# Alpha over humans



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

So there was a discussion on another group I'm involved with about leadership / dominance. Seems that a lot of people believe that a dog annoy be dominant over a human or vice versa. Supposedly science has proven that Ross species dominance is impossible. I call BS. If ths human doesn't take the leadership role the dog will. 
Thoughts in this group.


----------



## BrodyRoo (Aug 10, 2016)

Dominance theory has been debunked in both wolves and dogs. It is a ridiculous conclusion drawn from very poorly done research on captive wolves.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

So you don't think that dogs will step up as leader over a weak human. 
I'm not talking about humans alpha rolling their dogs I'm talking about being a leader through fair and consistent training and bonding with your dog.


----------



## BrodyRoo (Aug 10, 2016)

No, I don't. 

They may ignore said human, or disobey said human, but that's hardly acting as a "leader" or being "dominant".

Of course, I wouldn't consider what you just described to be "dominance", either. Just sounds like good handling to me. I don't see where the alpha/dominance part comes into play.


----------



## zetti (May 11, 2014)

It's the little things that establish dominance vs submission. For example, the dog who shoves you out of the way to get out the door first is disrespecting you. Solution: teach the dog to sit before opening the door. Problem solved nicely.

My male WL can get bossy, even do a little bullying when he's required to do something he doesn't want to do--usually that means controlling himself. He has zero aggression toward humans, so once again, simple obedience is the easy fix.

Dogs vary in how important they consider rank order to be, it's not an all or nothing proposition. Some dogs, like my male, constantly check in to see who's in charge today. He's incredibly hard headed and has very low handler sensitivity. When he's in defiance mode, he has no interest in treats or toys. He's a constant challenge.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

I don't think a dog clamoring out a door is dominance. When I think of dominance I think of a dog who will do what they want and if a weak owner or handler tries to correct the dog they will use force to back the handler off. Could be a growl could be teeth on skin. Or a dog who feels it has been put in a position to protect the weak owner/handler when the dog really just wants to fall into his beta place in the pack. 
Some of the opinions on the other group also believe that dogs/wolves don't have packs they have family structures where mom and dad are in charge.


----------



## BrodyRoo (Aug 10, 2016)

The family structure thing is true. The whole "pack" business was based on studying the behavior of artificially created packs of captive wolves.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

BrodyRoo said:


> The family structure thing is true. The whole "pack" business was based on studying the behavior of artificially created packs of captive wolves.


To me it sounds like snow flakes changing the name from packs to family structure to make it seem more human than animalistic. Mother/father = alpha male and female. Brother and sisters following mother and father = lower rankings pack members following the alphas. If alpha dog theory is debunked then wouldn't mommy and daddy dogs also be debunked.


----------



## BrodyRoo (Aug 10, 2016)

You can believe whatever you like, but it doesn't change reality. If you're really interested in educating yourself on the subject, there's plenty of published research out there.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

Well explain how it's different other than changing a couple words around.


----------



## Nigel (Jul 10, 2012)

BrodyRoo said:


> You can believe whatever you like, but it doesn't change reality. If you're really interested in educating yourself on the subject, there's plenty of published research out there.


There are plenty of articles, much of it is based on misinterpretation of newer findings by Mech and others. Dr.Beckoff has good summary article on this.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo.../social-dominance-is-not-myth-wolves-dogs-and


----------



## BrodyRoo (Aug 10, 2016)

The way in which adult wolves relate to their own adolescent pups has little to do with how they relate to unrelated adults. Once grown, most young wolves leave their parents to form their own mating pairs. 

Permanent pack structures just don't exist the way previous researchers indicated.


----------



## BrodyRoo (Aug 10, 2016)

Nigel, I'll read your article later today - looks interesting. I'm headed out to do some training, but will be back to discuss.


----------



## car2ner (Apr 9, 2014)

Our pet dogs may not be trying to take over leadership of the family, but they do try to manipulate to get what they want. Every thinking creature does. If we aren't wise to their ways it can feel like they are trying to take over. My little one constantly tries to teach me to chase her. She must think I am too stupid to learn what she it telling me...even though it is very very obvious. She doesn't want to be an Alpha, she just wants her way. 

I don't call myself a Pack Leader. My husband and I are Benevolent Dictators. Also you can call me, "She Who Must Be Obeyed". Any family needs leaders and fair rules and humane consequences. Nature is much more brutal than we are.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

I think dog behavior is too nuanced and complex to pigeon hole it into Dominance/Submission, Alpha/Beta/Omega, Pack leader or follower etc....

There have been several studies done on feral/stray dog packs. Dogs naturally have a VERY VERY different "pack structure" than wolves. It is a very different structure than what we strive for as a blended co species "family" as well.

Natural dog packs tend to have transient members, that come and go. Leadership roles are often differed. You can look at a dog pack on monday and the brown one is the clear leader, on wednesday it's the black one, and on friday it the spotted one. These changes happen more often than not without power displays. It is often noted in said studies, that it's not the most dominant dog that leads the pack, but the most experienced. The leadership changes based on the current situation the pack is facing.

I find the studies on stray and feral dogs fascinating. I think I have learned more about natural dog behavior from reading the observations of scientists on dogs left to their own devices than I have gleamed from the dozens upon dozens of training books I've read, all the seminars I've attended, and the countless conversations with trainers, breeders and owners.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

cdwoodcox said:


> To me it sounds like snow flakes changing the name from packs to family structure to make it seem more human than animalistic. Mother/father = alpha male and female. Brother and sisters following mother and father = lower rankings pack members following the alphas. If alpha dog theory is debunked then wouldn't mommy and daddy dogs also be debunked.


except that even in canines it's not this clear cut. The dog that is striving to be dominant over certain things is the dog that those things are important to. Also, dogs tend to look to the animal that is better at doing A to be the leader in doing A. 
What was debunked about alpha theory was the way that it worked - dogs/wolves exerting their dominance and enforcing it with violence and alpha rolls. Until the father dog gets weak, he is rarely challenged by his offspring. Even an outside male won't try to step in during his prime because it wouldn't be a fight of new dog vs "alpha male" for dominance. It would be "family vs interloper" Most skirmishes are posturing and lots of noise with little chance of actual physical harm. Once the leader is past his prime, other animals tend to slide more into the head position while he steps back.

The entire mindset is what is different as well as more understanding of the drives behind it. 

The essence of alpha theory and the trainers who espouse it is that dominance is the driving force behind most behavior and interactions and that simply isn't the case. For instance, being the first out the door. It's not because the dog wants to show that he's more powerful and stronger than you. He's excited and in a hurry to be outside. He hasn't been taught proper manners and that good behavior will be rewarded and that rushing over the human will mean that the door is closed and going outside is delayed.
The same for dogs getting on the couch or bed. It's not because of dominance. The couch is soft and comfy. He growls when you try to make him get off because he doesn't want to get down. He's hoping that you won't make him. He wants to be on the couch right now; it's not likely that he is thinking that he wants to be the boss of you. 

As for weak leadership from the human, that doesn't mean that the dog in question will develop dominant behaviors. It means that no one is in charge so the dog makes up his own rules. Dominance is a personality and what most people think of as dominant behaviors in their dogs are more often signs of insecurity. A dominant dog walks into the room and the other dogs quietly acknowledge him without even meeting him 1-on-1. So the dog in your scenario isn't being dominant. He's simply filling a vacuum because decisions have to be made in life. If no one tells him what to do, the dog will do whatever he wants. The vast majority of dogs in these situations are obviously much less stressed when the human steps up and takes the reins. They don't want to be in charge; they are happy to just step back and let someone else make the rules. The dogs exhibit much lower stress behaviors as well as less acting out once the rules are clearly defined and the rewards/consequences of behavior are understood. 
Yes, there is often a bit of friction as the new order is being taught. But, again, the dog isn't being motivated by a desire to dominate the human. It's a simple matter of "I've always been able to do whatever I want. If I act like this, maybe I can keep doing whatever I want"


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

zetti said:


> It's the little things that establish dominance vs submission. For example, the dog who shoves you out of the way to get out the door first is disrespecting you. Solution: teach the dog to sit before opening the door. Problem solved nicely.
> 
> My male WL can get bossy, even do a little bullying when he's required to do something he doesn't want to do--usually that means controlling himself. He has zero aggression toward humans, so once again, simple obedience is the easy fix.
> 
> Dogs vary in how important they consider rank order to be, it's not an all or nothing proposition. Some dogs, like my male, constantly check in to see who's in charge today. He's incredibly hard headed and has very low handler sensitivity. When he's in defiance mode, he has no interest in treats or toys. He's a constant challenge.


 I have one like this, thank goodness its a female. She was the dominant puppy from a hard line of working GSDs. Pulling? She'll still try it. Dominant dogs will try to barge out the door before you, eat food off kitchen counters, things like that. The cure is obedience training. Once in a while she will still test if she can go in and out before a human. She's a lot better, though. She gets trained several times a day with short 15 minute sessions. Its a challage but one we enjoy.

Dainerra> The couch is soft and comfy. He growls when you try to make him get off because he doesn't want to get down. He's hoping that you won't make him. He wants to be on the couch right now; it's not likely that he is thinking that he wants to be the boss of you. 

