I understand what you are saying but I would not argue with scientists and ethologists who have been out there in the field studying these genuine packs for many years

They probably know more than me after all! I am sure there are reasons for what they observed, pups may be looked after by not just the alpha pair etc etc. perhaps the pups depending on their development stage can only eat meat that is not as tough as those eaten by adults so are allowed access to the carcass first to get to it, as you say there could be many reasons and they would not necessarily mean the adults would die

Does it? I don't think so, and it's my opinion. Owners do love the idea of pack theory, they can relate to it and the idea of the "wolf in the dog" appeals; it did to me.

I know a lot of trainers and behaviourists and none of them now (oh bar one) follows pack theory or believe dogs want to be "alpha" and take over the pack (which is what original pack theory was about at the end of the day).

Ah, but you see these sad things did occur as a direct result of people (owners or trainers) following pack theory and believing their dogs were dominant or trying to take over. Far from being short sighted it's a case of having open eyes and seeing what has happened over the years and acknowledging it.

I myself used to try to alpha roll one of my dogs as it was told to me it would prevent it becoming pack leader. How stupid was that?! and yet I knew no different at that time because pack theory was what it was all about.

Of course! That should go without saying to anyone who trains dogs and their owners. But my point is that one can be flexible and get good results and use different methods (as long as they are humane) without ever having to use pack theory

Ooh, you frivolous thing, you!

I think though one has to look at the history of dog training and behaviour and then it becomes clearer as to who is who and what theory is informative or useless and why. Old theories are not necesssarily wrong, but if they have been discarded we have to ask ourselves "why" and learn from that perhaps.

The Uk is quite small and if you belong to one of the training organisations, go to workshops and seminars and discuss training on the main forums (some private) it is simple to follow what successful trainers and behaviourists are doing and how they are doing it. There are trainers who are not involved with any organisatoin and those I don't know as much about, but do know they vary enormously from harsh methods to pack theory to very modern practice, they are a variant.

The successful people i refer to are those I know who are successful in what they do (depending on various X factors such as willingness of the client to follow the programme etc!) and they do not follow pack theory (which is the point i was making).

To dispense with wolf pack theory in relation to living with our own dogs - thing is, many of us now already have, and have done for years I believe the idea is to have a well mannered, well trained dog, who is also free enough to be spirited; none of that requires following pack theory.

In "Dogs" by the Coppingers, they point out some interesting facts about village dogs of areas such as Pemba. These it is argued, are more the sort of models we should be looking at if we need to at all, because it is suggested that perhaps wolves evolved and by evolution had less flight distance etc and less fear over time by attaching themselvse to human camps and their dumps. It's an interesting view and it may be that looking at the behaviour of these dogs could teach us a lot. The dogs of Pemba don't seem to form a pack but a family group with no actual leaders.

I do think the Lassie view did dogs a lot of harm -dogs are not fluffy (except some like bichons ) and are simply hard wired to do some things we don't like. I think it's important to learn as much as we can in whatever way we need to, who knows where canine behaviour study may take us in the future?

I believe this was your reply to Shadowboxer but, just wanted to say that as you know, it doesn't take pack leadership to prevent a dog doing this, manners etc are also a requirement of good dog training

I can't agree at all that allowing dogs on furniture as SB mentions as being OK can create a potentially dangerous situation? How so? I take your point re the charging around but that's training needed - re the dogs getting on furniture etc, eating first, that's truly not creating a dangerous situation.

The problem may be that occasionally the odd dog may become possessive and do a spot of guarding but that is solved by training and happens far less than often.

Dog dominance - is the dog dominant because it rushes past? Or is it just untrained?

Do we really believe dogs are trying to be "dominant" over us? Do we understand exactly what dominant means - mostly in wild animals it is ultimately related to mating rights after all!

A puppy may rush past, a young adolescent, a mature untrained dog, an old dog, but does that make them dominant or just excited/aroused/whatever? and ultimately, untrained?

Fantastic post...that's it exactly.
Wys I agree...again!

My 6 year old 'gets' this. Some dogs (and all pups!) have no 'manners', that's what we need to teach them...good manners. It may be good manners for a persons dog to sit on the sofa or sleep on the bed ( mine have done both those things in the past, but when our son was born, we decided that was no longer 'good manners' in our house , so it was stopped),it's fine they do those things. It's good manners for my dogs to sit and wait as I put their food on the floor as I don't want them pushing the bowl out of my hand enthusiastically. It's good manners for them not to push me out of the way when we go out.
It is all about manners, I don't see it as me reinforcing the pack leader, I don't think they are looking out for a chance to 'dominate' me, I really don't.If they were, they'd have done it a long time ago!
Dogs are opportunists and it's in their best interests to have good manners, I give them their tea after all!!!!

Anyway, I don't have long, just think this post summed it up. Fantastic!

Methinks that either I didn't state clearly enough, or you decided to take it in the wrong context in order to support your case. However, I was not suggesting, for a second, that sitting on the sofa was dangerous, nor indeed eating first was. I quite specifically (in my view at least) wrote about the stairs when referencing the danger element, didn't I? The knives are getting a little sharper around here, I feel.

And if that works for both you and your dog, that has to be a great thing. I'm not sure that either of us are qualified to say what is more or less "appropriate" as you put it however. Appropriate is very contextual.

I get the impression that you believe I look at a single behaviour exhibited by a dog (my dog in particular) and make a judgement call from that. If so, you are, I have to say, completely incorrect. I live with my dog twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and am therefore able to take its full behaviour patterns into account, along with her history, given directly from the past owner, who we have formed a good friendship with and remain in contact with, and shape an entire context. Please don't forget that when judging my methods or practises.

I'm uncomfortable with this line. It seems that you are suggesting that because you have chosen to accept another theory, then those who haven't have somehow not seen the light that you have, and that they must, therefore, be akin to second-class dog owners, with ancient belief systems. I simply don't accept that at all. It's human nature too, to believe what you personally believe is the right thing, and I think we are seeing some of that behaviour exhibited here to be honest.

Aside from that, let' say that you are absolutely correct, and that dogs and wolves and the entire pack theory is nonsense. What does it matter? Really? Do you believe it somehow harmful to the dog or the owner to believe it? Do you feel that to continue it somehow discredits those who believe otherwise? I accept that you don't accept it, going by past posts, and I'm more than comfortable with that. As I stated earlier, the more theories and methods there are, the better for all as far as I'm concerned. However, I am acutely curious as to what negative effect you think it has. I would also still like to hear where you draw the line, and at what point are you willing to seperate the dog from the wolf. (See earlier crate-training analogy.)