I'm not sure if this will turn out as a separate post or a multiple quote thing but I'll see what happens

I'd be interested to know if this pack was brought together and released, or whether it was literally wild from the start. Often it used to be that wolves were captured and then released (so there was often no blood relation nor original pack stability) and this cause tension and rivalry.

I have a great documentary called "Wolf at my door", it shows similar things, but all the wolves were captive and released as a made up pack later.

You make a good point re the genes, but interestingly one point made by others is that when for example food is sparse, and the wolves are hungry, the alpha pair hold back and allow the youngsters to eat - to give their genes a chance of survival

However this has only been seen in truly wild packs.

I agree we should be willing to pay for special advice, however this price is I feel rather a lot, sorry
There are some very good behaviourists who charge half the amount or less. These would provide a home visit, email or telephone back up, written report.

I totally agree with you that everyone has different views. What's that old saying, "put 3 dog trainers in one room and the only thing they would agree on is that the others are wrong"

I am sure your dog is well and happy, I don't think anyone's suggested otherwise .

As in all things there are strong views and plenty of egos, especially when people are passionate. I have used different methods and none work so well for me as what I use now, and this is from someone who as a teenager followed Ms Woodhouse and then dallied with pack theory a la John Fisher.

It was my very strong minded, amazing Belgian Shepherds who showed me that kind leadership is important, but that pack theory really had no effect on our training success or relationship.

Out of interest, what did Jan say about your dog and the charging to the gate? and what does she say about treating aggression in dogs in particular?

I am presuming she doesn't suggest aggression can be cured with dogs knowing their place, or does she?

Let me first stress, the last thing I want to invite is any argument, but I do love a good debate.

Going back to the pack element, I, as you yourself have almost intimated in a previous response, think too much emphasis is placed upon it, and certainly so in terms of JF's work and how it's interpreted. And again, I stress, that nobody really is to blame for this, other than Jan herself.

With Jan's methods, one could just as easily remove all references to the word "pack" and "alpha" and use the methods as prescribed. They would work equally well in my views. I don't really know John Fisher's methods and so I can't stop to see how similar they might even be, if, as described above, the pack and wolf context is removed. I expect they might be remarkably similar, but it's guesswork.

I can certainly say that I don't venture around my home seeing myself as a pack leader, but rather a member of the family who the dog can defer the decisions which she might otherwise choose to take for herself (rightly or wrongly) to. I personally find it incredibly easy to extract and remove the pack and wolf side of JF's literature and put it to one side, whilst focusing on the methods. In actuality, I believe that is the best way to view many methods. Is knowing why something works as important as knowing that it does just work?

I think you also hit the nail on the head, in that you use the methods you do now as you've tested them for yourself, and with your dogs, and get the results you want to receive. I too am the same with JF's methods. (Though, depending on the situation at hand, I may also employ some of Paul Owens too, giving me many more strings to pull on.) This, regardless of any methodology preference has to be the crucial thing. If it's humane and it works for you, then stick with it, without being afraid to open yourself up to new ideas and concepts.

I also think, as with many methods, people pull out the bits they disagree with, and then lay a wash of dislike over the entire method, because they can't see past that one part, regardless of how illogical that may be. I am exactly the same with regard to crate training. I absolutely and positively abhor it and would never use it. Only because, in my senses, I still percieve it as cruel, even though every strand of logic tells me that it isn't. Because I perceive it as cruel, I abandon the entire idea and concept of it. (I should qualify the above with the addition that I really don't like reliance on any third-party tools and gadgets anyway.)

We received a price from Jan, but then determined that it was too early to bring her in and that Blondi needed to settle more first. However, should weeks pass and I feel that we need an outside view on the situation, JF will still be my first choice.

What makes you think that Blondi charging at the gate has to do with aggression? I certainly don't see it that way. However, to answer your question, JF might typically say if the dog is reacting with aggression, then it simply hasn't been taught what it should do in that situation. One would want the dog to defer to the owner to see what should come next, not automatically assume that aggression is required.

However, as she makes very clear, each and every case is different, and that is precisely why they prefer to visit the home and see the situation in its overall context.