A dog growling at because a person came and got on our own couch. That is disgusting, I would not tolerate it. This would not be a problem because no dog is allowed on the furniture here. Two reasons. 1.I am the boss. 2. Enough fur comes off this dog every day to clothe an adult rabbit. Literally.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

voodoolamb said:


> Natural dog packs tend to have transient members, that come and go. Leadership roles are often differed. You can look at a dog pack on monday and the brown one is the clear leader, on wednesday it's the black one, and on friday it the spotted one. These changes happen more often than not without power displays.


 But suppose those feral dog packs had a dominant dog in their group. Chances are they would always be the leader simply because the other dogs don't want to be leader. If no one really wants to be leader then the exchange back and forth would be no big deal.


----------



## Femfa (May 29, 2016)

Personally I think it's a matter of biddability and consequences, not necessarily a matter of being "alpha". Some dogs aim to please the owners, others aim to please themselves. If they consequences are not greater than the reward, then why not go for the reward? And if the person you're with doesn't reinforce those consequences, then why not go ahead and do what you want? Corrections help set boundaries of what behaviour is acceptable and what isn't. And if you don't create those boundaries in some way or if you're not consistent with it, then your dog is never going to grasp what you're trying to tell them.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

Dainerra said:


> except that even in canines it's not this clear cut. The dog that is striving to be dominant over certain things is the dog that those things are important to. Also, dogs tend to look to the animal that is better at doing A to be the leader in doing A.
> What was debunked about alpha theory was the way that it worked - dogs/wolves exerting their dominance and enforcing it with violence and alpha rolls. Until the father dog gets weak, he is rarely challenged by his offspring. Even an outside male won't try to step in during his prime because it wouldn't be a fight of new dog vs "alpha male" for dominance. It would be "family vs interloper" Most skirmishes are posturing and lots of noise with little chance of actual physical harm. Once the leader is past his prime, other animals tend to slide more into the head position while he steps back.
> 
> The entire mindset is what is different as well as more understanding of the drives behind it.
> ...


 I agree with a lot of this. I said earlier that I don't think a dog running out the door means dominant, and I think people are trying to lump every dog in the wild or wolves into an alpha position. Not every dog or wolf will be a dominant. I remember watching a documentary on wolves where this wolf was in three different positions to become an alpha he declined. Until eventually the pack was left with no alpha and he reluctantly stepped into the pack leadership role. He held this for 3-4 years until another wolf came along and he gladly stepped away from the position. 
When I speak of dogs feeling they have to be the alpha with weak humans I am more speaking about a dog who feels they have to protect weak human cause they feel they have been put into a leader role they really don't want. 
I don't think a dog with no manners is alpha just untrained


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

cdwoodcox said:


> But suppose those feral dog packs had a dominant dog in their group. Chances are they would always be the leader simply because the other dogs don't want to be leader. If no one really wants to be leader then the exchange back and forth would be no big deal.


That is not what has been observed in natural dog packs at all though. 

2010 study by Roberto Bonanni of the University of Parma found in a pack of close to 30 dogs, 6 different adults habitually took turns on the leadership role. However approximately half of the pack found themselves in the leadership role atleast once during the course of the study. 

So 6 "dominant" dogs that took turns leading, and then another 9ish "not so dominant" ones that ended up taking the leadership role _while the more dominant dogs were present in the pack_

Here's a link that mentions the study 
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-dominance-is-the-concept-the-alpha-dog-valid

And part of Bonanni's study itself, with a little quote to follow
Effect of affiliative and agonistic relationships on leadership behaviour in*free-ranging dogs).


> Habitual leaders were usually old and high-ranking individuals. However, high-ranking dogs that received affiliative submissions in greeting ceremonies *were more likely to lead than dominant dogs* receiving submissions only in agonistic contexts.


Bonanni has published a lot of great stuff about feral dogs in italy. I also really really like Poyarkov's works on the Moscow street dogs.


----------



## Nigel (Jul 10, 2012)

voodoolamb said:


> I think dog behavior is too nuanced and complex to pigeon hole it into Dominance/Submission, Alpha/Beta/Omega, Pack leader or follower etc....
> 
> There have been several studies done on feral/stray dog packs. Dogs naturally have a VERY VERY different "pack structure" than wolves. It is a very different structure than what we strive for as a blended co species "family" as well.
> 
> ...


Any of your studies include Mark R Johnson (?) I book marked his page, but only scanned over it so far. Looked like it might be worth a read anyways.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Nigel said:


> Any of your studies include Mark R Johnson (?) I book marked his page, but only scanned over it so far. Looked like it might be worth a read anyways.


 I think his interest mostly lies in helping feral/stray dog populations, and less about studying their natural behavior. 

Kinda a vets without borders kinda guy. 

I've read his blog here and there, but don't recall seeing any published works on ecology.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

Yet in a littler of puppies one turns out to be the dominant puppy (the mother is dominant to all, obviously) and this puppy bites the other puppies the hardest and gets the best teat (hind teat?). I have seen this myself with litters of puppies when I was a kid.

And then, when I went to pick out and claim my first German Shepherd puppy when they were 5 weeks old, I picked the one that came and got in my lap three times in a row. I thought oh how sweet, she likes me. It was really because Inga was saying I Do What I Want. Do you think a baby puppy does not want this role?


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Nurse Bishop said:


> Yet in a littler of puppies one turns out to be the dominant puppy (the mother is dominant to all, obviously) and this puppy bites the other puppies the hardest and gets the best teat (hind teat?). I have seen this myself with litters of puppies when I was a kid.
> 
> And then, when I went to pick out and claim my first German Shepherd puppy when they were 5 weeks old, I picked the one that came and got in my lap three times in a row. I thought oh how sweet, she likes me. It was really because Inga was saying I Do What I Want. Do you think a baby puppy does not want this role?


What is it that makes you believe these puppy behaviors are dominance based instead of drive based?


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

voodoolamb said:


> What is it that makes you believe these puppy behaviors are dominance based instead of drive based?


 Splitting hairs. It doesn't matter why a dog, wolf, is it a stretch to add lions to the list. Wanna be the one in charge.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

cdwoodcox said:


> Splitting hairs. It doesn't matter why a dog, wolf, is it a stretch to add lions to the list. Wanna be the one in charge.


Splitting hairs? How so? A puppy biting a litter mate hard because of a genetic predisposition for a hard mouth and grip, or getting to the teat first out of food drive, or racing ahead of its litter mates from sheer competitiveness is very different than a dog doing those same behaviors out of a desire to control (dominance)

There are incredibly driven dogs out there that are not dominant. I've had the pleasure of owning several.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

voodoolamb said:


> Splitting hairs? How so? A puppy biting a litter mate hard because of a genetic predisposition for a hard mouth and grip, or getting to the teat first out of food drive, or racing ahead of its litter mates from sheer competitiveness is very different than a dog doing those same behaviors out of a desire to control (dominance)
> 
> There are incredibly driven dogs out there that are not dominant. I've had the pleasure of owning several.


I think there are many traits that come into play and you can't discuss one without the others.


----------



## LuvShepherds (May 27, 2012)

cdwoodcox said:


> Splitting hairs. It doesn't matter why a dog, wolf, is it a stretch to add lions to the list. Wanna be the one in charge.


Why does matter. I have a drivey puppy that is not at all dominant. He works because he wants to not because he wants to be in charge.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

voodoolamb said:


> Splitting hairs? How so? A puppy biting a litter mate hard because of a genetic predisposition for a hard mouth and grip, or getting to the teat first out of food drive, or racing ahead of its litter mates from sheer competitiveness is very different than a dog doing those same behaviors out of a desire to control (dominance)
> 
> There are incredibly driven dogs out there that are not dominant. I've had the pleasure of owning several.


Or maybe there are pups who exhibit all of these things as a pup because he or she has a predisposition to be dominant or a high ranking pack member. To toss out pack hierarchy is close minded and any alternative theory is unproven.


----------



## LuvShepherds (May 27, 2012)

cdwoodcox said:


> Or maybe there are pups who exhibit all of these things as a pup because he or she has a predisposition to be dominant or a high ranking pack member. To toss out pack hierarchy is close minded and any alternative theory is unproven.


I have always enjoyed your posts, but this is a head shaker. How well do you know Voodoo, who is probably the least close minded person I know. And who also has a lot of pit experience. Talk about dominant dogs.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

LuvShepherds said:


> Why does matter. I have a drivey puppy that is not at all dominant. He works because he wants to not because he wants to be in charge.


 It really doesn't matter. Most pups or dogs don't wanna be dominant. But to say that there are no dominant dogs or that pack structure and hierarchy is bologna is unfounded.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

LuvShepherds said:


> I have always enjoyed your posts, but this is a head shaker. How well do you know Voodoo, who is probably the least close minded person I know. And who also has a lot of pit experience. Talk about dominant dogs.


 I wasn't calling voodoo as an individual close minded. Just the idea that pack structure has been debunked as close minded. I have no control who falls into that category. From what i have read there seems to be a lot of misinformation and false statements from those who want to disprove pack structure.


----------



## LuvShepherds (May 27, 2012)

cdwoodcox said:


> It really doesn't matter. Most pups or dogs don't wanna be dominant. But to say that there are no dominant dogs or that pack structure and hierarchy is bologna is unfounded.


But no one said there are NO dominant dogs, only that they are two different things. A dominant dog can be drivey or not. A drivey dog can be dominant or not. But in the universe of logic, the two may or may not overlap.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

I think that drive based behaviors can be mistaken for dominance, and considering how rare truly dominant dogs are, it happens far more often than not.

