Is this in relation to pack leadership?

IME it's possible to post the science and why the pack thing is flawed, but no-one takes much notice as it's become like a "meme" (a la Dawkins, the Selfish Gene).

(Not saying dogs don't need boundaries, training etc, only that humans = alpha etc originally did come from flawed science).

Just my view and opinion

Wys
x

Kind regards
Spettadog

I've scanned through the recent answers quickly but am really interested to read them properly.

Just wanted to say - all the vets I have spoken to agree that over exercising of pups is bad for their physical development. 5 minutes is an easier way of measuring it but you have to take into consideration what your dog is doing in that time.

I've also come across people who take it to the extreme and don't take pups out until they're 5 months old. How on Earth are they supposed to socialise???

There are always going to be different ideas on what you should do with your dog but generally there is less deviation in puppy training and general dog ownership than behaviour problem solving so surely it would be better to put the former on TV than the latter?

Spettadog,

I'm at a loss as to how your last post bears any relevance in a general discusion on Dog Behaviour TV Programmes.

You seem to be discussing pack theory and whether Online dog forums are of any help (why join one if you don't think so ) as well as how long to exercise pups. All of which are totally seperate topics to what is being discussed here.

Or have I missed something??

You've missed something

She was responding to my point (as you can see) which challenged this statement from her:

I think it's a natural progression from "TV shows are going on about stuff that we're telling people is wrong" to "well, so are websites, books and discussion forums - it doesn't mean that they don't provide a good service". I don't think it's unreasonable for spettadog to respond to my examples or website sourced unreliable information with a counter argument if she doesn't think they're valid.

I *think* the summary version of our little interaction is that she thinks TV programs are a less reliable source of information than forums, websites etc. I disagree - I find the TV programs of equal value...perhaps more value in some ways.

Ah, missed that. Makes more sense now. Thanks.

Hi Wys I've too have seen many attempts to explain why the alpha theory is flawed.... but I haven't actually seen anything put into rational wording.

I've seen reference to research, webpages and even whole books...... some of which I've read. All I can garner from this is that there is a difference in the interpretation of the information.

Sure woves in a high stressful situation of captivity behave differently form a stable wild pack. And yes, it's clear from ethologists that stable packs have fluidity in their hierachy. Why does this then make 'flawed science' for some people?

Can someone explain..... in their own words.

Hi there Pod

Below is a shortened version of why the science is flawed. Obviously there is more to it than I am saying ( and I will probably miss something out so please dont jump on me if I do!) I dont want to get drawn into an argument about pack theory because this is not what the topic is about. I hope this helps. A good book to read is Dogs by Coppinger. That explains all the theory and why it is flawed. Its written in laymans terms generally, although there were some bits that went over my head!!!!

I think it was the 1950s when research started being carried out but the researchers used captive wolves ie wolves from different packs and put them all together to study them. They based their findings on this pack formation.

Now, wolves behave very differently in a "natural" pack as they do in a captive pack because they are being forced to live together, rather than the natural pack where it will consist of mum, dad and offspring. All the pack members work together for the good of the pack. When food is plentiful you will see large packs forming. In Yellowstone Park there is actually one pack that has split into 2 because the food source is plentiful there. I think that is the only place on earth that wolves have actually done this!
When food is scarse you will find small packs because there isnt much point in having a large family if you can't feed them.

The alpha is the only female that mates and she gives off a hormone to stop the other females coming into season, although they do lactate which means that the mother can then go off hunting sooner than she would if they didnt. THe alpha female only mates with the alpha male ie mum and dad. The youngsters dont want to mate with mum because that would be like committing incest!!! The young males testicles only drop (from what I can remember!) once a year. Any argy bargy is the group is caused when the younger members are at an age where they are testing their strength to see if they can go off on their own to form their own pack. The youngster then goes off and forms their own pack. The youngsters are not always fighting with dad to try and take his place. Dad is confident in his place. If you look at a natural pack the alpha wolves are always the ones that look the most comfortable and confident in themselves. They have nothing to prove; they know they are top dog.

When it comes to relating true pack behaviour to our domesticated dogs the theory falls down because when times are hard the very young, elderly and pregnant bitches get to eat first ie if we are eating before them we are sending out signals that we are in fact weaker than the alpha and higher ranking members of our pack. In a captive pack it is each for themselves so the strongest will win and the weaker will have to wait for the leftovers.

The other thing is that the alpha is not the one that makes all the decisions; it is a pack decision. They hunt as a pack and each has their own job to do so, essentially, they work in harmony each for the good of the pack. There may be one that is better at bringing an animal down; one that is a faster runner to block the animal off etc., etc., so each is doing a job.

If we relate that to pack theory - we are not working together with our dogs, we are telling them what to do; when to lie down, when to eat, etc., etc., they have no say in the matter. That doesnt happen in a natural pack.

When people (researchers!) based their findings on captive wolves from different packs their results were flawed because they werent researching a pack as it would be in the wild and that is why there is so much more arguing, fighting for food, to be apha etc., So, if we relate pack theory to our domestic dogs we are actually relating captive pack theory (which is completely different as all animals behave differently in captivity!)

Additionally, dogs are not wolves. Its a bit like saying we still behave like apes. In some sense we will but we have evolved. It is said that dogs are dependent on humans for survival; thats the reason there are so many of them. They rely on us to look after them, so there would be no need for them to dominate us. They already kind of do that by the way that they live with us. By that I mean if we are taking care of our dogs properly we feed them, walk them, care and love them so they dominate our lives. Wolves, on the other hand, have survived for centuries without humans. There have even been studies of raising captive wolves and domesticating them. The studies were unable to do this for some reason; even bringing wolves up from birth and socialising them as they would a domestic dog. Wolves are just made differently to domestic dogs.

I know I have only touched the surface of this and there are certainly things that others can add but that is, kind of, my reasoning behind why pack theory is flawed.

Hope this helps

Kind regards
Spettadog

Yep, my answers were in blue. I was answering Scarter's post and placing my thoughts on it.

I really dont want to get into pack theory etc., etc., I have answered Pod but just my version of why the theory is flawed. Off-topic I know but I just wanted to put forward my thoughts on his/her question.

I really do think forums are valuable sources of information because there is a discussion and informed choices can be made. TV, on the other hand, gives us the information and we cant really question it! Just my view though and others are free to disagree!

Kind regards
Spettadog

there is a page, which i'm not sure i can link to, that has a list of professionals and their problems with a particular programme.. they had all sent their thoughts and issues, backed up with current research to the broadcaster who refused to consder removing the programme.