# Sticky  How do you define "being alpha"....



## Amaruq

or how are you alpha over your dog(s)?

I have come to a point where I think "being Alpha" has almost become a cliche and to a degree a misunderstanding by many "dog people". I sometimes cringe when I read a post or have a discussion with a person that uses the word "Alpha" in it. I think many people misinterpret "being Alpha" as being a dictator with an "I say and you do it NOW" type of attitude. If there is no compliance it seems some people think all fire and fury has to be unleashed to "enforce the Alpha-ship" when in fact a quiet correction may be all that is required. 

I personally think "being Alpha" is more about being a calm, confident leader who can and will lay down the law when necessary with a firm but appropriate correction. There seems to be a mindset any more Alpha = dictator and to me this attitude can ruin what could otherwise be an awesome relationship with the family dog or even a working partner. 

What exactly is a firm but appropriate correction? In my pack this "firm but appropriate correction" can sometimes just be a touch on the neck, side or flanks to get their attention back on me. Other times a mere presence is all that is required. Sometimes just a quite look or short "sound" (ught). Every once in a while the "drill sargent" in me has to come out but I am finding that the DS seldom has to come and visit. 

If you watch any wolf documentaries on TV (or better yet get to spend some time within a wolf pack) you will see the Alpha rarely gets involved with lower pack conflicts. He rarely has to inflict his "might" within his pack. You will *never* see him "roll" another wolf into submission. The lower ranking wolf will put THEMSELVES into a submissive position of their own accord. 

So how do YOU define "Alpha" and how do you become the leader within your pack (one dog or ten doesnt matter)?


----------



## TMarie

Amaruq,
I just want to say this is an excellent post. I don't really have a lot to say on the subject as you described the way you handle your pack, very similar to the way I handle mine.



> Originally Posted By: Amaruq.
> 
> If you watch any wolf documentaries on TV (or better yet get to spend some time within a wolf pack) you will see the Alpha rarely gets involved with lower pack conflicts. He rarely has to inflict his "might" within his pack. You will *never* see him "roll" another wolf into submission. The lower ranking wolf will put THEMSELVES into a submissive position of their own accord.


I am so glad to see you write this. So many people don't get that.

Excellent post.


----------



## BowWowMeow

Great topic! 

I am in line with you, Amaruq. I have been trying to strike the word from my vocabulary and instead use leader. My animals are my major companions, especially Rafi. I don't think of him as lower to me in rank. We treat one another with respect and we have earned one another's respect. He doesn't bite too hard when trying to get a toy from me and I don't yell at him unless his life is in danger.









My first dog was a very hard dog and I was very young and had no dog experience. I overdid the alpha stuff. It didn't phase her but when Chama came along it was clear that I had to change my style to work with her. Massie was an amazing dog but Chama was so easy to train because I changed my style. Now I've changed it even more to focus on rewarding the positive and ignoring the negative, unless it's a serious problem. 

It's been 22 years now since I adopted Massie and my leadership style runs something like this:

The dogs know exactly what's expected of them. They have basic rules they are expected to follow in the house, in the yard and on walks and in the truck. They know they can count on a certain amount of exercise every day in addition to all their other necessities. They look to me for leadership. I believe it is my job to protect them and to make major decisions for them. 

They are not allowed on the furniture but that is a hair issue for me and not a pack issue. I do allow Rafi up on the couch in my study. 

I don't think it matters when they eat and when I eat. In fact, I always feed them before I eat. This has not caused any sort of coup in my house. 

I also don't think it matters who goes through the doorway first although Rafi is trained to let Chama and Cleo go through first so that he doesn't knock them down.







He is also trained to wait until released to go out a door. This is so that he doesn't bolt out. 

Corrections, when necessary, are issued with my voice. That's it. I say something (Eh-eh!) and they stop. Period. If necessary I will use my body to block or stomp or step in between. I almost never need to do this. 

Btw, my dogs are extremely well behaved. People comment every day on them. But I do very little training beyond the basics and following the fair and respectful leader model.


----------



## jarn

i tend to think of it that luc and i are partners, and teagan and i are partners. we work together. i'm the one in control of the partnership - i.e., i'll make the decisions - but i look at it more as a joint effort.