For example, Someone up the thread mentioned they thought dominance was a dog that would use its teeth to force a handler to back off when a correction was given...

Many years ago I had a shep/collie mix, I would be working the dog on leash, he'd make a mistake, I'd give him a leash pop and he would come straight up the leash ready and willing to sink his teeth in. He gave me stitches the first time. 

This was NOT dominant behavior. Not at all.

See, he had incredibly high prey drive. I lived on a farm. He would get so jacked up because of all the moving critters around the farm, the leash pop put him further into drive and he acted out of frustration. It was redirected prey aggression. Not dominance.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

LuvShepherds said:


> But no one said there are NO dominant dogs, only that they are two different things. A dominant dog can be drivey or not. A drivey dog can be dominant or not. But in the universe of logic, the two may or may not overlap.


 If that was what was being relayed then I totally misread the post. And I would apologize for the assumption of close mindedness.. I totally agree with that.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

cdwoodcox said:


> I wasn't calling voodoo as an individual close minded. Just the idea that pack structure has been debunked as close minded. I have no control who falls into that category. From what i have read there seems to be a lot of misinformation and false statements from those who want to disprove pack structure.


I was dozing when the dominance theory was debunked and missed the whole thing. 

I have spent a minimal amount of time trying to figure out what happened but from what I could gather, it is not the pack hierarchy that has so much been debunked but dominance based training.

I could very well be wrong.


----------



## zetti (May 11, 2014)

Nurse Bishop said:


> I have one like this, thank goodness its a female. She was the dominant puppy from a hard line of working GSDs. Pulling? She'll still try it. Dominant dogs will try to barge out the door before you, eat food off kitchen counters, things like that. The cure is obedience training. Once in a while she will still test if she can go in and out before a human. She's a lot better, though. She gets trained several times a day with short 15 minute sessions. Its a challage but one we enjoy.
> 
> Dainerra> The couch is soft and comfy. He growls when you try to make him get off because he doesn't want to get down. He's hoping that you won't make him. He wants to be on the couch right now; it's not likely that he is thinking that he wants to be the boss of you.
> 
> A dog growling at because a person came and got on our own couch. That is disgusting, I would not tolerate it. This would not be a problem because no dog is allowed on the furniture here. Two reasons. 1.I am the boss. 2. Enough fur comes off this dog every day to clothe an adult rabbit. Literally.


On the topic of pulling . . . My male broke my arm in two places when he decided to take off from the training field rather abruptly and I landed on my arm.

He washed out of IPO. His hips turned out to be terrible, so he wouldn't have made it anyway. He's actually my husband's dog, he's a patient man. Works with him briefly every single day and has him walking down the street like a civilized dog. Unless and until there is a distraction. Then he reverts back to Wild Child. We work with an excellent trainer and this is the best he's been. Corrections don't make much of a dent, other than e collar and treats and toys don't cut it. He would be loads better if hubby would use the e collar more, IMO.

At least he's not aggressive toward humans. And the hubby has bonded with him.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

LuvShepherds said:


> Why does matter. I have a drivey puppy that is not at all dominant. He works because he wants to not because he wants to be in charge.


 So do I except she WAS in charge of the litter. Out in front first, taking toys from pups, driving others away from the puppy food. Others were noticeably more laid back. Now I kind of wish I had gotten one of them. Go read Leerburg about dominant dogs. It doesn't go away. They have it all their life. I have always heard never pick the most dominant puppy. Not the lowest one either. The top dog will be stubborn and be harder to train, the lowest too timid.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

cdwoodcox said:


> It really doesn't matter. Most pups or dogs don't wanna be dominant. But to say that there are no dominant dogs or that pack structure and hierarchy is bologna is unfounded.


The issue is that _actual_pack hierarchy in dogs is very different than the way many modern trainers explain it. 

It is no where near as rigid and structured as many people think.

Many dogs just plain do not pack up, even when given the opportunity. Check out 'the ecology of feral dogs'. Many dogs do not "pack up" even when presented with the opportunity. Many prefer pairs to packs. 

Then, when they DO pack up - their structure is more fluid. Dominance has far less to do with the actual leadership of the pack than many would think. 

Yes, there are dominant dogs. But in an actual dog pack dynamics, they aren't the ones who actually end up leading, that task tends to fall to the more experienced animals. This has been observed in stray dog packs world wide.

ETA: Which is probably why, that when paired with competent handlers even incredibly dominant dogs can make fantastic working animals.


----------



## LuvShepherds (May 27, 2012)

Nurse Bishop said:


> So do I except she WAS in charge of the litter. Out in front first, taking toys from pups, driving others away from the puppy food. Others were noticeably more laid back. Now I kind of wish I had gotten one of them. Go read Leerburg about dominant dogs. It doesn't go away. They have it all their life. I have always heard never pick the most dominant puppy. Not the lowest one either. The top dog will be stubborn and be harder to train, the lowest too timid.


Ideally. But how often does a buyer get pick of the litter? Usually you get one or two to choose from. I think pick of the litter is a myth for most of us. I got first pick of available puppies, but the highest drive dogs were already pulled out to be sold to law enforcement. Since I only wanted a male, first pick ended up being between only two dogs.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

LuvShepherds said:


> Ideally. But how often does a buyer get pick of the litter? Usually you get one or two to choose from. I think pick of the litter is a myth for most of us. I got first pick of available puppies, but the highest drive dogs were already pulled out to be sold to law enforcement. Since I only wanted a male, first pick ended up being between only two dogs.


Pick of the litter is subjective. I had male pick on the last pup I got. The breeder evaluated the litter and chose a puppy for me that was more prey oriented and would probably excel in IPO. I turned the pup down opting for a pup that was more balanced.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

This not pick the highest or lowest ranking puppy advice is aimed at those who go to a pick from a whole pile of puppies. I think the advice of breeders who know which pup is likely to satisfy your requirements is a good thing, since they know the pups, they see them interacting.

My previous dog,a Whippet, I went to pick a female from the 10 puppies available. I wanted a yellow and white one. Numerous, and usually the same individual puppies were climbing all over me. Finally, the most beautiful and perfect female pup emerged from under some wood planks where the bitch had a den. Although I knew this was probably the lowest pup I took her home. Then I found out what she was really like- not timid at all, a rowdy little monster. I called the breeder and asked if this was the lowest pup? She laughed and said no. That is the dominant pup. She had bitten her own mother over something and the bitch had just given her a good disciplining. Sight hounds are very soft dogs in general. This dominant whippet was the best of all the Greyhounds, Russian Wolfhounds and Whippets I have ever had.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

Nurse Bishop said:


> .
> 
> Dainerra> The couch is soft and comfy. He growls when you try to make him get off because he doesn't want to get down. He's hoping that you won't make him. He wants to be on the couch right now; it's not likely that he is thinking that he wants to be the boss of you.
> 
> A dog growling at because a person came and got on our own couch. That is disgusting, I would not tolerate it. This would not be a problem because no dog is allowed on the furniture here. Two reasons. 1.I am the boss. 2. Enough fur comes off this dog every day to clothe an adult rabbit. Literally.


I didn't say that it is something to be tolerated. but the reasons behind why something is done DO matter and should effect how we fix the problem. The attitude of correcting a dog that doesn't want to get off the comfy couch is a different mindset than thinking the dog is trying to "dominate" you. The latter implies an adversarial "us vs them" interaction which, sadly, is the part of alpha theory that most people take to heart while leaving more useful components such as being a consistent leader.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Nurse Bishop said:


> This dominant whippet was the best of all the Greyhounds, Russian Wolfhounds and Whippets I have ever had.


I had a male Whippet for 14 years. It was the best dog I have ever had and I learned so much form him regarding pack structure. He ruled fairly over the 3 other dogs; he was my best instructor in this field; never picked a fight but never put up with c**p either. I never saw him bully any of the others, although he would test them off and on. I definitely saw pack structure in that group but it was based on my own mini research :wink2:. 
I never favored him though. Still, to this day, when in doubt when working with dogs, I ask myself, "What would Rusty have done?" And the answer mostly is "Don't accept it!"


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Dainerra said:


> I didn't say that it is something to be tolerated. but the reasons behind why something is done DO matter and should effect how we fix the problem. The attitude of correcting a dog that doesn't want to get off the comfy couch is a different mindset than thinking the dog is trying to "dominate" you. The latter implies an adversarial "us vs them" interaction which, sadly, is the part of alpha theory that most people take to heart while leaving more useful components such as being a consistent leader.


I agree that one size does not fit all and that the individual dog and the reason behind the misbehavior has much to do with the tools chosen. That is not to say that perhaps one training method won't be effective on most dogs in resolving a bad behavior, but at what cost to the individual dogs?


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I agree that one size does not fit all and that the individual dog and the reason behind the misbehavior has much to do with the tools chosen. That is not to say that perhaps one training method won't be effective on most dogs in resolving a bad behavior, but at what cost to the individual dogs?


and that is the biggest problem with dominance theory. Yes, some dogs are dominant but most aren't. If you start off with the premise that a dog is misbehaving out of dominance (he's pushing through the door because he thinks he's in charge), then you are going to approach the problem differently than if you look for the actual cause (he is excited to be going outside; he needs to learn some basic manners). If the only tool you have is a hammer (dominant behavior) then everything in the world is a nail. 

