things we tend to think as dominant. They do not punish pack members for acting out. They are rarely involved with disputes, one side or the other OR mediating.


I would argue with that, they do indeed pole out punishment, most notably surrounding food. The fact that pack members do not act out much doesn't mean they don't get corrected when they do.

They also perform calming behaviors as well as mediate with calming or "cutting off" signals.



> Think of being an alpha like being a great grandparent. Your great grandparents probably never did ANYTHING to deserve your respect. They never once showed you a firm hand. They probably never even rewarded you for a job well done. They probably just sat in their rocker and watched tv. Yet, you would defer to someone like that implicitly, and there is absolutely no way someone not in your ggp's position could obtain that level of respect.
> 
> That is what being alpha is. It has nothing to do with the way you train your dog.


That's what being alpha is to you. Obviously definitions vary widely.

I tend to agree. I could "train" my dog nothing at all and still be alpha.

You didn't know my grandmother though, country girl who used to work cattle, I made the mistake of disrespecting her only once as a young teen and found myself flailing under her arm as she carried me to the house to dole out the punishment. I really did deserve it though.



> Dominance is defined as being limited to a situation, not a relationship. Possession is 9 10ths of the law. Therefore, you are dominant in every single situation because of one factor. It's probably not what you think - it's not your vast knowledge of dog training, it's not your firm personality, and it's not your years of building trust with your dog.
> 
> It's your opposable thumbs.
> 
> You open doors. You take the ball out of the dogs mouth whenever you feel like it. You control the fridge, the food bag, the leash. Because you are always the winner in every single situation with your dog, you are automatically "dominant". There is no need to put a dog in it's place.


Heh, true enough, the opposable thumb rules. Dunno if you should give the brain running them such short shrift though.

We do have the choice to not be the winner in every situation, or struggle for it like the 95lb girl drug around by the 120lb dog.

I've never needed to put one of my dogs in it's place with dominance or violence, but I have run into a few I had to do just that. When a 100+lb Rottie from down the street decides your house is his and stands in your garage growling with menace cornering you because he thinks he can dominate you through intimidation, is a time I put them in their place, hard and fast..

If my dog grabs a cat, or another dog and is going to kill it, or heaven forbid a child, she would be "put in her place" very quickly.

But then a parent female wolf would do similarly if a yearling attacked a new cub, or tried to steal the cubs food or other situation where behavior was that over the line.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Mothers will correct very young members of their own litter, but after that the corrections are delegated to an enforcer member of the pack. This is 99% of the time not a member of the alpha pair in a wolf pack. It is a completely separate member that has a personality that fits the role well.

Calming behaviours in a group fashion are given off by a group of personalities known as omegas. Remember, we aren't talking one on one interactions here, we're talking on the group scale. Every single member of the pack will correct another for doing something it doesn't like -- including the "bottom" member correcting the "alpha" being very common. 

Mediating disputes is likewise normally not performed by the alpha, but by again, a separate member. Some of the behaviours that have been observed are similar to that of many primate packs, where a mediator will spend time with one member of an argument calming them down via body language and body proximity, and likewise with the other party.

And the way I described alpha isn't just what it is to me, that is the biological definition of alpha in relation to wolves. The ONLY thing it means is the original breeding pair, or their successors. All the connotations that our society has drummed up about being "alpha dog" are wrong.

Of course I haven't met TxRider's (or any other members) great grandmother. I was making a generalization for a point. It could easily have been a random 80 year old war vet that you've never met. You defer to certain people just because of who they are, not because of anything they've ever done to or for you.

The display in the picture is dominance, you're correct. And it also feeds directly into the scientific definition of dominance. The dog doing the "head-over" has won a resource in one specific situation. Therefor for that brief period of time they are the dominant dog. Take all resources out of the picture (completely impossible, but bear with the rhetoric) and you would not see any of these behaviours. Dominance is 100% about resources, and is settled on a case by case basis, not an "I'm dominant over you" one.



TxRider said:


> I've never needed to put one of my dogs in it's place with dominance or violence, but I have run into a few I had to do just that. When a 100+lb Rottie from down the street decides your house is his and stands in your garage growling with menace cornering you because he thinks he can dominate you through intimidation, is a time I put them in their place, hard and fast..
> 
> If my dog grabs a cat, or another dog and is going to kill it, or heaven forbid a child, she would be "put in her place" very quickly.