----------



## Liesje

To me, being alpha means that first and foremost, I need to develop a clear, concise, and consistent pattern of communication with my dogs. For us, that typically means "positive" training. I'm not averse to corrections and other methods, as long as all corrections and rewards are fair, and more importantly, understood by the dog. For me it's just easier and more natural to communicate via clicker/marker word and use simple verbal corrections. Even my verbal corrections had to be "trained" so that the dog understands what is a correction and what is a marker.

Also, being the leader means all things belong to me and *I* decide who gets them and who doesn't. That does NOT mean that dogs are banished from the furniture and can only have toys and chews in the crate. It simply means that when I say "off", they get off the couch. When I say "out", the release the toy. My dogs are allowed on the couch and the bed and have toys and chews at their disposal 24/7, but if I want to take one, I can. This goes back to my previous paragraph. I used communication to teach the dogs what "off" means and what "out" means so I don't have to physically dominate my dogs to get what I want.

I don't make my dogs do tricks before dinner, I don't make them sit and wait to go out the door (well, sometimes...), I don't care who gets fed first, who goes out first, etc. My dogs come first in my life and neither one has ever tried to bite me, push me around, dominate me, or guard a resource from me taking it.


----------



## DancingCavy

That's pretty much the way I see things too. The whole 'be an alpha' thing makes me cringe all the time. Not because you shouldn't be a good leader to your dog but because everyone thinks it's a 'DO IT NOW OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES' type of training style. And I'll admit, I sort of started that way with Ris. Sit when I say sit or there will be **** to pay (once she knew what sit was, of course). Yes, I am ashamed I did that to her, but I didn't know better at the time. I'm glad I changed my ways. Our relationship has blossomed because of it.

I've learned a lot about dogs since I brought Ris home. . .and I thought I knew it all before! I think of my canine relationship more as a partnership. I am not the boss of Ris, but I am in charge. I'm in charge of keeping her safe and happy. If she refuses to sit when I ask her. . .I should ask myself "Why?" In most cases, it's not her challenging my position (actually I don't think Ris would even do such a thing). She may be distracted. She may not have heard me. She might be too afraid/worried to sit down. Not taking the "It's my way or the highway" approach with her has helped her see me as a better leader and makes her pay attention to me better. I actually take her concerns into consideration and don't just lay down the hand of God because she didn't do what I asked. And with a reactive/fearful dog, that means the world to them!

There are rules in my house and they are followed. I don't let her barrel out of doors ahead of me, but it's for safety more than anything. I also expect her to not drag me around town on a leash. To wait before just diving into her food every night. She does eat after me, but it's more out of convenience for us than anything else. While she's calming down from exercising, I can make and eat my dinner.


----------



## Brightelf

I think it depends more on the type of dog than any other factor. Has my dog got a towering, tyrannical dominance agenda? Or is she/he the meek, unassuming Edith Bunker of the dog world? 

Our ideals for what type of training & management is "best" need to sometimes be set aside when the dog needs something different than we plan to give in terms of management. There are dogs (& relationships) that are truly damaged by old school, heavy-handed techniques. There are, however, also dogs who completely fall apart withOUT some firm corrections. And here again, dogs & relationships can be damaged in this case too, if the handler isn't openminded enough to correct when the dog needs it.

My own dog thrives on positive training for learning new things, positive, motivational training for keeping our relationship healthy, but this is a dog who can only relax, settle and be comfortable with reliable firm-but-fair corrections should he test.. and test again. NOT a dog with a towering dominance agenda, but a dog who totally relaxes when someone keeps things feeling safe for him that way. "Oh.. the top spot in the pack is still taken? Okay, cool! Gonna go chew my Kong now, Mom." 

If I could go back in time, I would have stopped the original owners of my last GSD from using harsh methods with Chell. If I could go back in time with the dog I have now, I would have been more balanced in my training with him-- yes, tons of motivational, positive training... but I would have been a firmer leader with him re corrections. Thank God, I have a dog who doesn't need frequent reminders.