A long time ago, alpha rolls were described to me this way: if the dog lets you roll him, he doesn't need it. If the dog is truly dominant, he's going to put you in the hospital.

Building up to a sterner correction as you learn the personality of your individual dog isn't going to hurt anything. But starting off at a higher correction and then learning that your dog has a softer personality can cause a lot of issues.


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

https://www.nitrocanine.com/blog/2016/10/18/dominance-deniers-killing-dogs/

This is worth a read. He makes some great points. 

"For the past 15,000 – 30,000 years, we have lived with dogs. We’ve bred them for specific functions, truncating and manipulating their drives for specific jobs, and we have many different breeds. But fundamentally—they are all dogs. And over the thousands of years we’ve been working together, does it not make sense that dogs are hard-wired to operate within a pack that includes humans?

I say it does. I would even argue that to a large extent, domesticated dogs have evolved to look specifically to humans to lead them. Dogs are dogs because they work cooperatively with us. They want to work with us. If they didn’t, they’d still be wolves."

"Let me also note that the reverse is also true. Much that gets chalked up to dominance often has nothing to do with it at all. People will take to heart advice such as always eating before the dog, never letting the dog go out the door first, and never let dogs up on beds or couches.

When dogs and humans eat has nothing to do with establishing pack structure. The average dog politely walking out the front door before you is generally not a problem (with some specific exceptions, usually specific guarding breeds. A lot of dogs love being up on the bed because they want to be close to their owners. There’s nothing wrong with any of this. Much depends on the dog in question too. For instance, is a dog growling when you approach the couch? Sure, that could be dominance. But it might not be. You have to look at a lot of factors, including the breed."


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

I don't think I believe the dominance theory, either way. I have used positive training with all of them with pretty good results. It's interesting to watch them because 2 of mine have had no training and you wouldn't know it, because they picked up good behaviors from the others. I think if you start with one dog and add to the pack that first dog can set the tone. I believe that is why I have a houseful of confident, happy, independent(in a good way) thinkers. Robyn can be what I call an opportunist, she will take advantage of a situation if if benefits her(with the other dogs). I can see them thinking, I love watching them. 

In everyday life I allow them to make choices, which was pretty much how they were trained. The GSD club trainers always told us to wait a second on z correction to see what the dogs would do. I have seen some not make the right choice but I have never had mine not do so. It transferred over to real life. 

We seem to have a great mutual respect for each other, if that makes sense? Take space for instance, I respect their space and they respect mine. If they are on the couch and see me coming, they automatically move. I don't have to tell them anything. It's always been that way, we don't know any different.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I think there are very few truly dominant dogs out there. Best discussion I've ever seen was on a board we aren't allowed to post a link too.

No. I don't think the general dog will take over the leadership role. I think dogs with no leadership will behave like unruly toddlers with no rule. In some cases, where the handler is unclear and babies the dog, the dog will develop a learned helplessness. But rarely will you see a dog develop an "alpha" position.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Inept handlers: weak, unstable, inconsistent, will create insecure dogs, dogs who do not trust the owner to protect them. The dogs are on a tolerance spectrum of sorts. A soft dog might tuck tail and try to hide behind the owner she has no faith in, but will not be aggressive. A stronger dog might bark and lunch, snap and even bite a perceived threat. This is not dominance. It is protecting oneself, when the owner has given no indication that they have things covered. 

Some dogs with inept handlers will learn that certain behaviors get them what they want. grumbling near the food dish gets people to back off and let him eat in peace. Grumping or snarling when being groomed might stop the behavior. The initial fearful behavior worked and now they have learned to grump, snarl, or snap when their feet or ears are being touched. 

This is not a comfortable place for dogs. They have no trust in and no communications with the people that own them. They are basically in a constant survival mode. I don't see this as dominance. I see it more as a dog whose response to instability and inconsistency is a failure to trust. 

Owners who fail to recognize a shut down in training and call it stubbornness are going to punish unfairly. Owners who have unrealistic expectations for puppies will create problems like this, and those who press the pups into situations lacking confidence, the pups will eventually protect itself and learn that the behaviors for protecting itself, gets him what he wants. He learns to be a bully. 

As for packs. I believe they begin for the most part as a breeding pair, and the first litter, in wolves one litter per year, then the second litter. Certain pups, because of their natural pack order will run with the sire and dam longer and others will break away from the pack and start their own packs. I guess I see less harm in seeing it as a family structure, than the alpha-dominance shtuff that people try to use to relate to their dogs. 

There are pack behaviors and pack orders. But in domestic dogs, I think it (pack order) really doesn't relate at all to the human. Dogs are smart. They know we are the human and they are the dogs.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

selzer said:


> Inept handlers: weak, unstable, inconsistent, will create insecure dogs, dogs who do not trust the owner to protect them. The dogs are on a tolerance spectrum of sorts. A soft dog might tuck tail and try to hide behind the owner she has no faith in, but will not be aggressive. A stronger dog might bark and lunch, snap and even bite a perceived threat. This is not dominance. It is protecting oneself, when the owner has given no indication that they have things covered.
> 
> Some dogs with inept handlers will learn that certain behaviors get them what they want. grumbling near the food dish gets people to back off and let him eat in peace. Grumping or snarling when being groomed might stop the behavior. The initial fearful behavior worked and now they have learned to grump, snarl, or snap when their feet or ears are being touched.
> 
> ...



I can agree with all of this except pushing them into situations if they lack confidence. I think that a lot of young pups show some insecurity in new situations. I use that to my advantage to teach them it's ok and they can count on me. Pulling them out of the situation is not going to help later on when they are in the same situation and older. Just like anything else in life they have to accept these situations in order to be well rounded and part of society. Or you end up with a dog that can't go anywhere without liability.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

Dainerra said:


> I didn't say that it is something to be tolerated. but the reasons behind why something is done DO matter and should effect how we fix the problem. The attitude of correcting a dog that doesn't want to get off the comfy couch is a different mindset than thinking the dog is trying to "dominate" you. The latter implies an adversarial "us vs them" interaction which, sadly, is the part of alpha theory that most people take to heart while leaving more useful components such as being a consistent leader.


This leader consistently does not allow dog on furniture, out the door first or pull on a leash. Its not about who is dominant, it is about manners and respect.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Nurse Bishop said:


> Dainerra said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say that it is something to be tolerated. but the reasons behind why something is done DO matter and should effect how we fix the problem. The attitude of correcting a dog that doesn't want to get off the comfy couch is a different mindset than thinking the dog is trying to "dominate" you. The latter implies an adversarial "us vs them" interaction which, sadly, is the part of alpha theory that most people take to heart while leaving more useful components such as being a consistent leader.
> ...


I guess that depends on what you feel is respect. My dogs going up the stairs before me. Fine. Easier for me. My dogs on the beds and couch, fine. Disrespect comes if I tell them to get off, and they don't. 

I think this whole dominance theory is complete bunk. It assumes that the dogs see us as dogs. They are not stupid. The don't think we are bipedal dogs. They know the dang difference. 

It's not my job to be dominant over them. It's not my job to be their "pack leader" we are not a pack. I am not a dang dog. It's my job to set expectations, train, and bond and build a relationship built on mutually beneficial outcomes. I am a better choice than being crazy and out of control. They get access to more and better resources when they do as asked. I don't ask things of them that are unfair. Period. 

But I do need to force my position. I don't need/nor would it be effective, to physically show my power. I don't want a robot. I want a dog. With all the good and bad. I want an individual. I want a partner and friend.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

llombardo said:


> I can agree with all of this except pushing them into situations if they lack confidence. I think that a lot of young pups show some insecurity in new situations. I use that to my advantage to teach them it's ok and they can count on me. Pulling them out of the situation is not going to help later on when they are in the same situation and older. Just like anything else in life they have to accept these situations in order to be well rounded and part of society. Or you end up with a dog that can't go anywhere without liability.



LOL, Ah well, communication is on the writer not the reader, so my fault, but, I meant the owner's lacking confidence. The owners, nervous as **** at what a pup is going to do press them forward into the unkown, and the poor pup is getting bad vibes from the situation, and worse vibes from the owner when the owner lacks confidence.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

selzer said:


> LOL, Ah well, communication is on the writer not the reader, so my fault, but, I meant the owner's lacking confidence. The owners, nervous as **** at what a pup is going to do press them forward into the unkown, and the poor pup is getting bad vibes from the situation, and worse vibes from the owner when the owner lacks confidence.


Well then I agree on everything then :smile2:


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

gsdsar said:


> I guess that depends on what you feel is respect. My dogs going up the stairs before me. Fine. Easier for me. My dogs on the beds and couch, fine. Disrespect comes if I tell them to get off, and they don't.
> 
> I think this whole dominance theory is complete bunk. It assumes that the dogs see us as dogs. They are not stupid. The don't think we are bipedal dogs. They know the dang difference.
> 
> ...


Yes 100% Yes

I love the relationship I have with my dogs. If im busy and I notice my 12 yr old struggling to get on the couch, with pure determination in her eyes, I'm right there to give her a lift if her legs give out. It's obvious that she wants to do it on her own and as hard as it is to watch, I let her. Some might not agree, but I don't make her move if I want to sit down, I would sit on the floor before I would move her. That is my choice and how I choose to respect her. She is old, her body is achy and I want her comfortable. The fact is, that she would move if I approached. That is the respect we have for each other. That is something we have built over many years and I never have had to force anything on her.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

Lots of people seem to have pet type dogs. An Eastern European working line GSD is like no dog I have ever known.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

Nurse Bishop said:


> Lots of people seem to have pet type dogs. An Eastern European working line GSD is like no dog I have ever known.


