Just a thought, but in something as complex and abstract as relationships (Which is what this is all about, after all.) I reckon practical experience counts for a heck of a lot more than scientific study! I might be wrong but surely something like the relationship between canine and human is far from ideal for hard scientific study...

Gnasher , lets not turn this into another one of the longest threads on Dogsey on your views!

You say you are not closed minded, yet you did not even read the article , before you dismissed it as being flawed , with statements of "rediculous and suspicious.

I didnt say you shouldnt have butted in - just pointed out that you tend to follow many unscientific methods

I am also a scientist so I know how research should be carried out

How do you believe this should be done then?? I have to say from observing my pack of 2, their extended family of about 40 dogs, the other dogs we meet on walks and the agility dogs that these findings seem to hold true

I have tried to do some research on dogsey for my diploma but every time I ask the alpha people I get v little in the way of responses and the few I do really dont seem to show much more than training issues rather than dominance

I agree to a certain extent Rich. But rightly or wrongly, a properly conducted scientific study is essential to gain respect and acceptance.

That's unfair Jackbox ! I just haven't got the time at the moment to read the paper. I fully intend to, I was just merely pointing out that the little I had read made me very sceptical ... viz, the choice of subjects and some wildly inaccurate statements.

Ben, if you are a scientist, then you will very definitely agree that the research is flawed in this case.

Being an Alpha human is NOT ABOUT DOMINANCE !!

I consider myself Alpha female and I do not dominate my dog. A good Pack Leader does not use dominance.

My mantra !!

they weren't studying human/dog behaviour, but dog/dog behaviour (as I understand it) which is what the dominance theory is based on, interacting with dogs in the same way as they interact with eachother.
aside from using dog's trust dogs they also used feral dogs. presumably, since it's been published and is at the mercy of peer review, they wouldn't have overlooked something as simple as all of the dogs studied being traumatised. In fact, I would think that a group of dog-friendly dogs allowed to act freely with eachother would be quite content and 'balanced', certainly I have met many dogs in rescue who were perfectly happy. And where else are you going to get a group of dogs to study without human interaction? I think I'll reserve judgement on that one until I've read it the circumstances under which the dogs were living, how much time they were together for etc. If not dogs from the dog's trust, how would those who think this is a flaw in the study do it differently?

also, from reading your posts Gnasher I get the impression that you use more or less the same methods as those of us who don't believe in pack leadership, you just call it by a different name and believe that the methods maintain a pack structure. Is that right? Either way if your dog is content and happy to comply with your requests then whatever you're doing must work for you

I'm glad it's not in my nature to blindly accept anything purely because it's produced by someone with a load of letters after their name. I firmly believe that EVERYONE should look at both sides of the debate and draw their own conclusions. Homo Sapiens is, after all, a species supposedly capable of rational thought. This particular example of the breed thinks the truth in this case lies somewhere in the grey area between some people in white coats with clipboards and wisdom distilled through the generations...

I can't read it

However - without reading it and going on what I observe within my own 'Pack'....there is a set structure.

I have observed alpha rolling from one dog to another (pictures have been used in a friends DVD on body language), You can also watch higher animals moving lower animals.

Maybe this is not pack structure or dominace....whatever it is it works to keep everyone happy.

(Will see if I can find some of the pictures at some point!)

I very rarely take part in these threads but sometimes find them interesting, however some of the statements on here have rather caught my attention.

Yes it says dogs that are kennel stressed – that’s why they are not in a kennel situation so it hardly means they are all stressed does it?


It sounds to me that’s what they’ve done, these dogs were in loving homes for one, many could well of come from loving homes and are now in further loving homes, some may have problems apart from not doing well in kennels, etc etc. Im not sure how much more of a mix they could of got.

Exactly- I thought the old all rescues have problems had long been debunked.

I would love to hear your evidence for this statement.

Just as many believe the dominance theory is out of date I believed the misguided ‘all rescues’ are problem vicious demented dogs had gone out of the window years ago, obviously not.

Can I ask what qualifications you have to assess rescue dogs?