In any event, whether doing NILIF to calm an anxious dog/stabilize & soothe an aggrivated dominant dog... or choosing a training style.. it can never be one size fits all. I think we have to be openminded to what each dog needs, watch how our manegement styles effect them, and accept criticism, and work to do what brings our own dogs the most stability and comfort, whatever fosters a loving, warm relationship-- and run management/training advice through our mental filters. 

Gotta do what is best for each individual dog, and prioritize what works best for that specific dog, over other people's advice-- and sometimes even over our own ideas.


----------



## Amaruq

Excellent post Patti. When I posted last night I posted general "Paq handlings". My Paq has a wide range of personalities and tolerances. I handle KC and Rayne probably similar to the way Patti described- lots of postive basics but when they decide to see what they can get away with they sometimes need a firm but fair correction. Sometimes just verbal, sometimes a touch, every once in a while something a little firmer (firm leash pop). Tika on the other hand is a tough girl but she is VERY handler sensitive. With her I can give her a command (that she knows of course) and if she doesn't comply a stern look or snap of the finger and she complies. Too stern of a look and you can see the disappointment POUR over her as if a barrel of water was dumped over her because she let me down. One quick smile and she is back to her normal bouncy energetic self.


----------



## scannergirl

I think that it means learning all you can about the animal you want to lead and communicating in such a way that they willingly follow. Trying to get a dog to see you as his leader doesn't work when you treat him like a horse (trust me, I've tried).
It doesn't matter what it means to YOU to be a leader, only what it means to the animal. Without an understanding of how that animal thinks, learns and reacts you will not be able to effectively lead because they won't follow.
It's about earning respect, IMHO


----------



## DancingCavy

I wanna pop back in and bring up the whole 'dominance' thing too since it's so closely entwined with the 'alpha theory.' I personally believe that dogs are NOT looking to be dominant over their people (with rare exception). Most dogs are more than happy to have their humans in charge. Afterall, they can't open the door or get their own food. They want us to be the leader (and who can blame them--being a good leader is HARD WORK).

I do believe dominance exists, but mainly in the dog pack. Not in the human/dog relationship. And, like the whole 'alpha theory,' I think too many people focus on 'dominance' more than just training and developing a good communication system with their dog.


----------



## Timber1

Holy cow, I could not agree with you more and the subsequent posts. This "Alpha" thing has been so over used that I wanted to post the exact question and comments you did.


----------



## SunCzarina

It is an over used phrase. I'm the pack leader. Like the wolf leader, I bring home the food and put it on the table. However, I am not a wolf and neither is my dog. 

Never really gave much thought to the whole leader issue until Luther came along. I'd had GSDs growing up, then Rex, who was a chilly dog. Luther was 2 years old, spent 5 months at a shelter and was bent on world domination. 

I had a lot to learn about asserting my authority over him, hard head as that dog was. I remember doing a volhard test and being shocked at what 9s and 10s meant. I had no clue before Luther about things like 'fence dog', barrier aggression etc.

My DDH was more doer than thinker, he spoke with police trainers and other hard guys. He tried doing alpha rolls, pinning the dog to the wall, all kinds of nonsense that mostly got him a black and blue forearm that lasted 6 months.

I took the tack of NILIF, kneeing him for trying to get through the door before me, kneeing the dog in the chest when he jumped on me - after pinching his toes didn't work, list would go on. I took Luther EVERYWHERE and socialized him endlessly. I also put him in time out when ever he needed it - which was a lot in the first few months. 

Luther came around and respected me. He turned into the funniest most soulful dog who was more intune with me that any I'd had before him. Although to the day he died, he still tried to get through the doorway before me!

By the time Morgan moved in 2 years later, the leadership roll was firmly in my mind. She was messed up from what happened to her as a baby but still a hardhead. Never had a problem with her testing me becuase I laid it out for her from day one. I am in charge. You work for me. Thank you. Good girl. Here, have some prosciutto.


----------



## zyppi

> Quote:I personally think "being Alpha" is more about being a calm, confident leader who can and will lay down the law when necessary with a firm but appropriate correction


I agree.


----------



## onyx'girl

I agree also~ looking at the leerburg puppy pack structure videos proves that.


