Being an alpha is NOT about attack and physical dominance, Promethean. The alpha male in a wolf pack is NOT aggressive, attacking all who disobey. That is down to the Beta Enforcers.

Alpha males in a wolf pack will ONLY display aggression when they absolutely have to - to fend off a take-over bid maybe, but even then the beta enforcers will normally do this for them. An alpha will fight for his life of course, but in most other circumstances will not. There is such a huge misconception surrounding alpha-ism, it is not based on dominance, it is based on control.

Hal, our old alpha male boy, was extremely accommodating towards other dogs coming into his house. Why shouldn't he be? He was alpha male, and as such could afford to be magnanimous. I remember one occasion when next door's airedale terrier (beta enforcer by rank, a not very pleasant dog sadly) escaped from his garden and came onto our drive, where Hal was snoozling on the drive on his chain. I was pottering around with the garden, and before I could stop him, this dog had entered our house for a nose around. I went in and ordered him out, and as he emerged from the house, he attacked Hal on his chain. Up to this point Hal had ignored him, but he stood up for himself. At this point, the Airedale's owner came rushing onto our drive, picked up a yard broom that was leaning against the wall and started bashing MY dog over the head !! Rather naturally, I took very grave exception to this, seeing as it was her dog who was in the wrong here, and told her to stop. She actually cut my dog's face very badly because there was a sharp bit on the end of the broom handle, and did apologise.

He was absolutely fine about doggie visitors coming to stay. We were adopted by the village dog (a long story!) , a lovely old collie who decided one day that he was going to move in with us. In he came, and stood there growling at Hal, who was lying at his master's feet in our sitting room. I held my breath thinking o my Lord, Bertie is going to be in big trouble. Not a bit of it, Hal graciously got to his feet and moved aside for Bertie to lie down. That was the first and last time that Bert growled at Hal, after that he hero worshipped him and they were the greatest of friends. This was not Bertie being dominant of Hal, just the opposite.

The park scenario was just the same. We live in the depths of the countryside so have no need to take our dogs to a park, but Hal would be wonderful with other dogs simply because he had no need to be otherwise. He was frequently attacked by other dogs, and he would just duck and weave and stay out of trouble, quelling them with one of his "black looks". He never lost one of these challenges, and the only injury he ever inflicted on another dog was when another next door neighbour's dog pinned him down by his throat, and to save his life literally, Hal bit him through his pad to make him let go. It did.

He was so supremely confident, he just sailed through life shaking off these irritations like confetti !! The bitches of course all absolutely adored and worshipped him, falling at his paws in their admiration !!

I hope this answers your question Promethean.

Ultimately that is exactly what it's about - at least the way you guys look at it.

It's true that the breeding male is not aggressive but it is not for the reason Ellis believes. It is simply because the offspring do not challenge their sire for resources. I know Ellis like to make the claim about beta enforcers however it has not been observed by others. I am assuming the lack of corroborating evidence means his claims are false.

That doesn't tell me anything. You merely stated a trait and then explained it away by claiming he was an alpha male. I thought you were the alpha? See how when you break it down, these ideas make less and less sense?

There is also little evolutionary payback in altruism to a genetically unrelated con specific unless during mating. What you recount is only what I've stated. That there is no pack dominance as believed by some. If there was, we couldn't get our dogs to socialize the way they dog.

Promethian, that is a really good point
We all expect our dogs to pretty happily live in a very fluid pack, lots of different dogs comming and going all the time
If v few dogs are truly alpha and its the betas that are supposed to do all the fighting wouldnt there be lots more fighting??

As long as its done in a nice way, dogs need some one who is in charge and they need rules and bounderies like kids, they feel more secure and it gives th dogs more confidence.
A happy medium i say works really well

Exactly. Our dogs accept the comings and goings of known and unknown dogs without an social implications. The events are entirely insignificant. This points to a loose, assemblage of convenience; not a pack. A pack would be impacted by such absences and they would also react against unknown intruders.

You Should Tell CM that hun!!!!!

But, this is not "alpha" in the traditional sense of using dominance, force, or if not, using pack leadership theory as per say, Jan Fennell or John Fisher before he altered his views..... so I hope you voted No?
Or did you vote Yes?

I think a lot of peeps voted Yes when they should have actually voted No.

IYSWIM

Because I agree with what you wrote but voted No as it's not about dominance, alpha or "pack theory" but about manners, boundaries, and bringing up dogs so they can happily fit into modern society and feel comfortable in it with us

Wys
x

What she said!!!!

I can't really check at the moment as I'm meant to be revising for exams and spending less time on here but does DM actually say the Yellowstone is a more natural pack than the Ellesmere one? As far as I recall, he doesn't. Because in nature animals all adapt - to their environment - wolves all over will not be exactly the same. Adaptation is an important part of evolution and survival, after all.

You can get pockets of the exact same species in differering environments, who actually behave a little differently - it's quite amazing!


He is saying they are more like the alpha idea, but isn't he also saying that the situation is a bit unusual because the resources at Yellowstone are so good? IAlso, as he says, there are several breeding pairs (alphas) in the one large pack, so how does that fit in with the idea of the one ruling Alpha pair which "rules" - it doesn't

I do like your point but I don't think it's that simple. I think it's actually that both are natural, if harsh, places for wolves to live and the wolves have adapted. Who is to say which is the real situation? IMO they'd have to both be the genuine thing, surely?

Also probably the wolves in the Yellowstone pack would have been hunted by humans and the pack in the older days would probably have been smaller and not so successful.

OK well that's up to you Gnasher of course . After reading his views I think it's hard to come to that conclusion but there we go

We now have to remind ourselves, of course, that dogs aren't wolves anyway .... and the wolf/alpha debate is really neither here nor there, because dogs aren't wolves due to the many thousands of years of domestication process which means that they do things differently.

Wys
x

Originally Posted by Gnasher
Yes, he thinks quite differently to you Gnasher

I do think the way you use the term Alpha really has nothing to do with what CM does, or with the original pack theory/hierarchy idea (ie physical force is used to find the place in the pack and this may include vicious training methods by some trainers ) and it's not using the "pack leader" theory as in, eat before the dog, do not let the dog on the furniture, etc.

It seems you are (as I think we may have touched on before in this thread somewhere ) being a parent or leader perhaps.... as many of us are...but you prefer to call it alpha. You probably disagree though!

Wys
x