How does that matter? You work them, mind and body and they are still a dog at the end of the day. Years ago police dogs were separated from the household. They slept outside, went to work and never socialized with the family. Now I notice they are inside, a part of the family, sleeping on couches and beds. These are dogs that work for a living, but even working dogs need to be just a dog. If anything it makes them more valuable.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Nurse Bishop said:


> Lots of people seem to have pet type dogs. An Eastern European working line GSD is like no dog I have ever known.


I'd have to bow to this, since I am unfamiliar with these lines. Except, a whole lot of people out there with pet-type GSDs, American and German show-lines struggle with their dogs, struggle with leadership, and have totally adopted the NILIF because otherwise the dog would walk all over them, or worse yet, they buy in totally to the my-dog-is-dominant so I need to use an e-collar, prong collar, NILIF, and keep him off the furniture and stay on top of him, and on and on and on. 

Michelle has working lines, (In fact, this site has a lot of people with working line dogs), and she said something to the effect that very few dogs are truly dominant. I really have to agree with that. I have seen dogs whose owners have them dubed as Alpha-dogs, when in reality the dog was a little soft, otherwise normal temperament. 

I know that people do breed for dogs that can take correction, and can work independently, and will protect themselves. There are dogs out there that will come up the leash on their handler. I wonder if that is part nature and part nurture though. I mean, we raise pups with respect to what we want them for. Dogs are often started while still in the litter to build drive, build confidence, etc., like the show pup will be conditioned from that point to stack and have his berries checked.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Nurse Bishop said:


> Lots of people seem to have pet type dogs. An Eastern European working line GSD is like no dog I have ever known.


Deja is a WL and such a pet dog if you only could see her; front legs over my lap with a heavenly "smile", lying on her back in an S-shape to have her tummy rubbed. A good WL has an off button to just be a pet, yet it takes absolutely nothing to get her in working mode/drive. That's what I love about her.


----------



## Nigel (Jul 10, 2012)

selzer said:


> I'd have to bow to this, since I am unfamiliar with these lines. Except, a whole lot of people out there with pet-type GSDs, American and German show-lines struggle with their dogs, struggle with leadership, and have totally adopted the NILIF because otherwise the dog would walk all over them, or worse yet, they buy in totally to the my-dog-is-dominant so I need to use an e-collar, prong collar, NILIF, and keep him off the furniture and stay on top of him, and on and on and on.
> 
> Michelle has working lines, (In fact, this site has a lot of people with working line dogs), and she said something to the effect that very few dogs are truly dominant. I really have to agree with that. I have seen dogs whose owners have them dubed as Alpha-dogs, when in reality the dog was a little soft, otherwise normal temperament.
> 
> I know that people do breed for dogs that can take correction, and can work independently, and will protect themselves. There are dogs out there that will come up the leash on their handler. I wonder if that is part nature and part nurture though. I mean, we raise pups with respect to what we want them for. Dogs are often started while still in the litter to build drive, build confidence, etc., like the show pup will be conditioned from that point to stack and have his berries checked.


Ranger comes from Czech lines and I'd say overall he's a pretty easy keeper. Super biddable and he does have loads of energy, but no problem settling either. He can be very pushy, not in a mean way he just wants to keep the games going, lol


----------



## Galathiel (Nov 30, 2012)

Varik is 75/25 DDR/WGWL. They're not special snowflakes. He IS different than any other GSD i've had. He's much more independent, not nearly as pack oriented as I would like.

He's pushy and could have been a despot if he had been with someone less ... determined, was very slow to mature and he really needed a better handler than he was stuck with, even though I had previous (4 GSDs before) experience. He's still a stable, publicly affable (approachable, but not attention seeking--if not in the vehicle) dog. Lives with a 6 lb Persian and grand kids randomly visiting. He does listen to and respect me, but good lord! The first year was the longest year of my life.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Nurse Bishop said:


> Lots of people seem to have pet type dogs. An Eastern European working line GSD is like no dog I have ever known.


The Czech lines are harder for sure. Higher suspicion, have a more aggressive side. They were bred for border patrol. But the most "real" litter I've seen is WGWL. Love this litter. And out of this litter, is a truly dominant dog that would take out their handler.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I would love to comment on this thread, but the subject matter is so large and complex it would take volumes. I don't know what the research says, but to understand this topic, I think you have to factor in domestication, the breed of dog and it's traits, the pack structures, nuture vs nature, and environment. 
I will say this....there are some dominant dogs that will always try to be alpha in their environment....very few of them....there are also opportunistic dogs that aren't dominant by nature, but rather through fortune of inept owner/handler. Most dogs are content to be dogs that are submissive to the source of their food and shelter, unless a stronger drive like sex drive or survival drive is activated, than a very few dogs will disregard the submissive role within their family/pack.
This is much too general and simplistic to explain individual dogs, but my observations after many years of training and over a thousand dogs worked with.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I dunno Cliff. That was a pretty good comment by itself.


----------



## Dotbat215 (Aug 19, 2015)

Dainerra said:


> and that is the biggest problem with dominance theory. Yes, some dogs are dominant but most aren't. If you start off with the premise that a dog is misbehaving out of dominance (he's pushing through the door because he thinks he's in charge), then you are going to approach the problem differently than if you look for the actual cause (he is excited to be going outside; he needs to learn some basic manners). If the only tool you have is a hammer (dominant behavior) then everything in the world is a nail.


Exactly. If I assumed my dog getting into bed with me was a power play I would be creating a much bigger problem for myself. By going all in on dominance theory I would miss the fact that he spends the first part of the night in front of the gas fireplace and then comes to bed when the timer turns it off. I would end up punishing my dog for being chilly...A problem I could have solved in a quick and positive manner.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

llombardo said:


> How does that matter? You work them, mind and body and they are still a dog at the end of the day. Years ago police dogs were separated from the household. They slept outside, went to work and never socialized with the family. Now I notice they are inside, a part of the family, sleeping on couches and beds. These are dogs that work for a living, but even working dogs need to be just a dog. If anything it makes them more valuable.


 What I was talking about is not how they are kept, but how they are different to train. Please check out the shutzhund training section on here or on Leerburg. These are working lines.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

What is NILIF ?


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Noting In Life Is Free; a plan to keep adolescent bratty dogs in check. It works well with humans too.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

Galathiel said:


> Varik is 75/25 DDR/WGWL. They're not special snowflakes. He IS different than any other GSD i've had. He's much more independent, not nearly as pack oriented as I would like.
> 
> He's pushy and could have been a despot if he had been with someone less ... determined, was very slow to mature and he really needed a better handler than he was stuck with, even though I had previous (4 GSDs before) experience. He's still a stable, publicly affable (approachable, but not attention seeking--if not in the vehicle) dog. Lives with a 6 lb Persian and grand kids randomly visiting. He does listen to and respect me, but good lord! The first year was the longest year of my life.


Inga is like this- and now.... she is a teenager! Determined, but she loves to train, loves to work. She is a full time job.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Nurse Bishop said:


> What I was talking about is not how they are kept, but how they are different to train. Please check out the shutzhund training section on here or on Leerburg. These are working lines.


I think they are related though. The dominance-theory people are not talking about dominating their dogs in training only -- that would be a recipe for disaster big time. But in all management, all encounters with the dog, they feel they must project an alpha-leader position. i.e. if the dog is pushing a tennis ball in their lap, that is alpha behavior on the dog's part, and should be ignored, or the tennis ball put up and the dog commanded to go lay down. People that do not subscribe to this behavior may feel the dog is trying to engage with them and that their energy/exercise requirements are not being met. They do not see it as alpha on the dog's part. Dominance-theory people are going to want to keep that dog on the floor and not on couches, beds, because they want the dog to know that is people's place, not his place. So, where the dog lives can be significant. A police officer might keep "on top" of the dog 24/7, but the spouse and the kids, may not have that attitude. Some police dogs are kenneled outdoors. They work with their person 8-10 hours a day, and the rest of the time they are sleeping or settling in their kennel -- not a bad life. But obviously, if you are subscribing to dominance theory, it is much easier if the dog is kept kenneled when not working.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

Oh Inga does that. She comes over and leans on your lap looking with her great big eyes. Its not a dominance ploy. She has to go to the bathroom. She might come over with that slimy rubber oinking pig toy when you are reading. A simple not right now, no big deal. But in her obedience training her hardness shows. For instance she can take a size 10 prong collar correction for jumping and barking at strange children then go right back at what we were doing, instantly. I was on a walk and we came around a corner and some neighbors started target practice with high caliber pistols 60 feet away. She just sat there calmly looking, not even flicking an ear. This was her first exposure to gunfire. Her protectiveness is is ferocious when sent out on a What Is It at some noise or disturbance out in the dark. And what a creature to have at your right hand. A hard, strong willed dog. But gosh, if I had been a wimp with this dog she would rule the roost.