----------



## Brightelf

I agree, too! I have learned some hard, humbling lessons this year, especially as of late. I have learned we need to tailor how we offer leadership to the leadership needs of our dogs. Weak-nerved dogs may need more work on lead to feel relaxed, strong-minded dogs may need initially firmer corrections, etc. 

If you were the boss of a company and had to do performance reviews with both your employees, Edith Bunker and Yosimite Sam..... you'd need to offer criticism, kudos, and instructions to each in very different ways.


----------



## LisaT

Great thread. I am so tired of "alpha" and "dominance". They are so misused in dog training that they have lost what their true meanings, in my opinion.

I think the above posts are right on. 

What I see on a lot of training boards is justification for the need for dominance and being alpha. The argument usually goes something like, "dogs are individuals and you have to modify the training to the type of dog. that is, some dogs require more dominance and you have to be the alpha". This arguments is then used to justify the harsher techniques of dog training to try to get the dog to submit more by physical means, than by training and establishing the right relationship.

Hard to train dogs absolutely need different techniques and tools, but I don't think that the definition of terms change, only the techniques. I think that often these terms take on a more violent definition in some circles, and they use the dog's behaviour to justify that. I don't know if I'm explaining this well at all.

In terms of alpha, one of the few things I do agree with Cesar Milan, is a calm, assertive nature. I think it also means being able to apply a consistent leadership program, suited to the dog, to develp a partnership.


----------



## middleofnowhere

I've got to the point it's "alpha smaplha" & let's not even go there with domiance. I look through these threads and want to scream because I am so very very tired of the terms and the concepts that usually accompany them. I want to work with my dogs and come closer to understanding my dogs. The less intent I am on dominance and "alpha" crappolla, the better my dogs respond. It may be just because I don't have anything to prove, maybe because when I let go of those ideas, I let go of the "contest of wills."


----------



## LisaT

> Originally Posted By: middleofnowhere...The less intent I am on dominance and "alpha" crappolla, the better my dogs respond. It may be just because I don't have anything to prove, maybe because when I let go of those ideas, I let go of the "contest of wills."


I have had the same experience!


----------



## thor wgsd

Slightly unrelated, but the other day I had my puppy (4 months) in the park and we met a GSD - 2 years old, huge (way bigger than standards), off leash with a an old lady(!) - the nicest dog ever) as soon as we met him thor did an "alpha roll"... Remember I am new at this, but for me it kind of proved the whole it's not natural to force an "alpha roll", I already "knew", I just liked seeing it live. Afterwards they were real buddies and they played real well together until the lady had to go, the dog didn't want to leave, but when she said so he understood... Man, I really hope mine is that nice when he grows up.


----------



## LisaT

It sure is nice to see those things in person, isn't it?

One of my old trainers used to work in a doggie daycare center. She *really* got to see pack behaviour.

Part of the *nice* behaviour is genetics, but I suspect that most of it is socialization and consistent training. 

Good luck with your pup -- what a fun age


----------



## lcht2

alpha = leader NOT bully boss...short and sweet dog vocab lesson for today..haha


----------



## selzer

I define being alpha as being the leading dog or wolf in a pack of dogs. People cannot do this, they are not dogs or wolves. 

The alpha dog, alpha bitch have mating rights. People cannot do this, they will go to jail. 

The alpha dog will get injured or old and weak, and a younger stronger dog will chew him up and maybe even kill him. Other pack members may join in. Do we STILL want to be the Alpha???

I don't buy the BS about being the Alpha. I don't do alpha rolls. I let my dogs go through doorways ahead of me. I let my dogs on couches, chairs, beds. In fact, I come in and feed the dog, then I go to prepare my meal. When I get up, I feed the dogs, sometimes I go in and get myself something to eat afterwards. 

My dogs know that I am a people, and that if I tell them to do something, they had better do it, or I will go and catch them and put them where I want them to be. Generally, that only happens a few times with puppies. My dogs really want to do do what I want them to do because they want to make me happy. It is really not about treats, because they get treats once in a blue moon. Maybe it is about pets and praise though. They like for me to say, "Good girl, what a good girl you are, that's my pretty girlie."