In those situations you are doing the best you can with an already out of control situation. When you absolutely have no choice but physical force, like you outlined, then it must be used. From a purely canine prospective though, you cheated! Dominance in healthy (physically, socially and mentally) dogs is settled 99.9% of the time without ever even touching the other party. 

As far as the cat situation is concerned, I would venture to guess nothing was gained in the form of dominance either. Just a dog who got the piss scared out of them for grabbing the cat. Again, back to training your dog using reinforcement. The next time they think about chasing the cat, the thought process isn't going to be "mom doesn't want me to", it's going to be "last time I did this I got the crap beat out of me".

I don't know the training methods of anyone in this thread, frankly, so this is a blanket statement not directed at anyone. Abandon anything in your training program that has anything to do with the words alpha or dominance. Start putting things into your training that have words like reinforcement, punishment, conditioning and shaping.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

I have one little thing to add

trumpetjock....where did you learn all this nifty stuff about wolf behavior?

and dog behavior for that matter?


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I have one little thing to add
> 
> trumpetjock....where did you learn all this nifty stuff about wolf behavior?
> 
> and dog behavior for that matter?


Well, I AM graduating with a degree in biology with an emphasis on animal behaviour from the University of Minnesota quite soon, so that could help!

We also have an amazing wolf resource very close to the town I live in called The International Wolf Center.

Mostly it all comes down to having a love for the subject and training in how to read and find scientific literature. Once you have those things, it's only a matter of time before you're filled up with more (mostly useless) knowledge than you know what to do with.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> And the way I described alpha isn't just what it is to me, that is the biological definition of alpha in relation to wolves. The ONLY thing it means is the original breeding pair, or their successors. All the connotations that our society has drummed up about being "alpha dog" are wrong.


In the context of this discussion it is just what it means to you, as others have different definitions they hold. You address it yourself as societies connotations..



> Of course I haven't met TxRider's (or any other members) great grandmother. I was making a generalization for a point. It could easily have been a random 80 year old war vet that you've never met. You defer to certain people just because of who they are, not because of anything they've ever done to or for you.


I'm pretty sure it's an ingrained trait of all social animals but we are also taught as humans specifically to respect elders from the time we're old enough to grasp it if not before. You have to take that into account for humans.



> The display in the picture is dominance, you're correct. And it also feeds directly into the scientific definition of dominance. The dog doing the "head-over" has won a resource in one specific situation. Therefor for that brief period of time they are the dominant dog. Take all resources out of the picture (completely impossible, but bear with the rhetoric) and you would not see any of these behaviours. Dominance is 100% about resources, and is settled on a case by case basis, not an "I'm dominant over you" one.


Then why do you see that behavior so commonly among dogs meeting on a walk, at a dog park, etc.? I agree this behavior is mostly seen around food, mating etc. but some dogs seem to exhibit this behavior in many non resource situations or at least situations where a resource is not clear. I've rarely had dogs exhibit it towards me but it has happened.



> In those situations you are doing the best you can with an already out of control situation. When you absolutely have no choice but physical force, like you outlined, then it must be used. From a purely canine prospective though, you cheated! Dominance in healthy (physically, socially and mentally) dogs is settled 99.9% of the time without ever even touching the other party.


Yup you could say I cheated, but I don't know if I could have ended it another way, and i didn't want a repeat. All the owner said when I asked him to keep control of his dog that menaced everyone and every dog it came in contact with, he said next time just shoot it. It used dominance posturing and aggressiveness with every dog I ever saw it interact with. It never gave me another problem, and in fact took a submissive posture and went home whenever it saw me.

I've had similar standoffs sometimes surrounded by aggressive dogs, three chows that did that to me once come to mind, but I was on their territory and it just took time and posturing/signaling to de escalate the situation so I could leave. Rare occasions I've actually had to physically defend from a bite, or take it and figure out what to from there.  (years of working in rural people's yards when they weren't home, lots and lots of encounters)



> I don't know the training methods of anyone in this thread, frankly, so this is a blanket statement not directed at anyone. Abandon anything in your training program that has anything to do with the words alpha or dominance. Start putting things into your training that have words like reinforcement, punishment, conditioning and shaping.


