Not necessarilly. It's not so black and White as that. It's fluid, leaders change on an hourly basis. I've never had a leader in my family or community. We all have various roles.
Unless you look at dictatorships and they rarely worked.

Tony, you posted the same question in the [a social network], Positive Dog Trainers group, but no one went back as far as I did with the the Norwegian study.

http://www.f@cebook.com/group.php?gi...04&topic=14570

Insert "a" for "@"

Ben is different... He actually gives his chews to Missy... and entice her to play with him... He even lets her win a tug of war...

I don't "LET" him shake her, but sometimes it happens before I can intervene...

All I meant was, I find it interesting that dogs between themselves use 'punishment'.. If dragging by the neck IS punishment...

If Missy doesn't come when called, when in the back yard, Ben goes and grabs her, and drops her at my feet...

They're both crate trained and get special treats in their crate... If Ben has a day, where he impossible, he goes in the crate for an hour, while I spend time with Missy...

Thats a good answer. But chickens? lol I guess only recently people have sat and watched domestic dogs and village dogs.
It seems the trainers of old took their information from people who studied Wolves and Chickens! Shows how flakey the 'Pack Leader' theory is doesnt it?

Yes! true - and it's now been shown that the chicken thing is not unlike the dog thing in that they (the chickens, that is) are learning about each other via trial and error and associations, rather than any hierarchy.

You still hear about it on nature programmes, and so on. Many people are not catching up, but they will in time.

I hope!

Wys
x

would you say there was a heirachy in the playground or a prison?

rune

don' forget though charlie, that when these ideas came about, it was a different world back then.
religion being one example.

even today, you still cannot deny that most companies have clear and defined leaders as part of a policy heirachy, which we are defined by, often much to our annoyance.
our world of work plays a plays a big part on our psychology and emotion.

Sorry, no they won't.

Mrs. C and me are the leaders in our pack (In that order... ) and I'm sure there is a similar structure in most households.

The Pack Theory is a human construct, couched in human terms and using human concepts. This is why I find the debate a little pointless. It`s like discussing if an orange knows how high on the tree it is.
If there were more observation and less theorising, people would interact better with companion animals
Our relationship with anything is rooted in our own psyche. If we view the world in a certain way, this will affect all our actions. You may see the world as a hostile and uncertain place where you need to assert yourself and control your environment. or you may see it as a giant playground where stuff happens but generally it`s OK. It`s the same world. What changes is your view.
There is a huge leap from patriarchy to to a more symbiotic relationship, which is what is happening in animal/ human interactions now. First you have to stop posturing and accept that the animal is a different species and doesn`t act by your rules. `he`s trying to be top dog` is as meaningless a statement as `dogs like wearing clothes`. It completely misses the point that dog doesn`t think as we do.

OK, lets look at it in terms of a basic survival need that certain members of the pack provide. Presumably these members would be recognised in some way as being important and valuable in terms of the pack and individual survival. These biggest, strongest and most intelligent animals would be the ones who hunt and provide food!

To Jake, Mrs. C and me provide the food. Therefore, in whatever otherwise fuzzy structure there may or may not be that provision of a fundamental need is important. We don't, generally speaking, send Jake out with instructions to go and hunt a rabbit for our tea so there's structure right there. Among other factors, that's why I see a structure where apparently others don't. Enjoy your rabbit stew.
Please note, the above is illustrating a point but is tongue in cheek!!!