----------



## Deb (Nov 20, 2010)

I think a lot of people mistake dominance and simply untrained. Dogs and kids need to be trained or taught. If they're not, you get dogs and kids that have learned behaviors that allow them to get what they want. That's not being dominant, it's learned behavior. It works. It gets them the reward they want, be it the toy, the couch, or the food. Natural dominance is usually not aggressive. A dominant child may come across as a bully in wanting things their way, but if you actually watch carefully, they'll demand, cajole, be bossy, but not actually do anything that will hurt other children. A truly dominant dog will settle things often with a look, a presence that other dogs will recognize. Rarely will a truly dominant dog fight for something. So a child allowed to do what he wants may appear 'dominant' but he/she's learned to scream, push, whatever behavior gets him or her their way. Dogs will growl, guard something or snap because they've learned that behavior gets them what they want, the food, the couch, the toy. Not saying this applies to all dogs, but I do think many people confuse the dominance with untrained/untaught


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

selzer said:


> I think they are related though. The dominance-theory people are not talking about dominating their dogs in training only -- that would be a recipe for disaster big time. But in all management, all encounters with the dog, they feel they must project an alpha-leader position. i.e. if the dog is pushing a tennis ball in their lap, that is alpha behavior on the dog's part, and should be ignored, or the tennis ball put up and the dog commanded to go lay down. People that do not subscribe to this behavior may feel the dog is trying to engage with them and that their energy/exercise requirements are not being met. They do not see it as alpha on the dog's part. Dominance-theory people are going to want to keep that dog on the floor and not on couches, beds, because they want the dog to know that is people's place, not his place. So, where the dog lives can be significant. A police officer might keep "on top" of the dog 24/7, but the spouse and the kids, may not have that attitude. Some police dogs are kenneled outdoors. They work with their person 8-10 hours a day, and the rest of the time they are sleeping or settling in their kennel -- not a bad life. But obviously, if you are subscribing to dominance theory, it is much easier if the dog is kept kenneled when not working.


I don't think those things equate to dominance. And I think that very few dogs desire to be dominant. I just don't agree with the new thinking that some people have that dominance is totally debunked. I do agree that dominant thinking can be taken to the extreme. But I also think that PO can be taken to the extreme. I try and learn all I can from all different methods and use what I need to train my dogs. I find myself using treats, prong, choke, toys, praise, e-collar. basically change it up. Age and maturity of course will dictate a lot of how the dogs get trained. It is nothing for me to take Apollo out with treats, Athena out with choke or praise only, and Rosko with praise, or e-collar. Sometimes all treats. Sometimes all praise. The dogs seem to enjoy this. 
I guess my point of this post and this whole thread is that I don't think claiming dominance is some made up debunked theory makes much sense. Just like I don't think that saying positive only is wrong. Each individual dog should dictate training methods used. And if your lucky you will be able to utilize a lot of different aspects.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

I think Deb pretty well nailed what I think about it.

I have said before that the word "dominance" to me connotation that the dog thinks they are superior or are trying to get one over on us. because they want us to "submit" to them. that just doesn't fit with most of what I experience with dogs.

Sure they try to get out of stuff they don't want to do. Because they don't want to do it, that's all. Dog doesn't want his nails trimmed. Because one time it hurt. Not because he thinks he is better than me.

Dogs pulling on a leash because they are dominant? I just don't buy it. Their natural pace after being cooped up is usually faster than ours plus opposition reflex if the dog hasn't been taught not to pull.

I can think of some resource guarder I know who definitely aren't dominant dogs. one is a spoiled insecure little brat. But she sure as heck isn't a dominant dog even though she will growl over stuff.

Sure they try to get stuff they want...but I hesitate to assign higher thinking so things where I am not sure it exists...dog counter surfs when owner leaves the room. Because he has a picture in his head of this being successful and rewarding when no human is present. Anything more than that?

Dogs walking ahead on a walk...well ...my dogs look over their shoulders at me to see which way we are going. Often they wait at an intersection of trails. Sometimes they head up one but if I come along and go the other way they double back to catch me. So how is it dominance if they are looking back to see where I am and go with me?


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

Thecowboysgirl said:


> Often they wait at an intersection of trails. Sometimes they head up one but if I come along and go the other way they double back to catch me. So how is it dominance if they are looking back to see where I am and go with me?


Because only a superior/dominant dog would know to walk this way to subliminally make you want to walk the other way which is the way they really wanted to go in the first place. Looking back the whole time thinking stupid weak Human. When we get home later you will get my food and water for me also.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

LOL CD seriously?


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Please take this constructively; it is plain to me that a lot of the people postulating on Dominant dogs have never had ANY actual experience with said dog. Some of the examples of dominance or traits of dominant dog are purely conjecture or what is read. And half the people writing about a truly dominant dog don't have any first hand experience either...smh!


----------



## AxeFriend (Oct 18, 2016)

Really sad to me in 2016 there are people who still think this way. 
It's been proven BS for decades but certain people's drive to feel superior to some creature is so ingrained in some cultures that they ignore all the information out there they don't like. Dominance isn't part of dog hierarchy, never was. As far as I can tell it's a human construct for insecure people to feel in control of something. An insecure dog will growl and posture to avoid something they do not like, an insecure human needs to prove to themselves and the world they are better than some poor animal. Posturing for society and growling at anyone who dare question it.

Ironically I feel most people who misunderstand dominance like this would utterly fail if they ever happened to end up with a dog who was truly dominant rather than just taking advantage of a gap in training or one who has unresolved behavior issues. The hard handed training some people try to apply to these perceived cases seems like it would only work on normal submissive dogs!

But it's heartening to me as someone who lives in a rural area where this sort of backwards thinking is ludicrously prevalent to see a forum with so many people who understand the difference between misbehavior and true dominance, and how uncommon the latter is compared to the former.
Many people far more knowledgeable and eloquent than I have already responded, unfortunately it only proved the depths certain individuals will go to in order to justify their extremely flawed thinking on a subject they have no real experience with.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

cliffson1 said:


> Please take this constructively; it is plain to me that a lot of the people postulating on Dominant dogs have never had ANY actual experience with said dog. Some of the examples of dominance or traits of dominant dog are purely conjecture or what is read. And half the people writing about a truly dominant dog don't have any first hand experience either...smh!


Umm ok thats fine. I handle a LOT of dogs and have for a long time because of what I do and have done in the past for work. Maybe none of them was ever a truly "dominant" dog, if such a thing exists. And if I have never handled one having been working with dogs for over 10 years, then what is the point of spending so much time thinking about and pondering about the elusive dominant dog who apparently is 1 in 1000 dogs or who knows...those of you who have experience with it feel free to tell me what percentage you think they are. That would be like spending most of ones vet schooling studying one disease which is almost never seen instead of becoming skilled at treating the ones that are seen every day.

Dogs absolutely get the upper hand and know it sometimes. They absolutely bully their owners sometimes. They act like spoiled horrible brats soetimes. I don't personally see any of this as a result of dominance or trying to climb a social hierarchy. Mostly it appears to be opportunistic pleasure seeking or habitual repitition of behaviors that have been rewarding or successful in the past. Or habitual repitition of behaviors that have had no consequence in the past.

Whatever. Being the lowly weak human who serves my dogs I will sign off to go cater to them now


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Whoever said that dogs don't bully people or the other constructs that you listed....of course they do! That has nothing to do with dominant dogs as you well know....but that doesn't mean that dominant dogs are a myth. There are traits to dominant or some people call them alpha dogs( terminology), and listing all the things they aren't tells folks nothing about what they ARE. They are very uncommon, that we can agree on....but I think the OP was inquiring about these type dogs.....most pet people have never encountered a dominant dog. If they do, they almost inadvertently end up in shelter or PTS as result of unfortunate incident. But talk to people who have been in IPO or LE for long periods of time and most have knowledge of, have trained with, or even a very very few owned a dominant dog. First hand knowledge! 
That's all I'm saying....&#55357;&#56898;


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

A truly dominant dog will not accept domination, submission, or unfair correction from any source, but they will accept a partnership of equity with their owner.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

Thecowboysgirl said:


> LOL CD seriously?


Just being funny. Or at least an attempt of.


----------



## Pan_GSD (Oct 2, 2016)

cliffson1 said:


> a partnership of equity with their owner.


if a dog is able to comprehend this concept that is evidence of extreme intelligence
i've heard from a documentary that a wolf can live with/under a human but when the wolf reaches the age of 2, it becomes extremely hard or impossible to live together since the wolf's intelligence reaches maturity and its independence makes it challenging for that wolf to live under a human's orders


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

cliffson1 said:


> but they will accept a partnership of equity with their owner.


Which is what we should strive for regardless of the dog.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

OP originally said "if the human does not take a leadership role, the dog will" to me this sounded like any dog will take over if there is not a "dominant" human or whatever. To me this has little or nothing to do with the uncommon "actual dominant dog" who is rarely seen by us "pet" people. 