Alpha and dominance have never been part of my training, training is part of being alpha and leader. What parent doesn't teach their kids? What good leader doesn't inspire, lead and teach?


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

TxRider said:


> Then why do you see that behavior so commonly among dogs meeting on a walk, at a dog park, etc.? I agree this behavior is mostly seen around food, mating etc. but some dogs seem to exhibit this behavior in many non resource situations or at least situations where a resource is not clear. I've rarely had dogs exhibit it towards me but it has happened.


The rest of your post didn't have much for me to say about, it's mostly a matter of opinion. The one thing I did want to comment about was this one.

The reason is said it's impossible to remove resources is because it is impossible to remove resources. Resources can be anything from the butter on top of the microwave to space on the sidewalk. Resources most often times are not physical objects. They are space. They are attention.

There are no non resource situations. Everything is a resource.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> The rest of your post didn't have much for me to say about, it's mostly a matter of opinion. The one thing I did want to comment about was this one.
> 
> The reason is said it's impossible to remove resources is because it is impossible to remove resources. Resources can be anything from the butter on top of the microwave to space on the sidewalk. Resources most often times are not physical objects. They are space. They are attention.
> 
> There are no non resource situations. Everything is a resource.


So are you saying saying dominance is always over a resource, and everything is a resource and every situation is a resource situation, so dominance is always an issue all the time in all situations? 

Or does it assume only a dominance issue if two animals both desire the resource?


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

TxRider said:


> So are you saying saying dominance is always over a resource, and everything is a resource and every situation is a resource situation, so dominance is always an issue all the time in all situations?
> 
> Or does it assume only a dominance issue if two animals both desire the resource?


Only if the dogs both desire it and it is unsharable, or one of the two doesn't want to share. At that point, body language and posturing are engaged. One of the dogs (assuming both are socialized enough to be fluent in "dog") will eventually defer to the other.

Sometimes these encounters are so fast that even someone who knows what to look for won't see anything. A flick of the chin, a 10 degree shift in their line of sight.

We do the same thing every day, and don't even know it. It's like walking down the hallway when you run smack into someone who is going directly into your space. It's awkward, but body language usually handles it, we don't need to clearly say "I'M GOING THIS WAY!". If you bump into each other, more body language engages, you are apologetic. You didn't choose to scrunch your shoulders and turn to the side, you just did. Sometimes, you run into an unsocialized bully who takes offense and has to get in your face for taking his space. This all happens in the dog world too, so fast that we can't see it.

Body language and social constructs are all built towards one end: *avoiding* physical confrontation. Unfortunately, humans are affected by outlier syndrome and the most spectacular moments are the ones that we generalize. We see a dog rolled on it's back and pissing on itself with another dog standing erect over it and we think of this as normal dominance. At the same time we ignore the thousands upon thousands of dog/dog and dog/human interactions that are being made all day long.

Is it an "issue" all the time? Absolutely not. Any half-assed socialized dog is fluent enough in dog to handle the situation themselves and we have no business (or real ability) to control the outcome. Just let it roll and if there comes a situation where things aren't working (ie dogs standing and growling at you threateningly), deal with it. Otherwise ignore dominance, you can't change it.

Too long didn't read summary: yes, everything is a resource. Yes, your dog is dominant hundreds of times a day, and he is submissive hundreds of times a day. Dominance isn't a huge deal, it happens all the time.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

thank you trumpetjock. you are waaaay better at explaining this stuff than me...

and y'all thought I was gonna start quoting Mech..


----------



## Saraq (May 23, 2009)

I believe that dog parks are pretty risky places to go. Of course we all wish that there would be only friendly dogs, but that isn´t the case always. For example, your puppy should get only good and safe dog-friends. Other wise there could be aggression and fear related problems in future.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

I'm sorry, but I have to respond to some of trumpet jock's claims. Claims to false expertise are pretty much my biggest pet peeve. He is speaking in vague "rules" and generalizations that need to be taken with a grain of salt. Anyone interested in learning about wolf social behavior should look into actual research that's been done. There's a lot of it. I suggest looking on Pubmed or Ebsco.
I'm a psych grad student and I did a paper on wolf social intelligence last winter. Many of the things he's saying are not true, or not adequately explained and contextualized.
Trumpetjock, you are speaking in generalizations that aren't totally accurate. Please be responsible and at least find citable research before posting.


