I do believe in dominance. But it's not a matter of being dominant over them, it's a matter of them respecting me and knowing that they are dogs and I am a human being. I used to treat them like they were children and they were crazy. They never listened to me and constantly got into things like the trash and other things. They were frustrated. They needed leadership. Since I starting "doing" dominance, I believe that they have respect for me. No, they DO NOT fear me. I never punished them for their misbehavior. I reward their good behavior and as their pack leader, they are very well behaved now. I believe that is because they want to obey and respect me.

For example, it seems many of you allow your dogs to go through a door before you. If that works for you, awesome! But that wasn't working for me. My dogs would pull me outside before I was ready to go and on several occassions knocked me down the stairs of the porch. But now that I am viewed as the pack leader, I walk through the door first when I am ready to go out and I also control the speed at which we walk up or down the stairs as my dogs walk behind me. It's just something that works for me. They weren't necessarily being dominant over me when they pulled through the door first, but they were being very direspectful of me.

Some of you mentioned an old fashioned pack theory or dominance issue and how it was all wrong to begin with. (I think that's what I read anyways, correct me if I'm wrong.) As an opportunity to expand my knowledge, in your opinions, how was "pack theory" all wrong?

I also wonder if maybe all the different ways we all raise and teach our dogs depends on our culture and way of living and how we were raised as children?

I wonder because I have noticed in past topics that many of you dispise Mr. Cesar Millan, aka the "Dog Whisperer." Truthfully, I very much so believe in his tactics. And many other people in the US (and other countries!! but mostly in the US it seems) must agree with his ways because his show as been awarded several awards and such. But this is NOT an issue of whether or not Mr. Millan is a good dog trainer or not.

Another example, I know many people who see their dogs as not only members of the family, but as their actual children. I totally feel like my dogs are members of my family, but I no longer view them as human children but as what they are: animals. More specifically; dogs.

You can also bring up topics of cultural differences when you think about issues such as whether or not choke chains are humane. Some people think they are heaven sent, others think choke chains come from hell itself. Does that make any sense? What we each believe is right or wrong is what makes us all so different.

-Tara-

Great post - I enjoyed reading that

Totally agree. Until you have a certain breed, I don't think you'll ever believe it. I studied behaviour, and it wasn't until then that I could "See" what was going on with my dogs. Until you see it in action, it's hard to explain and like Lou said, there are definitely certain breeds that are predisposed to more instinctual behaviours, i.e, dominance.

I don't see how there could be an originator of a behaviour that is instinctual to some dogs ??? He may have discovered it, but it's certainly not a 'theory' in my house.

Like I said before, unless you see it for yourself in action, you wont believe it.

Everyone thought the world was flat, until someone "saw" for themselves that it wasn't

The dominance theory regarding the human and canine relationship as a mirror of wolf behaviour, thats the dominance theory I refer to. It was later debunked. Unfortunately, a lot of alpha schmalpha type trainers jumped on the bandwagon before it was debunked and when things catch the human imagination so to speak, facts coming out later which oppose it seems to be ignored on the wide scale

Where most people get confused is thinking a human can ever be a pack leader to a dog - they can`t. Dogs are dogs, humans are humans, dogs know perfectly well that we are not the same species and do not view us as pack leaders. `Heirachy` in terms of human and dog living together, sure, there is leadership and guidance involved, but not as a `pack` leader the way the likes of the idiots Milan and Fennel come out with.
Also, many people really do not recognise what true dominance is in a dog, and how rare it actually is ie a snapping snarling dog is [ wrongly ] considered `dominant` when most likely the dog is scared stiff or at the very least desperate and lacking confidence so trying to appear fearsome or `strong` for self protection - that is not dominance, its the opposite. Dogs treated as though they are dominant through a trainer, behaviourist, or owner getting it wrong simply from not really understanding dominance in dogs, well, that often results in dogs being put down because dominance theory stuff on a fearful dog is a volcano in the making and its the dog which pays with its life for being poorly handled by people who don`t know what they are really dealing with

Agreed

That doesn't make sense. So you're saying that dogs Don't see us as Pack Leaders but they do see us as Leaders for Guidance ??? What do you think the difference is ?? Thats completely contradictory !!

I don't consider any of the above as dominant behaviours, they are the behaviours of dogs that are fearful.

Dominant dogs don't 'Need' to show aggression. The quietist dog in the household is often the dominant one. Dominance comes in the form of boundary pushing in certain ways that get the desired reactions which most owners never realise until you point them out. I'm not going to go into details, I would be here for a month, but like I said before, it does exist, and unless you actually see it for yourself, how can you be sure that it doesn't ??