I will encourage others to practice NILIF because so many people find it helpful, and for dogs that have problems, it makes sense. But I do not withold (make them work for) food or potty breaks for my dogs. I do not use crates or kennels to punish dogs. I do not use collars that pinch or shock the dogs to get them to submit. And I am pretty free with praise and pets. In short, I pretty much do everything wrong. By grace or luck I have a pretty nice pack though.


----------



## FourIsCompany

I pretty much agree with Liesje 100% on this. (Hi Lies!)









I think people all have an idea in their heads about what "alpha" and "dominance" means to them and when having a discussion on a forum, it's important to make sure we all know the definition of the word or we could argue about it all day. (And some do)









I do use the words, but I'm not a dog. And my dogs know that. My dogs aren't wolves. And I know that. So we're all clear. In fact, wolves don't even enter into the picture when I'm talking about being alpha or displays of dominance. It's all about the relationship between dog and man (or woman).


----------



## Freddy

Tango is now 4 mos and a week. He's turning into a great dog. I don't know what I would do if I didn't have his sister for him to chew on and play with! We have been in Schutzhund (not my first dog) for about a month and he is doing very well in all phases. "protection" at this phase is purely rag play so we have no aggression yet. 

He is also quite a humper! He also likes to stand over his sister when she lets him even though she can clearly throw him just by standing up so I would assume this is dominance or "alpha behavior". 

I travel a couple of days each week and my wife tells me that when I am gone he goes and sits perfectly by the garage door and stares at the knob about the same time each day, approximately when I come home. He sits there for up to an hour. He's clearly a daddy's boy, and definitely knows who is in charge!

So last night I get home from my trip, and go through the usual play routine, feed them and us, and settle in for some toy time by the tv. After a while I get up on the couch and he decides he hasn't had enough daddy time so he sits in front of me and starts to bark. I toss the ball a couple of times and then settle in for some pets on the head. He decides he wants to be closer and decides to try to get in my lap, which I usually discourage when I am on the furniture. I decide to let him up but it's not enough to be in my lap. He proceeds to climb up and drape himself over my neck so he can be in higher position. 

I've not had one aggression or failure to comply issue with this pup. Would this be interpreted as play or a weak attempt at dominance?


----------



## FourIsCompany

> Originally Posted By: FredHe also likes to stand over his sister when she lets him even though she can clearly throw him just by standing up so I would assume this is dominance or "alpha behavior".


In my own personal dictionary, this is a display of dominance, but NOT alpha behavior. Alphas don't hump. The don't have to display their dominance unless seriously challenged. They are usually very mellow dogs to which the other dogs defer. 

The behavior you describe is what I call "alpha-wanna-be" or "you're not the boss of me". In other words, it's a lower-ranking member trying to play like he's dominant, even though it's really all a show. 



> Quote:
> I've not had one aggression or failure to comply issue with this pup. Would this be interpreted as play or a weak attempt at dominance?


I wouldn't call this dominance, though some might. I'd just call it pushing the boundaries or being pushy. It's not something I'd be concerned about as long as he gets down when you tell him to. 

I don't believe dogs display dominance to people. I think they resource guard and other unwanted behaviors, but I've never seen a dog display dominance toward a human (in my dictionary, of course)


----------



## Freddy

He doesn't resource guard with me at all. I actually just threw that out there because I thought it was funny. After me being out of town for three days I interpreted it as "being in dad's lap is not enough". He's very attached to me.

Alpha-wanna-be is probably a good way to describe an 18 week pup and his 3 yr old new sis. 

He's already got great nerves, and nothing phases him. The only thing I wish I could change is the random bursts of energy like someone stuck a bottle rocket up his butt. They last about a minute, and he will go top speed around, over, or through anything in his way!


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

Speaking of humping, none of my dogs have ever done it to dogs outside the pack, but both Keefer AND Halo do it to each other. When they play they're pretty equal - she's much smaller, around 25 pounds less than him, and she can still walk underneath him, (but barely, and it's probably not that comfortable for him, lol!), but she can give as good as she gets. They take turns being the dog on the ground while the other dog is standing during play. And they don't just put paws on the other dog's back, it's truly humping. Not sure what that means, but it's pretty funny! 