----------



## skelaki (Nov 9, 2006)

1. I stay away from dogparks. They are just too risky due to ignorant and inexperienced owners. Why take the chance? Your dog does not need to play with other dogs. And if he's dog aggressive definitely stay away from dog parks.

2. Pitbulls, including mixes, like many terrier breeds, are often dog aggressive. While this can be controlled to an extent, it can't be eliminated. If either or both dogs are now exhibiting this trait, then keep them separated when you can't supervise them 110% of the time. Work on absolute obedience of the "I call, you haul" type. And, especially work on long, up to 30 minutes or longer, downs.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

canteloupe said:


> I'm sorry, but I have to respond to some of trumpet jock's claims. Claims to false expertise are pretty much my biggest pet peeve. He is speaking in vague "rules" and generalizations that need to be taken with a grain of salt. Anyone interested in learning about wolf social behavior should look into actual research that's been done. There's a lot of it. I suggest looking on Pubmed or Ebsco.
> I'm a psych grad student and I did a paper on wolf social intelligence last winter. Many of the things he's saying are not true, or not adequately explained and contextualized.
> Trumpetjock, you are speaking in generalizations that aren't totally accurate. Please be responsible and at least find citable research before posting.


He is a BIOLOGY student. VASTLY different than PSYCHOLOGY. Biologists study what is there, not what they conjecture is the reason behind what it there. Big Difference.

CP muist be off this weekend... He would be very good in this discussion.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> Too long didn't read summary: yes, everything is a resource. Yes, your dog is dominant hundreds of times a day, and he is submissive hundreds of times a day. Dominance isn't a huge deal, it happens all the time.


Ok, then we share the same definition of dominance is as well, not a bad thing within that context. Just a natural social interaction.

And something every trainer does every day.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> And the way I described alpha isn't just what it is to me, that is the biological definition of *alpha in relation to wolves*.


But we aren't talking about wolves any more that we're talking about chimpanzees. I'm not anyway. 



> You defer to certain people just because of who they are, not because of anything they've ever done to or for you.


I believe I said this earlier. Cara is my alpha dog, not demonstrated by what *SHE *does, but by how the other dogs treat *her*... 



> Therefor for that brief period of time they are the dominant dog.


Exactly. (It seems we agree more than we disagree). I don't place the label of dominant on a *dog* (although B'asia displays more dominant behaviors than my other dogs, but it's just a matter of quantity, not personality). Dominance is the adjective that describes a *behavior*. I don't think there are dominant dogs, only dogs who display more or fewer dominant behaviors. All of my dogs have, at one time or another, displayed dominant behaviors with each other and even with me (pawing for attention).



> Abandon anything in your training program that has anything to do with the words *alpha *or *dominance*. Start putting things into your training that have words like *reinforcement*, *punishment*, *conditioning *and *shaping*.


My *training *program doesn't include anything about dominance or alpha. Those concepts come into play in regard to the rest of the relationship. There's more to the relationship between me and my dogs than their training. 

And *why isn't there room for all of these concepts? *I don't see abandoning anything that works so well for me. In fact, I use all of these human terms (to describe concepts) when dealing with my dogs.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

canteloupe said:


> I'm sorry, but I have to respond to some of trumpet jock's claims. Claims to false expertise are pretty much my biggest pet peeve. He is speaking in vague "rules" and generalizations that need to be taken with a grain of salt. Anyone interested in learning about wolf social behavior should look into actual research that's been done. There's a lot of it. I suggest looking on Pubmed or Ebsco.
> I'm a psych grad student and I did a paper on wolf social intelligence last winter. Many of the things he's saying are not true, or not adequately explained and contextualized.
> Trumpetjock, you are speaking in generalizations that aren't totally accurate. Please be responsible and at least find citable research before posting.


Everything I know about social behaviour has been learned from professors who have done their own primary research on social behavior. It's also been gleaned from published material on the subject. You call me out for not using citable information, yet there hasn't been a single citation on this entire thread.

Lookit me ma, I can quote mech too! 