I guess yes in a sense the dog will take over if it doesn't get leadership from the human. I guess my thing is what is the motivation behind that takeover and what is the dog's actual perception

I just don't think dogs are constantly trying to one up us. They do what feels good, is rewarding, and is allowed. Kids run amock without proper parenting. it doesn't mean they are leaders....they are like water flowing until it reaches a barrier 

I could a LOT farther philosophically questioning the mentality of male dominated law enforcement and military and the hierarchies within on the reception of the dogs used by those agencies but it is philosophical pondering since I am not handling those dogs day in and day out. but I do wonder.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

that was supposed to say perception of dogs not reception


----------



## Pan_GSD (Oct 2, 2016)

cdwoodcox said:


> Which is what we should strive for regardless of the dog.


is a dog's standard level of intelligence capable of understanding that concept?
partnership of equity, at least the way i'm interpreting it, implies that the dog knows the human's role and the dog's in its entirety, and is able to mentally delegate tasks/roles and accept that reality

this is outside the bounds of "you are my owner/you provide comfort,food,shelter, exercise/there are a set of observed rules under this household/some concept of love,trust"

but understanding one's role and being able to mutually agree to both party's difference?


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

@Thecowboysgirl

I'm not sure I understand the last point? Being a man has nothing to do with accepting a "a partnership of equity with their owner". Is that what you meant?

Again, back to the single litter of dominant dogs that I can think of....out of that litter, a female owned and handled by a woman. Would take down any man out there but the handler can correct her FAIRLY. Out of that same litter, a male that nobody can correct, including the males that have owned him. My trainer owned a male (Czech lines) that she was the only one that could really handle him. She's 100# dripping wet. It's about the relationship for the dog.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Pan_GSD said:


> is a dog's standard level of intelligence capable of understanding that concept?
> partnership of equity, at least the way i'm interpreting it, implies that the dog knows the human's role and the dog's in its entirety, and is able to mentally delegate tasks/roles and accept that reality
> 
> this is outside the bounds of "you are my owner/you provide comfort,food,shelter, exercise/there are a set of observed rules under this household/some concept of love,trust"
> ...


I believe so. 

I've had the pleasure of working farm collies on livestock. The dogs certainly knew their role. They knew mine much better than I did at first too ^_^

I was standing on the wrong side of the gate. Where I was standing the gate couldn't be open to let them out to the pasture. Which was my job. I was working two dogs on heifers and calves. The bitch broke away from the herd and came to me and started nipping my ankle and barking at me. She didn't let up until I was at the right spot to open the gate...

As for understanding differences between species in the family pet... Haven't you ever had a dog ask you for help? That seems to show a fundamental understanding of differences between us.


----------



## Pan_GSD (Oct 2, 2016)

voodoolamb said:


> I believe so.
> 
> I've had the pleasure of working farm collies on livestock. The dogs certainly knew their role. They knew mine much better than I did at first too ^_^
> 
> ...


that is smart

i can only speak for my dog, which is my first dog, never had a family pet before
aside from waking me up by licking my face, or dropping his toy on my feet asking me to play, i can't really recall my dog asking me for too much stuff, lol

i like to think i stay ahead and try to give him what he needs whether it be food or exercise

hopefully there will be a time in the future where my dog will surprise me with his intelligence
so far, my dog is acting like what i've come to expect from a typical dog :nerd:


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Pan_GSD said:


> that is smart
> 
> i can only speak for my dog, which is my first dog, never had a family pet before
> aside from waking me up by licking my face, or dropping his toy on my feet asking me to play, i can't really recall my dog asking me for too much stuff, lol
> ...


Dogs are truly capable of stunning intelligence. Have you ever heard of the Moscow subway dogs? Stray dogs in Russia have actually learned to navigate the city by subways.






Those are dogs left completely to their own devices. I think a lot of pet owners inadvertently crush their pets intellectual capabilities by micromanaging and over training. They spend so much time on do this do that sit down stay heel - they create robot dogs. I've always liked to encourage problem solving in my dogs. The more exercise their brain gets the better they become at using it.


----------



## Pan_GSD (Oct 2, 2016)

voodoolamb said:


> Dogs are truly capable of stunning intelligence. Have you ever heard of the Moscow subway dogs? Stray dogs in Russia have actually learned to navigate the city by subways.
> 
> 
> Those are dogs left completely to their own devices. I think a lot of pet owners inadvertently crush their pets intellectual capabilities by micromanaging and over training. They spend so much time on do this do that sit down stay heel - they create robot dogs. I've always liked to encourage problem solving in my dogs. The more exercise their brain gets the better they become at using it.


will def watch it later

i've heard amazing stories of dogs returing back to the owner/owner's homes after accidental/deliberate separations

i want to do my best to provide the best for my dogs within my means so i'm always open to learning


----------



## Jenny720 (Nov 21, 2014)

Yes dogs are incredibly intelligent more then they get credit for. Micro managing does disable dogs from thingking on their own. There was a video somewhere of a dog sneaking into a target/kmart or Walmart who went down aisle a grabbed a bone and snuck out of the store was real cute to see. The store manager caught it all on video forgetting where I saw that or I would post the link here.


----------



## Deb (Nov 20, 2010)

cliffson1 said:


> A truly dominant dog will not accept domination, submission, or unfair correction from any source, but they will accept a partnership of equity with their owner.



And once you've had one you compare all others to that one. It's a partnership of work and trust.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Clicker training will not produce robots as the method requires free thinking on the dog's part (my personal experience). It made it possible to train sight hounds.


----------



## Jenny720 (Nov 21, 2014)

This was the video I was speaking of. In regards to intelligence of the dog. 
http://www.elitereaders.com/dog-steals-bone-from-grocery-store/
I always felt our first shepherd was a dominant dog. His sheer presence spoke volumes he was quite a dog.


----------



## WIBackpacker (Jan 9, 2014)

voodoolamb said:


> Dogs are truly capable of stunning intelligence. *Have you ever heard of the Moscow subway dogs? Stray dogs in Russia have actually learned to navigate the city by subways.*
> 
> https://youtu.be/YxJf2L2B5fY
> 
> Those are dogs left completely to their own devices. I think a lot of pet owners inadvertently crush their pets intellectual capabilities by micromanaging and over training. They spend so much time on do this do that sit down stay heel - they create robot dogs. I've always liked to encourage problem solving in my dogs. The more exercise their brain gets the better they become at using it.


I spent some time in Chile a few years ago. Street dogs in Santiago did the same thing.... they would get on the public bus at one stop, and get off at another stop. Matter of fact, on and off, then cross lanes of heavy traffic after looking both ways. People just ignored them. It was startling, to say the least.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

@Jax08 

I was wondering to myself if the perception of dominance hierarchy in dogs, particularly GSDs, because of their close history with military and law enforcement...


if they are no longer #1 dog of choice they once we're?

I wonder if the male dominated and hierarchical makeup of those organizations (military and law enforcement) have any impact on the way the dogs are viewed.

I know that can't be the only factor since certainly "harder" dogs would be needed for those jobs than some others (hard may be not the best word and I honestly don't know if people would consider it to be related to whether a dog is dominant or not)

but it seems to be there is a strict hierarchy in the military...might being a part of that make someone more inclined to look at a dog'show actions and assign a motive of climbing a dominance hierarchy.

sorry I am not explaining this super well.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

as for intelligence and asking for help. I must say, one of my female goats ran up to me, dancing around like crazy, turned around and presented her butt to me, clearly miserable. I leaned over to look and there was a fire ant on the back of her udder biting away. Maybe they are all smarter than we think. It seemed awfully clear to me that she knew what she was doing and that really was a good chance if she showed me the problem I might be able to fix it....? or totally random coincidence??? I don't think goats are supposed to be that smart.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

@Thecowboysgirl

I think I get what you are saying. I find it hard to explain a truly dominant dog. I've only seen a couple. It's not their intelligence. My two shepherds are capable of showing me what they want but they aren't socially dominant dogs. It's not in the aggression. A dominant dog is in the attitude. They don't believe they are lower on the food chain than you in any way. They can be your partner if they choose but never your subordinate. Cliff has seen them. I'm sure Slamdunc has seen them. Anyone who has successfully trained PD K9's have seen them. IMO, very few people could handle a truly dominant dog.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Jax08....you have explained it better than me. You are right on the money. They are real and certainly not a creation of semantics.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Whew! Thanks Cliff! I'm always leering of participating in these types of conversations because I don't know how to explain what I observe!


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

I consider 'dominant' to be higher ranked than xx. Dominant is not a trait/rank/position; it is a behavior. Maybe call it 'assertive' as in a trait. You cannot always be dominant as in a trait where it is who you are. You can only be dominant in certain situations, depending who you have in front of you. As a pet dog trainer I can be dominant (not in a neg. way) over someone with a pet poodle who jumps up on people. Bit if I were to go to an IPO club, it would be totally different. Same in a company; a warehouse worker is subordinate to a manager, who in turn is subordinate to the CEO. But if the CEO has a poodle who jumps on people, all his authority goes out the door. 
I don't think it is any different among dogs.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Wolfy Dog - I can guarantee you've never seen a truly dominant dog. You are trying to put it in a box based on human definition of rank in society. It's an innate trait that is part of them. It's not situational. It's coded in their DNA.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have had truly dominant dogs with regards to other dogs, one. Some of them are not natural alphas, but are jockeying for position, this is where you see posturing and some fighting. Jenna is a natural alpha bitch. She is also a completely easy bitch to manage. She is 11 years old and keeping 2 three year old bitches under control that she is kenneled with. They do not fight. There is total cooperation. And, my management style with her is just total cooperation on both sides. Easy bitch. I won't say dominant with people because she has never tried to be dominant, and I have never tried to dominate her. No need. 