Both of them have encountered dogs that try out dominance behaviors on them, and neither of them like it much. If another dog starts to put its head over Keef's neck, I get between them and break it up immediately before he tells the dog off himself. Halo had a dog in her Puppy 2 class that humped EVERYONE, (the owner was an older woman who seemed completely clueless to his rude behavior) and I had managed to set up on the opposite side of class and keep her away during play breaks for the first few weeks. On week 4 I turned around just in time to catch him on her back and she immediately turned her head around and told him to back off in no uncertain terms. I've never seen her snark at another dog like that before or since. The trainer was great, she said "that was a totally appropriate response".







She could tell I was upset, but it wasn't because of what Halo did, it was because I had failed to keep her away from that dog so she that HAD to take things into her own paws, so to speak.

Anyway, great thread! I practice NILIF with my dogs, and have clear rules about what I expect and what is and is not allowed around the house. Keefer has impulse control issues and extreme prey drive so he needs constant reminders of how things work. I don't think he truly tests me, he's extremely bonded to me and wants to please but he's always fighting against his instincts and sometimes the instincts win. In many ways he's more compliant than any other dog I've had because he is so in tune with me. I think he really tries hard most of the time to be "good". Because he and Halo are so obsessed with food, I do make them down/stay with their food bowls on the floor before being released to eat because I want to continually reinforce good manners around food. They do this automatically, without me saying a word, and I usually release them right away, sometimes I put the canned food back in the garage refrigerator first, so it's a few seconds before they're released, with me out of sight very briefly. I start this with new puppies to train self control around food, and I don't see any reason to stop once they're adults, by then it's just a routine part of their life. 

They're not allowed on the furniture, but it's not an alpha thing, I just don't want big dogs on the furniture. They can go on our bed when we're not in it or for a brief good night or good morning snuggle, but they don't sleep with us. I use mostly positive reinforcement to train them, and mostly verbal corrections. When necessary I pull out the VOICE OF GOD, but my hubby has a much better VOG than I do, so he does that more than I do. You know, thinking about it right now, most of what I do with my dogs isn't so much about wanting to be alpha or dominant over them, or trying to earn their respect or impose my leadership on them, it's really more about teaching them good manners and impulse control - sitting and waiting to be released to go through doors rather than rushing through willy nilly (not for potties though, I let them right out in the morning when they've got to GO!), sitting before putting the leash on, sitting and maintaining eye contact when I've got a biscuit or bully stick or some other treat to give them, waiting in the car before being released to get out, sitting for ball play, before taking the leashes off at the park, etc. Those things - controlling the stuff they want and imposing rules about how they may earn it - may HELP earn their respect for my leadership, but it's not really done with that in mind.


----------



## Barb E

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom_*snipping a whole bunch of really good stuff.....*_
> Those things - controlling the stuff they want and imposing rules about how they may earn it - may HELP earn their respect for my leadership, but it's not really done with that in mind.


I think you said it all right in that last paragraph. In my mind (which is pretty tired today!) for many people when they try to lead or be a leader they impose things in a manner that dogs naturally fight. When we provide rules and boundries and set our dogs up to succeed we "lead" them in a natural manner. 

I think sometimes people get caught up in the latest and greatest terminology being used by the "experts" and sometimes the translation really doesn't sink in.

Great post Debbie!!


----------



## selzer

Having had a couple of litters and keeping puppies more than eight weeks, I would like to say that 4 month old puppies play. Part of their play includes humping. A pup can hump another and five minutes later the other may be humping him. 

There is a danger in labeling a puppy so young as alpha, or alpha wanna be, if you are likely to change your method of managing the dog because of it. If the dog is always on top, always humping the other and not allowing the other to play with toys, get pets, eat before him etc, closer to a year old, I think that is a better gage of his character. Simple humping behavior at 18 weeks of age doesn't indicate much to me.