Most wolf packs consist of a pair of adults and their mature offspring(Mech 1970) Almost all offspring disperse before 3 yr of age (Fritts and Mech 1981; Peterson et al. 1984; Ballard et al. 1987; Fuller 1989; Gese and Mech 1991). This is the groundwork for a pack. The way you become alpha is by starting the pack. It is a family structure with the original breeding pair on top. Not the strongest, fastest, smartest. Not the pair that has the most assertive personality. Not the one who is "status-seeking". 

I'll be the first to admit that I'm speaking with a ton of generalizations, for one really simple reason: the vast majority of the people here aren't scientists. It's not an insult, not in the least. I've seen way too many threads die here because the language became too technical and posts became 7 miles long bogged down with a dozen citations and 30 quotes that noone can understand anyway.

If there are aspects of wolf behaviour that I've stated incorrectly, by all means point them out. I've already done WAY more learning that instructing on this board, and would absolutely love to learn more.

Cited:

Mech, L. D. 1970. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. Natural History Press, New york

Fritts, S. H., and L. D. Mech 1981. Dynamics, movements, and feeding ecology of a newly protected wolf population in northwestern Minnesota. Wildlife Monograph 79. Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C.

Peterson, R. O., J. D. Woolington, and T. N. Bailey. 1984. Wolves of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Wildlife Monograph 88. Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C.

Ballard, W. B., J. S. Whitman, and C. L. Gardner. 1987. Ecology of an exploited wolf population in south-central Alaska. Wildlife Monograph 98. Wildlife Society, Washington D.C.

Fuller, T. K. 1989. Population dynamics of wolves in north-central Minnesota. Wildlife Monograph 105. Wildlife Society, Washington D.C.

Gese, E. M., and L. D. Mech. 1991. Dispersal of wolves (_Canis lupus_) in northeastern Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:2946-2995


Note: Yes I took the citations from Schmidt and Mechs paper in The American Naturalist. Instead of citing them, I've quoted the papers they quoted themselves, and considering I've read every one of them, I'm well within my rights to do so.



FourIsCompany said:


> And *why isn't there room for all of these concepts? *I don't see abandoning anything that works so well for me. In fact, I use all of these human terms (to describe concepts) when dealing with my dogs.


Because there is zero training value to be gained from wanting to "be alpha". They are two completely separate things.

All of the manners things we teach dogs like not zooming out of a door before us are trained through reinforcement, not because of defering to your alphahood. Why do you think you have to retrain a polite sit at the door at several doors before it sticks? Or training walking up and down stairs politely on several staircases. Or not counter surfing on several counters. Because the dog doesn't stop through respect of your dominance, they stop because it's rewarding to do so, and dogs do not generalize well.

Regardless, everyone I've ever met who seems stuck on the notion of training via dominance and being alpha was a total lost cause, and we've pretty much destroyed this persons thread. Think it might be time to move on.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> He is a BIOLOGY student. VASTLY different than PSYCHOLOGY. Biologists study what is there, not what they conjecture is the reason behind what it there. Big Difference.
> 
> CP muist be off this weekend... He would be very good in this discussion.


Your definition of the field of psychology is about 90 years out of date. The modern field of psychology involves very, very little conjecture and a whole lot more quantitative data collection. The people who study animal behavior are primarily psychologists. While there is some overlap in the fields, biology mostly focuses on animal physiology, and psychology focuses on behavior.
Animal behaviorists cover everything from evolutionary biology to ethological field research to neurology and cognition. And a whole lot more. Animal behaviorists are a type of _psychologist_.
I don't know why you posted in your opinions in CAPS, but I'm going to overlook the agitated tone and assume you just need a little more information.

Also, I just want to add that my post wasn't meant to critique trumpet jock's training methodology at all. Actually, I had no opinion about that part of the discussion. I was only addressing his statements about specific wolf social behaviors.

I see that this thread has been moved elsewhere, which is probably for the best. I'm posting this here anyway because it's not really relevant to the new thread. Elana55, I hope you read this so you can have a better understanding of the field of psychology.


----------



## LilTrio24 (Sep 2, 2007)

I skipped the last two pages of this post just because it started getting repetitive and boring but I saw things that I want to ask and see what you guys and girls think. For the sake of my questions lets just SAY there is alpha dog mentality in dogs no matter if you believe there is or not. Early on there were multiple people that said the alpha dog doesn't fight, that it is the subordinates that fight. It was said the alpha dog controls with psychology (if I remember the post correctly). My question/comment is this....IF the alpha dog is challenged, doesn't it fight back? Respond with aggression? What's to say the other dog didn't challenge it. To me, saying the alpha dog doesn't fight seems wrong.

