yes, the self-preservation instinct is very strong - but the Biological Imperative - the continuation of the species - will usually take precedence. So a bitch will fight to the death to protect her pups or her pack, which is not a selfish act.

Maybe I am getting this thread all wrong (?) but...

Why cant a dog be described as dominant in a situation without people presuming that the person describing (whatever issue) said dog/dominance, is subscribing to methods that are not positive, believe their dog is trying to take over the world, the dog is dominant in 'everything' etc etc

Why is it so wrong?
Is it not that dominance has taken on a whole new meaning now that there is a wee Mexican man making a lot of money?

people can be dominant in all different situations, not so much in others etc but to describe someone as dominant in a situation does not mean that they are the next Hitler or that they need 'taken down' etc so why is it like that in dogs? (if we discard with CM stuff)

or maybe I'm just rambling a lot of rubbish........

If a person has a dog which they feel is domineering in certain situations why is it that the words 'over-bearing' 'controlling' etc would be ok but not dominant or domineering?

The two words are not interchangeable. That is where the problem lies and that is why I avoid the D word.

Dominant:
1. Exercising the most influence or control.
2. Most prominent, as in position; ascendant.

Domineer:
To rule over or control arbitrarily or arrogantly; tyrannize.
To exercise arbitrary or arrogant rule or control.

Well I dont use the word dominant because I dont use the word dominant when looking at people either

and I think a big problem is that people use it to mean different things really, but usually it is used to describe a behavior that someone is happy to let their dog get away with in relation to a group of other dogs

but if it is used in relation to behavior towards people then it is something that has to be stopped asap

odd that

Dominance theory was around way before CM. Where it falls down is in the detail. Dominance theory includes a very strict and linear hierarchy that is rigid. It's based on flawed observations of captive wolves and has been disproved many times in subsequent observations of free ranging wolves.

With my 3 I see each dog is more forward in different things and situations: Kiara is very timid in the house - Bailey is the first to react to the doorbell etc. Kiara and Poppy stand behind him!! Kiara takes this role on when outdoors gaging other dogs before they get anywhere near me or the other two! If there's ever any trouble all 3 will gang up on the offending dog (if allowed)
Poppy cleans everyones faces is always in the lead when out walkies but defers to Kiara when another dog appears!! Both Kiara or Bailey keep a healthy distance from Poppy when she's eating but Poppy can displace Kiara from her bowl if I allow her to. (she can't reach Baileys as it's in a stand!!!)

It amazes me how all 3 seemed to have their own place and job within the pack

But dogs ARE captive---why try and equate them to free ranging wolves---how daft is that?

Why equate them to anything----why not look at what goes on and try to interpret it? Why not do studies on groups of captive dogs?

My 'study' on my group and other groups has led me to think a certain way---blow what anyone has written on captive or free wolves!

rune

Thanks guys
so if a dog is exercising the most influence or control in a group, it is dominant, surely it can be described as such without someone actually feeling they need to subscribe to the whole strict dominance theory?
ah, yes, like an excuse basically?
I suppose maybe that's what I mean. The whole dominance theory thing is outdated but words are words. So, a dog (or person) can be described as dominant in certain situations or whatever BUT that does not mean that they (the person describing) is actually a believer in the whole 'that dog is the leader' etc etc I have seen a dog be very controlling around others. Dominant in that setting BUT that does not mean I believe the dog is the Alpha, next dog is X, next Y or that certain training methods etc need to be used.....just means that the dog is controlling of others in a certain situation. Dominant in that setting but not that the word 'dominant' describes the whole personality. ANY being has lots of traits to them to make up a 'personality'

If you see what I mean?

EDIT; sorry I'm not trying to be confusing, just not good at getting over what I mean here, I don't think.

I agree with you. dogs are not wolves full stop - either captive or free ranging. The difference between the groups of wolves though does show how environmental differences can bring about a change in behaviours. If such major changes can be observed about the same species in different environments, then the differences between different species and environments renders all of the wolf studies basically useless.

I think the major problem in dog observations is that dogs live in multiple different environments so observations are likely to show wide and varying results despite the species being the same. Add to that the breed differences and it's going to be a long time before any definitive answers show through

Not confusing at all and your explanation does reflect current theory. The problem with the throwing the 'dominance' word into the mix is that it will always be associated with the original theory so will always draw debate. The fluidity of who controls what and when is something that we understand more now as more observations take place with dogs rather than wolves. Still a very young science though in the scheme of things