It's a bit like saying I've never seen a two headed Turtle, therefore they don't exist !!! Rather narrow minded IMO

Human `leadership` in terms of teaching / taking for walks / feeding etc - but not dogs thinking we are alpha schmalpha two legged dogs - they know we are not dogs and do not have the dynamic of being part of a canine pack in that respect
We are a different species with whom they co-exist, and we do set rules - but so do dogs, only not enough people abide by them.
In a real `pack` situation, if we were accepted `as dogs` by them we would pay a lot more attention - and comply - when they give calming or warning signals etc and there would be a fraction of the attacks and aggression issues which are seen all too often.

Humans as a species simply have`nt earned the right to consider ourselves part of a dogs pack, we have`nt learned how to properly co-exist with them yet, we simply demand [ as a species ] that they comply or die, in the most basic terms
Thats not the way to be a `pack` leader, its just how to be a bully and remain ignorant of a dogs psyche.


Thats right - but an awful lot of people don`t realise it, including some behaviourists and trainers who take a lot of money off people to tell them they have a `dominant dog` and to do this, that, or the other, about it when the dog is`nt dominant at all and will get much worse because of being treated as a dominant dog, then those same behaviourists or trainers tell the client they can`t be applying things properly or that the dog is beyond help and should be put down

Exactly

I would`nt even use the word `dominant` as such, calling a dog dominant `implies` a pushy dog [ to many people ], when the `top of the heirachy` dog is`nt pushy - because they don`t need to be.
I`d like to see the word `dominance` thrown out of the dog world vocabularly to be honest, it conjures up the wrong impression to people who hear the word but don`t hear or understand the explanation if you see what I mean, so many people hear the word then switch off as though that one word `explains all`

Oh I`m not saying dominant dogs don`t exist, not at all - just that there are a lot less than people realise and many dogs are mistaken for being dominant when they are quite the opposite.

Love the analogy but hopefully the above explains that I`m not saying what you thought I was saying, I just did`nt put it well enough in my previous slightly rushed post

Becky, just to stir the pot a bit, and not (hopefully) stir up bad memories, but didn't you have a "pack" of PRT's that worked together and killed several of your other dogs? Could it be said that this occured because your "pack" didn't have a leader?

Not stirring the pot a very valid question, it was actually the actions of one bitch (Polly) who killed two of my poodles, the third was killed by her daughter without Polly being present, other dogs were there but didn't take part, much to my surprise.
The only time I've seen what could be described as 'pack' behaviour was the terriers acting together but I feel that is because that is the nature of the beast, i.e. they were quite up for it, rather than acting as a pack. The poodles don't behave like that at all. They'd rather walk away whistling than get involved!
Becky

This is a very good article about the history of dominance theory, where it hailed from and why it is not science.

Do read it, it's very interesting indeed

http://www.clickersolutions.com/arti.../dominance.htm

A few snippets:

The History and Misconceptions of Dominance Theory



The original alpha/dominance model was born out of short-term studies of wolf packs done in the 1940s. These were the first studies of their kind. These studies were a good start, but later research has essentially disproved most of the findings. There were three major flaws in these studies:

These were short-term studies, so the researchers concentrated on the most obvious, overt parts of wolf life, such as hunting. The studies are therefore unrepresentative -- drawing conclusions about "wolf behavior" based on about 1% of wolf life.

The studies observed what are now known to be ritualistic displays and misinterpreted them. Unfortunately, this is where the bulk of the "dominance model" comes from, and though the information has been soundly disproved, it still thrives in the dog training mythos.

Wys
x

And abit more from the same place:

Finally, after the studies, the researchers made cavalier extrapolations from wolf-dog, dog-dog, and dog-human based on their "findings." Unfortunately, this nonsense still abounds.


For example, alpha rolls. The early researchers saw this behavior and concluded that the higher-ranking wolf was forcibly rolling the subordinate to exert his dominance. Well, not exactly. This is actually an "appeasement ritual" instigated by the SUBORDINATE wolf. The subordinate offers his muzzle, and when the higher-ranking wolf "pins" it, the lower-ranking wolf voluntarily rolls and presents his belly. There is NO force. It is all entirely voluntary.

A wolf would flip another wolf against his will ONLY if he were planning to kill it. Can you imagine what a forced alpha roll does to the psyche of our dogs?
.
Finally, after the studies, the researchers made cavalier extrapolations from wolf-dog, dog-dog, and dog-human based on their "findings." Unfortunately, this nonsense still abounds.

Wys
x