SECONDLY, this is more of a question than a comment. There was a good amount of discussion about pulling on the leash. IF (again assuming there is alpha mentality if you believe there is or not) the human is thought to be the alpha by the dog, then wouldn't it look to the human/alpha to almost tell it where to go. It seems to me, which is why i'm asking, that if we relate it to wolves my guess is the alpha dog isn't going to be told where to go by some subordinate dog. Wouldn't the subordinate dog look to the alpha kinda asking where they are going? So it just seemed to me that if the dog is pulling at the end of the leash it is telling you where we are going, rather than looking to you for guidance which it seems like it would do with the alpha. Now obviously I have to think that subordinate dogs are still gonna run off and do there own thing in the wild, they aren't always going to be by the alphas side. It just seems like if the wolf/dog truely knows it is subordinate it won't be pulling around the alpha leader. Just questions, looking for some answers/comments.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

LilTrio24 said:


> IF the alpha dog is challenged, doesn't it fight back?


Yes, if challenged, they will respond in kind. I don't know who said the alpha dog doesn't fight. I said it rarely display dominant behaviors. In other words, it doesn't go around pushing the other dogs around, taking toys from the other dogs, creating contests over resources. In general, alpha dogs are very laid back.



> IF (again assuming there is alpha mentality if you believe there is or not) the human is thought to be the alpha by the dog, then wouldn't it look to the human/alpha to almost tell it where to go.


I don't think so. I don't think that dogs think in terms of "I have this attachment around my neck and my person will tell me where to go by leading me by my neck." He gets out there and starts to walk where he wants to go because he is usually free to move as he wishes. When we put this thing around his neck and attach it to ourselves, it's just an annoyance to the dog until he learns that when it's on, he has to go where the person goes. Once he learns that, then yes, he should follow the person. But sometimes it takes a while to teach the dog what walking on a leash is all about because people are teaching it the wrong way, in my opinion. 

We should be teaching the dog to follow us, not NOT to pull on the leash.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> Most wolf packs consist of a pair of adults and their mature offspring(Mech 1970) Almost all offspring disperse before 3 yr of age (Fritts and Mech 1981; Peterson et al. 1984; Ballard et al. 1987; Fuller 1989; Gese and Mech 1991). This is the groundwork for a pack. The way you become alpha is by starting the pack. It is a family structure with the original breeding pair on top. Not the strongest, fastest, smartest. Not the pair that has the most assertive personality. Not the one who is "status-seeking".


The parent of pups is normally faster, stronger and smarter by default though yes?

If pups leave to go off on their own by the time they are fully mature, then the alpha is always the strongest, smartest and fastest in the pack by default.

It's a matter of perspective, just because an alpha does not become alpha by those virtues, doesn't mean it doesn't have those qualities.



> Regardless, everyone I've ever met who seems stuck on the notion of training via dominance and being alpha was a total lost cause, and we've pretty much destroyed this persons thread. Think it might be time to move on.


Yet you ended up stating that in your opinion the relationship state of owning a dog, training etc. is composed of routine dominance in every single interaction.

As is very common, it's just a difference in definition of terms in this case the definition or concept of dominance.

Same with Alpha, much of the issue that is debated is a difference of definition and use of the word. And too many assume what another persons definition and use is in these types of discussions.


----------



## Tobby-Boys (May 19, 2009)

Wow I did not know their was so much to learn about being alpha or no such thing as alpha it took me a while to read all your post.

I want to say thank you for the NILIF advice I have been working on that now for about a week. I think I am the one that needs the training thou it's been a tough week and I am only working on the "Food" and keeping Toby calm when getting ready for our walks and making him sit every time I stop. 

I will let you know how it goes I do walk him down to the dog park and once we get into the parking lot we leave. I am sure the other dog owners think I am crazy but O well. 

When Toby sees other dogs or cats no matter how close they are to him or how excited they are he doesn't care about them he just wants to smell something else. Maybe that's the Beagle in him.


----------

