Maybe some of your problem is that you focus to much on the dominance theory. Just enjoy your dog for what he is instead of thinking he's constantly trying to take control and/or all this nonsense of "pack" leadership etc.

Gnasher, I have done an honours degree in applied animal behaviour and I can tell you that scientists do alter their views and are open to newer learning. This is really what science is all about, discovery and learning. It's not necessarily about being "right" 50 years ago and not accepting that others can see things in a different light, or that there are different reasons or models for something, to what was first thought.

if science was not sometimes "wrong" then our knowledge would not be able to evolve and grow.

I am afraid your husband is wrong (no offence meant).

Wys
x

You didn't read what I said ... I said any scientist that could do such a volte face could not be for real.

Of course scientists make mistakes - but not majorly majorly serious ones as per David Mech. He just could not have been SO wrong in the first place. So therefore he is either mistaken in what he was observing on Ellesmere Island, or he had alterior motives for doing his volte face. There can be no other explanation for SUCH a huge change in his opinion.

O I do I do. I love every minute I spend with my boys, sadly not enough. I leave home at 7.30 every morning and rarely walk in before 7 at night. I'm often in bed by 8.30, so it is really weekends I only get to spend with them, very sadly. Still, I am approaching 60 - I shall be retiring in 3 years hopefully!

Wys, I know, and I believe we have had this conversation before. David Mech's volte face was SO massive, that it just is not possible that in this day and age - it was not that long ago that he was spouting his pack theory - he could have got it so wrong.

However, no offence taken about the OH comment!!

I don't understand why it isn't possible?
Once it was thought wolves did pack stuff, then, upon futher observation and methods, it was realised it was not clear cut and they behaved more like a family.

I think this was because as time moved on, there were further monies available, better methods of scientific recording, etc etc as much as anything.

Wys
x

Observational studies have become much more 'scientific' over the years and science itself has developed in the effort to make it more robust.

You also have to consider that theories are tested and retested. Findings in early studies can be subsequently found to be incorrect simply because on retesting the conclusions don't repeat.

Mech has done a number of studies over the years. My guess is that he is now in a position to show repeated patterns that better stand up to scrutiny.

He was wrong because of the lack of previous studies similar to this, at that time we were not as knowledgeable about animals as we are now, most of us were very ignorant in how animals learnt, it was normal to use force with our dogs even though there were quite a lot of us who couldn't do the force. He was one of the first to get us thinking more about animals and how they tick.

We had Barbara Woodhouse, she was supposed to be a fantastic trainer who understood dogs, it was the same thing with every dog. This was normal when Meech done that research, at least he had the guts to admit he was wrong and has tried to correct it since and his brain isn't blocked to other methods.

Dearly me, if you told me the sky was blue I swear I would step outside to look

Tell me then, an electric shock is what....positive reinforcement?

And tell me, I need a laugh, tell me your definition of punishment as well

LC is very good at convincing owners that shocking their dog is positive reinforcement, never did manage to work out why.