I for one very much look forward to reading the paper. Someone mentioned on here about requesting them for a .pdf file, so I must look back and see who it was and do this, because without it, I agree I am being a bit unfair possibly saying what I am saying.

As for my GP remark, it was not to be critical of my GP or any doctor for that matter. Just bear in mind that the pass mark in their finals is in the 60% area - so if it's 65%, then that means they can potentially be wrong 35% of the time ! Just like with this type of research, I do not necessarily take everything my GP or specialist says to me as Gospel truth. I will check the facts out for myself, and discuss things with him. He is an excellent GP, prepared to listen and be challenged. I also consider him to be a very good friend of our family.

Any GP who is otherwise, IMO does not deserve to be one !

No, I haven't read the post from Shona yet about Millie. I am wading back through the posts, so doubtless I will come to it in a minute.

To answer your's, I don't want to get into a childish argument about who has been to the most Rescue Homes. I am sure you have been to more than me, but I have been to enough to know that I really cannot remember ONE dog who was relaxed and happy to be there. Even those dogs who have come from happy homes and the owner has died or whatever, even these dogs are traumatised - wouldn't you be? To suddenly be taken away from your owner with whom you have lived with all your life, loved, guarded and devoted yourself to him ... then suddenly, whoosh, your whole world changes and you are placed in a strange place, with strange people, confined to a kennel and run, maybe or maybe not taken out for walkies ... and you are trying to expect me to believe that you would not have at least something to say about this? P-u-u-l-e-e-s-e, I may be a mouthy old cow, but I'm not stupid !!

You have a good point when you say that often these rescues settle in happily into their new home, without any obvious problems. I agree, this is true, but we are not talking about this here. We are talking about Rescue Dogs in a Rescue Home - NOT DOGS WHO HAVE BEEN RESCUED AND ARE NOW LIVING HAPPILY IN THEIR FOREVER HOME. Sorry for the capitals, but it is the whole point of my argument !

Anyway, I must get hold of the full paper, as it maybe that there is something in there which will make me change, or at least adapt, my scepticism on the relevance of this research!

OK ClaireandDaisy, would you like me to actually say that I agree with everything (whether I do or not, once I have read the paper)? Just to please you?

Wouldn't that be SO interesting - not !

The most intersting part of the paper is summarized in the last sentences of the abstract

"Parker's Resource Holding Potential (RHP) appears to be less useful when applied to domestic dogs than to other species, although it has the advantage of incorporating the concept of subjective resource value (V) as a factor influencing whether or not conflicts are escalated. The authors propose that associative learning, combined with V, can provide more parsimonious explanations for agonistic behavior in dogs than can the traditional concept of dominance."

Occam's razor "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" of in simpler terms. The simplest explanation is usually the best.

Morgan's canon "In no case is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms of higher psychological processes, if it can be fairly interpreted in terms of processes which stand lower in the scale of psychological evolution and development"

This is where other's fail or don't quite meet the standards. Ideas like pack theory/alpha make far greater requirements and introduce complexity. They require deep and complex cognitive processes that have not been observed.

Isn`t this pack theory also a symptom of a common mistake - of reading your own pre-concieved notions into the responses of another species - regardless of the true nature of the animal?
Like (not mentioning names ) people who are so taken with the romantic notion of The Noble Savage and his Brother Wolf` that they invent whole tranches of preudo-science to lay some spurious weight to their crackpot theories of dogs being ersatz wolves.
Just my opinion of course.

that should read pseudo science but it won`t let me correct it...just don`t want to seem illit.... elliter... aliterett...bad at spellin!

Re "dominance"

Coming myself from a physics/IT background, I believe that science advances knowledge.

The is a scientific concept called a paradigm shift...
when something that was just 'known to be true' gets proved to be wrong, and many people (including eminant professors) have trouble believing that their whole world viewpoint for the last 40 years has been based on a mistake, and strive to convince everyone (including themselves) it can't be true.
In the old days, those in charge of a profession literally had to die of old age before new ideas could really take seed.
Younger people with less preconceived notions take the new idea as the accepted fact, and in 20 years those young people are the next generation of professors...and so on.
eg flat earth/earth goes around the sun, but the best example is Newton's common-sense physics was unchallenged and thought to explain everything for 200 years, then Einstein came along and in his very 1st scientic paper proved it was a 'flat-world' view (with his apparently anti-"common sense".)

The people at the sharp end often accept the new ideas more quickly than the masses, eg ship's navigators accepted curved earth idea as soon as they realised it helped them go straight to the destination (and those who didn't use it 'retired' more quickly via ship-wrecks.)

Back on topic...
Unfortuantely, some people have trouble getting to grips with new fangled methods, so never get competent enough to see that it's an improvement, if done correctly.

Dogs learn the best way of getting what they want, and if they can get rewards for doing what you want them to, rather than what you don't want them to, by out-thinking them, there's no need to look for unnecessary explanations or resort to primative neanderthal methods.

Dog dominance was a mistaken concept due to simplistic thinking and ignorance (the original wolf research appears to have been rubbished for 30 years now), and within 20 years absolutely everyone will agree is another flat-earth.
The challenge to is get rid of it sooner, so that the damage it does to dog's welfare is minimised.

The problem is that certain vested interests have a financial incentive in perpetuating the myth.

After reading the synopsis i stopped reading
They stated that they haven't seen a ranking order in the pack only pairs...
Well i have a pack of 4 and there is a peck order.

And those who are not convinced of the dominance theory. Here is a question

How come that i can get things done from strange dogs without violence or force where thier owners can't get it done. I'm not speaking about difficult things only heeling.

Simply because i "dominate" the dog with my presence and my way of aproaching him with confidence. No force only mind over matter

Greetings

Johan

Just wanted to say as well, re pecking order - it has been found now that hens don't have that pecking order that was once assumed!

wys
x