Where some see JF's method emphasising the wolf-pack and ignoring of the dog, I can hand-on-heart say that isn't what I get from it and never really have. I get the message about displaying confidence, being confident, and letting your dog have confidence in you to help it make the right choice. Put it this way, I'm glad I'm not JF as I think alot of the positive thigns she brings to the table are lost and wasted amidst the ever-debated issue of are dogs wolves or aren't they? Her methods are just so much more than that.

I'm the same, I love a good debate but am not interested in arguing, it's not always that easy via email/forum as of course we don't have the facial or body expressions to help.

I totally agree with the first paragraph of yours I've quoted above, with the emphasis on humane.

I think in many ways Jan has probably caused herself a problem because to many her methods come across as not new at all, but as repeats of methods of 20 years ago which she now claims as her own. She didn't acknowledge that others have previously related wolves to dogs at all, which I found unfair and kind of bad mannered. It's not as if she's the first to think of it. Unfortunately this way of doing things can put others totally off anything she may have which is good and, possibly, interesting for canine behaviour.

I do suspect that she came up with the idea on her own in her own time, but it may be hard for others to see that understandably .

Sorry, apologies, I didn't mean to put those sentences together in the way that they came across, I'm certainly not saying Blondi (who is a lovely dog by the way) is at all aggressive!

I should have separated those sentences, i was interested in what advice if any she gave about Blondi charging to the gate and barking, but also (separately) in what has been said in this methods about aggression as from the TV programmes there seems to be a "blanket" solution to most things but perhaps that's not quite correct then

I find this interesting as most people who mention JF do her maybe a huge disservice and talk about pack mentality, alpha and all the rest. One (just one) reason so many modern and reward based trainers dislike this is because historically use of words like "alpha" and "dominance" has meant that owners tend to feel they have to "win" and "dominate" their dog, often physically and further can lead to owners thinking that pulling on the lead, messing in the house or any other basic problem can be due to the dog not being in its place (ie bottom).

It's refreshing to hear you have got far more out of the methods than that, I would say that our dogs need us to be stewards or leaders or guardians in the sense that the world can be a difficult place and they do need guidance. A dog who is left to make all the decisions can be unhappy - usually they prefer to be looked after sothey feel safe

Hi Wysiwyg

"Wild wolves behave totally differently and for example "alpha" does not always eat first, sometimes the pups do."

I don’t see this as a challenge to pack theory, this is just normal behaviour for many species pack orientated or not. Eating first could be used to reinforce status in a pack situation and used when necessary, in times of hardship or stress.

"Dogs are not wolves, it's like saying we are like Chimps - we ar like them yes, but we don't in other ways act like them or behave like them"

There is a considerable difference in our relationship with chimps. Although they are our closest living relative, we are not direct descendants with divergence ~5 million year ago and taxanomic grouping puts them in a separate genus ie interbreeding is not possible. Even so, there is still undoubted similarities in human and chimp behaviour.

The dog is a sub species of, and a direct descendant the wolf with divergence estimated at around 10–15 thousand years.

"John did a few tests with his students and discovered that pack theory would work but not because dogs thought of us as alpha, but because they knew what was expected of them and had a routine"

"Some of the dogs became withdrawn and depressed esp. the sensitive breeds. This appeared to be because the owners ignore the dog too much or just didnt give their dog enough attention which dogs do need - just not on constant demand..."

I don’t think anyone could be sure why certain behaviours manifest. Domestication has produced a wide range of temperament in the species and individuals showing extremes would not have survived in a wild situation. To expect these to conform to normal pack protocol may not be practical.

"You make a good point re the genes, but interestingly one point made by others is that when for example food is sparse, and the wolves are hungry, the alpha pair hold back and allow the youngsters to eat - to give their genes a chance of survival"

Normal parental behaviour across many species is to allow young to feed first but in times of extreme hardship, parents would not risk their own survival as this is counter productive to pack stability and continuation of the desirable genes.

hehe I'm too lazy to continue when it gets to argument point. Far less energy needed to just walk away.

I think one of the biggest problems (which absurdly could have been one of the best selling points had it been stuck solely) with reference to JF's work, is the concept of it being borne from Monty Robert's work. Monty Roberts being the horse whisperer, who, undeniably, did remarkable things with horses, and is without doubt, a master of his craft. Had she have stuck to that basic premise, then I don't think half of the controversy and, in some cases, bizarre vitriol towards both her and her methods would exist today.