I have yet to have a dog that was dominant over humans. I thought Frodo was, my first GSD. No he would not be dominated by me, and he would not accept a correction, and actually would retaliate for an unjust correction. But, I think 90% of the issues were created by me and enabled by me. And had I had him 20 years later, I wouldn't have had any problems with him, given my current management style and expectations for dogs, ability to read and communicate with dogs. 

I'll take it on faith that there are truly dominant dogs out there, but I also think that the vast majority of dogs perceived to be dominant are not. And the vast majority of issues are due to inept handling. Just because another dog was easier to house train, or train to heel, or not to bite hard, etc, doesn't mean this dog is defective, and that is what to many owners think.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

One of my Whippets was (sorry for the term) a true Alpha dog; I can't described it any other way. I have never seen him in a situation when another dog/pup did not respect him, he never picked a fight. He only had to just stand in front of a challenging dog. I never had to physically correct him either, he was more of a room mate but pretty obedient for a sight hound (clicker trained). If I had to tell him "NO" he would look up to me with a look (that I was sure to mean) "you are crazy!"
The only fight he ever was in was when A Giant Schnauzer ran up to him and fully attacked him without meeting him. It was over in a few seconds and none were injured. 
Does this mean he was a dominant dog? What if he had met a dog that was physically and mentally stronger than him? Would that have been a dominant dog?


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

OK so this still leaves me at this: truly dominant dogs are not common in the pet population. this i am reiterating from other people. 

the original comment referred to dog's in general if I am not mistaken, and whether or not they are trying to dominate or be dominant over their people if their people are too weak.

My position remains that dominating or being dominant over the ppl has little or nothing to do with the motivations behind why the average dog does what it does, even in the presence of a "weak" person.

By the way I do wonder about my old male. He had such a way with other dogs. No fear. Never picked a fight. Often declined to fight when other dogs wanted to fight him. He just wouldn't be bothered to do a scrap over nothing. Twice in his life I saw him get aggressive with another dog and wHeather dog or human if he decided he was going to make a point you would crap your pants.

If he felt you were manhandling him, watch out he would come for you. But if, particularly I, asked him nicely to cooperate he would tolerate almost anything that ever needed to be done. Vets who wanted to show him who was boss, he had to be muzzled. Vets with good bedside manner who showed him a lot of respect he could have painful things done with no muzzle. It had nothing to do with the painfulNess or invasive Ness of the procedure and everything to do with whether you asked him or told him

I can't think of anything he was afraid of. When it was go time he didn't bark in warning he just went for it. I would say he was particularly gentle with humans and dogs who I felt were weaker than him. puppies, women, smaller fearful dogs, he was way too much of a gentleman to mistreat something that he felt couldn't fight back

I don't really think he was a dominant dog but I do know he was really special. Never known one before him or since that was anything like him. I guess I think he was just a dog who was really street smart.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

Thecowboysgirl said:


> the original comment referred to dog's in general if I am not mistaken, and whether or not they are trying to dominate or be dominant over their people if their people are too weak..


Kind of what I was getting at. Under the assumption that someone has to be leader in a relationship. Will a dog who is more rank driven or even the average dog lets say. If the human or no other dog is leading. Either because of weakness, fear, ignorance, or lack of being physically present will that dog assume a leadership role. Even if that is the last thing they would want to do. Not that the dog is jockeying for position in a power struggle with a human but if the dog feels forced into that position either permanently or situationally. I do agree that their are some dogs who have an auro or presence about them that demands respect from other dogs and anyone who understands dogs. But what about the average dog. Please exclude weak nerved, fearful dogs.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

Also lets exclude the dominance extreme mentality that if a dog drops a ball in your lap he is trying to bully you. Everyone on here I think is intelligent enough to Differentiate between a dog being pesty and a dog trying to dominate. Just be sure someone days dominant doesn't mean they are off their rocker.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

It seems to me that most people on here are of the belief that a dog is dominant based strictly on its behavior with other dogs.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that in a truly dominant dog, the trait extends to humans as well.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

CD unless I am mistaken in the free roaming feral dog population it is often fluid. Feral dogs don't always even form a pack. I don't think there necessarily is or has to be a leader.

I mean an awful lot of what my dogs do they do because I have manipulated them into doing it. I made it the easiest or most rewarding thing to do. That's why they are doing it, not because I told them to. If I wasn't influencing them, they would do whatever else was the easiest or most rewarding thing to do.

Sure, some things they do because I said so. But if and when they don't always do what I say it isn't necessarily anything to do with leadership. Sometimes it is, but I think a fair amount of the time it's not.

My dog chased a deer once. Because he didn't respect me? Or because the deer was more exciting right that second?

I look at things from an operant conditioning or classical conditioning perspective before I look at it from a pack hierarchy perspective. there are other factors than just operant and classical conditioning but those are the biggest in my opinion.

if I remember correctly, it is chimps and other primates that have an actual dominance hierarchy that they climb and that they behave in accordance with, much more than canines. (I will have to go look this up now)

They are smart bUT we are smarter. Why would I fight for rank with a dog when I can totally get him to do what I wanted him to do without him even knowing I influenced what he did?

there are obviously legions of pet people who have dogs in their homes and those dogs just do whatever their every whim is. The people are clueless when they are inadvertently rewarding bad behavior. Because they don't understand behavior. I still don't think that makes the dog the leader, it is just a chaotic mess of every man or animal for themselves so to speak.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

Sometimes I think we can look at things in too vague of a form. A dog chasing a deer has nothing to do with dominance. Even if the dog ignores being called back to chase deer it has nothing to do with dominance. A dog ignoring its owner to chase another dog has nothing to do with dominance. A dog looking at you blankly while you continuously say sit or down has nothing to do with dominance. These are all just the dog not listening. I don't think I even tie behavior and dominance together. I believe a dog can be very obedient and be put in a position where it has to be the leader. 
Curious, in feral dogs, if an aggressive animal approaches do the dogs all scatter or does one of them stand as leader to protect the family of ferals. Maybe I am just assigning the wrong word for an action. Maybe instead of dominant or leader I should say the strong one. Or the confident one. Shoot maybe I'm just over thinking the whole thing. It isn't like I have to worry about it. All of my dogs are fine. Athena is the hardest of them all and honestly I kind of like that attribute best. But all of my dogs either listen to me out of habit. Because I have rewarded enough that now they just do, or because I have given them a chance to make a choice between doing as I have ask or being reprimanded, prong, choke, e-collar, and that has become habit. Or they listen just because they plain like training and enjoy the reward of good dog and a couple pats on the back. Seeing me eased with them.


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

It isn't dominance it is factor of honey badger in the dog. When you have a honey badger dog it wants what it wants badly. When you use what it wants to shape its behavior and it wants reward badly and is willing to put up with a crap ton of grief to get there it really opens up your options in the tool box as a trainer. A honey badger dog isn't going to drop in drive as badly when you nail him for making a mistake in behavior because he is eyes on the prize, and as soon as he gets his prize the fact he got nailed making mistakes to get to it doesn't matter to him hes already put it out of his mind. It is like dealing with a strong willed athlete. He makes a mistake or isn't giving you his best and you as a coach bench him or chew him out or punish him and rather than sulk and be a loser they rise to the challenge and do better.

To an inexperienced handler or trainer who is inconsistent they end up with a monster. The dog will defy and manipulate and find ways to access that honey the way it wants to obtain it and will shrug off adversity to do it because the proper path of least resistance isn't made clear because of inconsistency and lack of knowledge on the part of the trainer. It's similar to when you get a super star athlete with a coach that isn't respected or good at his job and the super star leads a mutiny or ignores the coach entirely as a result. The qualities that makes a good working dog a good working dog make them a nightmare in the hands of the inexperienced. The dog will go through you to get what it wants. It isnt a matter of dominance. It is a matter of a dog that is good at going through adversity to survive seeing you as the adversity and going right through you to obtain what it wants.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

A truly dominant dog is a noun and not a behavior or verb. As Jax explained...at least in my experience.


----------



## islanddog (Jun 27, 2016)

voodoolamb said:


> I think dog behavior is too nuanced and complex to pigeon hole it into Dominance/Submission, Alpha/Beta/Omega, Pack leader or follower etc....
> 
> There have been several studies done on feral/stray dog packs. Dogs naturally have a VERY VERY different "pack structure" than wolves. It is a very different structure than what we strive for as a blended co species "family" as well.
> 
> ...


I'm late to this thread, just catching up. @voodoolamb would you have links/sources to those studies? My current dog IS one of those street bred dogs, not feral (was owned with in and out privileges) but would have roamed the streets with the others. I'm still trying to figure him out and would love to know more.
PM if it's wildly off thread topic. Hope it's okay to ask.

As for the topic, nice. I have nothing much to add.


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

cdwoodcox said:


> Also lets exclude the dominance extreme mentality that if a dog drops a ball in your lap he is trying to bully you. Everyone on here I think is intelligent enough to Differentiate between a dog being pesty and a dog trying to dominate. Just be sure someone days dominant doesn't mean they are off their rocker.


Dogs do this behavior because at some point it is a picture that is rewarded with play. If you initiated play with a cue and never gave into play when a dog did that behavior the dog wouldn't waste its time doing that behavior. Has nothing to do with bullying. It was a behavior that was rewarded at some point. 

Last class I had a dog that was randomly rewarded with play for staring at toys. The dog would stare at toys through the fence the entire time it was outside and ignore playmates.


----------