----------



## StarryNite

Great topic and good reading! I also agree to not "overdo" it. With Lulu, we have this eye contact thing going. When I tell her "ah ah" or am trying to stress something to her I stare her right in the eye with a strong expression and she "gets it" right away. She knows the rules by now and she knows when she breaks them and gets in trouble which is when I get up and give her "the look" and re-inforce them. So far she is turning out to be a fantastic dog who respects the boundries I have placed and follows the "law". I have noticed lately all I have to do is give her "the look" and she stops whatever she was doing she knows is wrong


----------



## Catu

I agree with the "overdo" thing too, but I also feel than in the name of being "politically correct" with dogs many people forget the value of one single well given correction. If the dog does something that he supposedly knows is wrong, get corrected, submits in the moment and 5 minutes later repeats the same action there is something WE are doing wrong. Most of times we think that the dog understand the correction, when he's only submitting to us without correlating it to the action. But many, many times the dog puts on the scale the good on the bad and decide to do bad because the benefits are bigger than the consequences. By example, Uzume, my roommate dog knows perfectly well not to eat the cat food, she knows she'll be punished, but to eat that yummy kibble is worth a "No" and to be sent to the room she sleeps in. Has been that way the last 7 years of her life.

Diabla never saw a cat until 15 months of age, beside the ones that entered in the yard of the house she lived and she was encouraged to chase away. In one week she learnt to respect the resident cat and her food. Yes, I do not hesitate to give a good scruff shake to an adolescent dog, she needed two of those and now she enjoys more freedom inside the house than what Uzume has never had.


----------



## zyppi

iMHO - one of the most overused misunderstood concepts out there.

I much prefer term leader - similar position as being a respected parent. A person the dog looks to for direction, safety and, yes, fun. The source of what is good in their lives. When you have that respect, you also have the right to discipline when needed.


----------



## PipiK

> Originally Posted By: StarryNiteGreat topic and good reading! I also agree to not "overdo" it. With Lulu, we have this eye contact thing going. When I tell her "ah ah" or am trying to stress something to her I stare her right in the eye with a strong expression and she "gets it" right away. She knows the rules by now and she knows when she breaks them and gets in trouble which is when I get up and give her "the look" and re-inforce them. So far she is turning out to be a fantastic dog who respects the boundries I have placed and follows the "law". I have noticed lately all I have to do is give her "the look" and she stops whatever she was doing she knows is wrong


This is basically how we are with our little Beastie Girls. They get lots of love, but even though we've only had them three months, they know, from posture and facial expressions (plus a well timed "Uh, oh!"), that they've overstepped the doggy boundaries here.

To me, being "alpha" means being a benevolent leader. Not a buddy who lets them get away with murder, but not a dictator either.


----------



## norske

Great topic. Nothing has set back human/dog relationships more than "alpha" and "dominance" nonsense IMO.


----------



## Effie325

I've never paid attention to that alpha stuff much either. I am a strong, confident dog handler. I know dogs like I know the back of my hand, and handling a dog is as second nature to me as breathing. That confidence, IMO, is why dogs watch me, follow me, bond to me over other household members, and tend to listen to me. Knowing how to read a dog, and how to communicate with him, is more important to me by far than being some big tough bossy alpha!!! My dogs sleep in my bed, go on my furniture, walk through doors in front of me- unless I ask them not to of course- that stuff isn't what makes a strong leader. No dog I've ever had in my life would have growled at me if I asked him to get off of my bed. It's about trust, not dominance. JMO


----------



## Ruthie

Very interesting topic. I agree with most that the whole "alpha/dominance" thing annoying. However, living with a high energy strong willed dog is not a happy thing unless there is a clear understanding that the people are in charge. To me it doesn't matter if you call this "calm assertive", pack leader, or alpha. As long as your dog isn't pushing you around...


----------



## Wolfheart

I do use the term Alpha, but only because I have a strong spiritual connection to wolves and it's just something we use often in the wolf-discussion community. That being said, I do believe the word is misused by a lot of people. I have my own definition of the word.

To me, being an Alpha means more than just dominance. An Alpha not only provides leadership but also CARES for their pack and meets the needs of their packmates. A human Alpha should care for their dog on every level possible and meet their dogs needs to the fullest. An ALPHA is a STABLE MINDED animal or person that is responsible for the well-being of their pack (whether one dog or more). Calm, assertive, honest and full of integrity. An Alpha is fair, calm, balanced and firm. An Alpha isn't a tyrant, and is often selfless in their care for their pack. An Alpha will put the needs of their pack before their own, and be the source of stability. Alpha's make the rules and enforce them. All members of a pack are HAPPY to submit to and serve their Alpha. 