However, she does constantly refer to the "wolf", "pack", "alpha", and so forth. That is not to say I find what she says invalid at all, but rather that, valid or not, it really doesn't need emphasising, and that the reader really doesn't get much value at all from taking it on-board either.

Let's take one of the most controversial points; gesture eating. JF claims that this is beneficial because the alphas eat first, and so, therefore, by eating something before your dog, you emphasise your alpha status. I have seen people react so vehemently against this advice.

Now, I take the advice, and great, if it does help to reinforce any "alpha" status all the better. However, that's not really why I use it. As I'm munching away, I'm watching my dog sitting patiently beside me with her eyes focused squarely on me, when she could just as easily run around like a catherine wheel firework by my legs. I consider this a crucial time in my dog's daily routine to expand her concentration levels by sitting patiently and politely, with her attention being where it may well need to be in a life-threatening situation one day, firmly on me. The alpha status is very much a secondary benefit, it it exists at all.

I didn't really want to get too much into the wolves issue of the debate as the answer, for me at least, is that I simply don't have a clue. It could be fully relevant, it could be completely useless. Who is to say? However, pod add an interesting facet to the argument; chimps are a completely different genus all together and so I have to be honest, I can't see how relevant that is either. Further, I don't think anyone can say that chimps have in any way enjoyed the closeness and special relationship which has been enjoyed between man and dog/wolf over the years.

Earlier you mentioned about your preferred behaviourist deserting his old ideas of the pack mentality in preference of his new theories. Could it not be equally fair to suggest (as some do with JF) that he too realised that, sometimes, nothing sells better and quicker than a new idea, and so to do a u-turn especially when it's a u-turn packed with 'revolutionary' new methods and ideas, may not always be for the right reasons? This may not be the case at all, but I think one has to respect that the possibility always exists, for any author or professional.

Continuing on, if you really had to push me between is pack mentality important or isn't it, I would err on the side of yes. It's a pretty poor source, I concede, but, the more documentaries I watch (about most animals) the more I respect that the 'pack' or family grouping structure is not only important, but absolutely vital in some species. Without it, they simply wouldn't have, and couldn't have, survived to enjoy the rich and robust lives they enjoy today. I see it as a very primitive form of our society structure. We trust those at the top to do the right thing to further us and to protect us. We, in turn, work and pay back to those who do this. (Albeit begrudgingly ) Actually, in some ways, their structure is far better than ours, and, I'm sure, far less vulnerable to corruption, as breaking the 'law' in pack terms can have absolutely fatal consequences in some cases. Here, you might just get voted out at the next election.

Where I leave the pack bus however, is on the issue of how much this needs to be emphasised in dog training, or needs to be at the forefront of any trainer's mind. I truly believe that, from the average trainer's persective, we can forget making reference to the wolf pack and the alpha status. Accept that we have learned, for whatever reason, the dog needs to know its position in the family, needs to have trust in the owner, needs to respect the owner's decisions, and needs to allow the owner to make those decisions before it. I really don't think it matters at all as to why we need to do that. It's just basic common sense that we would apply to any creature with a lesser capacity of intellect and reasoning than us, and in fact, we apply to our own children.

P.S. Absolutely no apology needed re Blondi.

I really must learn to do these multiple quotes some time!

Many people, mostly pet owners, love the idea of pack theory - but I think it speaks volumes that mostly those successful people who work with training and behavioural problems tend to not follow this any more. They believe pack theory causes more problems than it solves and this is from their experience over time .

Pack theory was/is after all just another theory - I believe it's important to keep learning and evolving, as long as whatever we do is humane. 20 years ago I believed dogs should not eat before us or go on our beds because an alpha would not allow that - it never even occurred to me to question what others "knew" for sure - now i know that not to be true and have seen some sad things occur because people have blamed pretty much all behaviour and training problems on the dog wanting to be alpha. .

I hope you don't mind me recommending a few books which can probably go into it all far better than me:

"The Other end of the Leash" by Pat McConnell which goes right into primate/human/dog relations and goes into dominance etc, and "Dogs: A Startling new Understanding of Canine Origin, Behaviour and Evolution".

One the one hand it could be said that these are only books, however they are written by people who are in the forefront of moving and shaking the world of behaviour and they make interesting reading if nothing else

I'm not clear on what you mean.... John Fisher carried out the research on hundreds of students and when he died it was continued so I'd say the results were fairly conclusive