There are a few versions, sort of. It's been explained back further in the thread but basically a scientist called Schenkel studied a captive wolf pack and from his observations made wrong assumptions about how wolves, and also dogs, live. Other scientists referred to and supported his work until more recently when Mech realised this was wrong and put forward the fact that there is no such thing as an "Alpha" leader based on fighting for hierarchy.

He believes the "alpha" is purely the breeding pair and that is all. So, technically, all wolves who live long enough and who leave to form their own groups can be alpha.

It's explained here, if you check out the links in the article, it explains a lot of the history of the Alpha view :

http://www.4pawsu.com/dogpsychology.htm

It's a very good site as it brings a lot of info together. Here's a bit from it:

"Dominance was once touted as the cause and solution for behavior problems in dogs. This belief originated with studies of captive wolf packs in the 1940's and was popularized by the Monks of New Skete in 1978. This belief led to fear that these animals could physically harm us unless we "established our dominance." Methods such as alpha rolls and leash corrections were often recommended as a way for the dog owner to "establish dominance" over their dogs.

However, there are multiple problems with modeling dog training after these beliefs:

The wolf studies were seriously flawed...".


John Fisher didn't like the physical dominance and pain based training involve with this and so derived pack leadership based on not eating before the dog, not letting dogs on furniture etc but after a few years he had the courage to do a U turn and admit he was incorrect, bless him.

That's very basically it but - even in this day and age most peeps who follow Alpha view tend to also believe in physical domination - the scruffing, rolling, pinning, bullying, etc.

It's obvious this is not needed as dogs are turned around and trained without this, even the red zone dogs (red zone - groan ) but physical punishment is easy and often rewards humans who often can't see any fallout. However, it's almost always there.

Wys
x

No

What do you think of the info in the 4paws link, does that help to explain it a bit more?

Wys
x

I agree with this post Mini, I think the same

Wys
x

I don't agree that this is a wrong interpretation though, as often in dog training this is exactly what alpha/dominance/pack leadership meant

You tend to use the term alpha differently to most, Gnasher

Many are just ordinary pets with problems usually caused by their owners...and in the US where I am on a training list there, I do know of trainers who have taken on some of CMs cases which, after the cameras had gone, were as bad or worse .....

But let's not get into CM


Reputable behaviourists disagree with this and do not use this in their behaviour programmes...

Disagree! as I think Pidge probably meant Alpha as in dominance hierarchy, John Fisher theory, etc...I may be wrong but ....maybe Pidge can clarify.

Gnasher, I think if you use the term alpha it really has to be based on what we know about its origins. This is what I don't understand about your use of the word - do you not think maybe your use of the word is confusing as you say you don't use pack leader views (dogs not on furniture, etc) and also you don't use much if any physical domination? Science historically tells us what alpha is or isn't, do you not agree?


Wys
x

Mini I found that the link did not work, hope you don't mind but I'll give this one if that's OK

http://www.nonlineardogs.com/embed-SocOrg.html

This study is well worth reading. If anyone is interested in the argument do have a gander as it makes some very interesting points and, is not too hard to read unlike some

Also this link to the home page gives a nice summary:

http://www.nonlineardogs.com/

Wys
x

Thanks for the link, that made it all a lot clearer thank you and an interesting read!

It seems to me then that there are 2 types of training using the assumption that a problem dog is being dominant. This is me thinking out loud so please correct me if I'm wrong.

There is the CM way of doing things which is very hands on and forceful with little or no positive reinforcement or praise.

Then there is the Jan Fennell way of doing things which is pretty much the total opposite in which you completely ignore your dog, no eye contact, no touching until they become so despressed they just "submit" and go a lie down and only then will any affection be given by the owner.

These 2 methods seems worlds apart but based on similair wolf pack theory?

I've had experience of both with 2 different trainers and both were pretty disasterous. I'm ashamed to admit that because looking back I can see how wrong they both were for me and my dog.
I didn't know any better back then, and that's the scary part. Joe Public can watch a tv show or read a book or get an "expert" in (in my case) and think they know what they are doing and end up with a dog they just can't control.

ClaireAndDaisy, I was one of those "poor saps" who got themselves bit repeatedly. At least I've learnt from it! And if I have issues now i know the right people to go to for help.

Yes,

Spot on and good for you!

Ok thanks, I think that's at least 4 of us then who voted Other as in, Not Alpha

Wys
x

Agree, good post.

(I am sorry I am posting so much, I've done quite a few this morning, but I'm catching up and posting as I go )

Wys
x

Hallo and thankyou for your input; if you don' t mind me saying so, it's good to see someone who has the breeds you have/had and who does not advocate dominance based training or alpha methods.


I think we're all being very good on the whole and "not really going there..."

I think it's oK too. I've just competed in my first RallyO (not HTM but another quite relaxed, fun comp) which was great fun too, keep the enjoyment in competition for dog and owner, I say!

Wys
x

That does seem to be true,

Wys
x