But this is the exact message I believe is being given out by a lot of trainers and, all be it maybe inadvertently, by some tv shows. The message is that you have to be forceful with your dog and some people will take it further and do serious damage to the relationship between them and their dog which surely has to be based on trust and mutual respect.
But I realise I am getting into dangerous territory bringing up tv shows, so I'll shut up on that one!

I agree, and they are wrong.

The ability to produce viable offspring is not unknown aside from the example I gave, there has also been documented cases in plants, birds, fish, etc. In biology, nothing is ever easy.

I don't think you will find anyone disagreeing that we observe many similar segments of behaviors in dogs and wolves. The point is that the model you are applying to understand dogs is flawed. It was flawed when it was first applied to wolves and even more so when applied to dogs.

Theories are explanations and models that reflect our observations. They have to be based on empirical evidence. This is the same in all sciences. The pack/dominance model that you are applying has no place because the observations to support these ideas aren't there and the predictions made by the model are not found. Once example is the one I recently brought up about non-aggression between dogs. The reason most people on this thread don't is evident by the way they argue their point; they do so by citing published work, research and experts. That is they are familiar with the facts and have adjusted their views to reflect it.

I believe one ethologist described the specialization in dogs as interrupted hunting behavior. Pointer is showing orientation, herding is stalking, retrieving is self explanatory, same with tracking, patrol, guarding. But this in itself also points to the flaws in pack theory. Domestication has fragmented, deleted, exaggerated all manners of behavior and when combined with the neotonous traits that are part of domestication there is little doubt that this theory is not applicable to dogs.

This is wrong, for many reasons by let's go with it.

Why is it that people who talk about alphas go through complicated gymnastic routine in order to establish "alphahood" In fact, you really should have to do anything seems they seem to be as rare as a 4 leaf clover.

It is also odd that all the trainers that still talk like this, give the impression that all dogs will dominate you and take over the world unless we throw them to the ground and pin them.

No, but an alpha wolf is and I was talking about wolves.

The boss of what? Everything? The amount of energy to guard and enforce it's authority over every aspect and resource would be overwhelming. And yet another reason that there are really no alphas. Rather it should be described as a relationship to another dog in relation to a resource because all those come into play. Even the mental state of the animal influences the behaviour since a dog exhausted from playing ball is unlikely to contest ownership of said ball.

It is quite observed in wolf pups however, which is how some people have metaphorically described dogs - as wolf pups.

A good post JanieM and I agree with your views; physical dominance is what many still think of even in this day and age unfortunately. To me it demonstrates lack of knowledge and when trainers/owners lack that, they "have" to resort to force.

Agree again! spot on IMO.....

Wys
x

I have addressed some thoughts above in bold text.

When you say; "Domestication has fragmented, deleted, exaggerated all manners of behavior and when combined with the neotonous traits that are part of domestication.", you are 100% correct, I think the emphasis on neotonous traits is emphasised a little too much by some but over all it is a fair observation of the state of dogs.

However previously you gave an example of all the dogs in the park getting on with each other in perfect harmony; I just don't think that is a realistic picture, for example a group of dogs well socialised to each other without human 'guidance' (a feral pack for example) would behave in a completely different manner to an individual animal that is under pressure of being alone or with a single familiar human in the same situation. The single animal will not be nearly so bold as to start an argument with out the back up of the gang.

I like the way you put that Promethean. "Domestication has fragmented, deleted" etc.....

It's very true.

Wys
x

I agree. There are times it is necessary to take away things but we also have to respect the animal a little; surely living with a dog requires a little bit of give and take (no pun intended) like being married?

(yes 100 pages is in sight...)

Admittedly, I have cited only one piece of research, and it isn't research as such, but an article by David Mech. There is so much reading that I have to do that I had to "pick out" one particular person to concentrate on, and I chose DM because he seemed to me, having observed wild packs of wolves for many years, to be the best chap to concentrate on. I have read his excellent article "Whatever Happened to the Term Alpha Wolf", and from this have discovered that he did in fact not do a huge volte face, as I formerly believed. He made the very interesting discovery that through man's influence, those wolf packs that have been driven to far flung places where the living is poor and harsh, displayed more of a "family" unit than the successful, flourishing and large packs living in the very desirable conditions offered by Yellowstone. the Yellowstone model is the correct, traditional "model", the Ellelsmere Island model is the "new" model. I say "new", because as most "packs" of wolves have been driven through man's greed and ignorance to live in undesirable places, then "new" unfortunately is most likely to become "the norm". Especially if Obama decides to lift the hunting ban on the wolves of Yellowstone.

So, far from doing a huge volte face, I think David Mech has just demonstrated how man's influence has and will undoubtedly continue forced wolves to change their life style, for want of a better phrase. I guess this is evolution, but man made evolution happening over a very short space of time, instead of natural evolution which takes hundreds of thousands of years.

I agree entirely with the first bit of your final paragraph, but not the last. I agree of course that domestication has had a huge impact on dogs, but I still believe that a lot of this is just "icing on the cake", and that what SE does when he compares dog behaviours to that of wolves and interprets them for us is spot on.