In conclusion, An Alpha is a calm, stable-minded leader who does more than enforce the rules. An Alpha will lead and nurture their pack and make sure each pack member's needs are met fully.

That was just my definition... Hehe.


----------



## GunnersMom

Great thread. I've really enjoyed reading through these posts.

I cringe anymore when I hear or see someone using the term "alpha" because it seems that most who DO use the term mean to convey that they bully their dog. I can't stand that. 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with being a calm, confident _leader_. I think every dog in the world will benefit from having one of those. But the idea that you have to dominate your dog at every turn, or act like a bully, is so wrongheaded, in my opinion. And I'd go as far as to say it's counterproductive. 
In my opinion, a dog's obedience is going to hold up better when put to the test if the dog is listening to you because he WANTS to - not because he's afraid of the consequences if he doesn't.

I consider my dogs to be my partners. I do try to be a leader in the sense that my boys will always know what I expect from them and will always know that things are going to be done my way (~cough~ well... usually.) But even that's more for my dogs' sense of security and well-being than my convenience, or my need to be 'top dog.'

When they're listening to me and behaving well because they want to, I know that we're on the same page and our relationship is just fine. 

*Disclaimer - and anyone who's read my posts here knows that I know very little about training and obedience, so my opinion probably isn't worth a whole lot! lol.


----------



## BuoyantDog

I am reading a wonderful book called, _Never Cry Wolf_, by Canadian naturalist Farley Mowat, who spent a summer working for the Canadian government in order to research the supposed extinction threat to caribou induced by wolves. He spent a summer living metres from a real, wild wolf pack. 

My favorite passage from the books describes the alpha male of the wolf (George) pack he studied...


> Quote: George was a massive and eminently regal beast whose coat was silver-white. He was about a third larger than his mate, but he hardly needed this extra bulk to emphasize his air of masterful certainty. George had presence. His dignity was unassailable, yet he was by no means aloof. Conscientious to a fault, thoughtful of others, and affectionate within reasonable bounds, he was the kind of father whose idealized image appears in many wistful books of human family reminiscenses, but whose real prototype has seldom paced the earth upon two legs. Georg was, in brief, the kind of father every son longs to acknowledge as his own.


----------



## doggiedad

i've never worried about being Alpha or
worked at establishing an Alpha position.
i step over my dog, my dog eats before me most of the time.
i treat my dog for no reason. i've never practiced NILIF. i fine
through training and feeding you become the Alpha without
having to exert yourself. i think a lot of the Alpha stuff
has to do with people thinking they have to show dominance
over a dog. Alpha makes people feel powerfull over something
that takes no power or a strong hand to be in charge. i also
see some connection between the Prong and E-Collar when it
comes to being Alpha.

when it comes to corrections i find raising my voice normally
does it. my strong correction is raising my voice and holding
my dog by some neck fur and maybe point a finger at him.
my best guard when it comes to corrections is not
letting something happen that needs to be corrected.

with my dogs i never had to establish an Alpha
position. i co-exist with my dog/dogs. my dogs are always
well trained and highly socialized. my dog does what i ask
when i use a normal speaking voice. i've had several
people tell me "you speak to your dog like he's human".
well my dog behaves. he listens to me or my GF.

Alpha or co-existing with your dog. when your dog is well trained and highly socialized i don't think you have to worry
about an Alpha postion.

i've never be one to dominate a dog. i never felt like
i had to. you train and socialize when they're young. 
i think that establishes your place in the pack.


----------



## lixy

Cassidy's Mom said:


> I practice NILIF with my dogs, and have clear rules about what I expect and what is and is not allowed around the house. Keefer has impulse control issues and extreme prey drive so he needs constant reminders of how things work.
> ....................................
> You know, thinking about it right now, most of what I do with my dogs isn't so much about wanting to be alpha or dominant over them, or trying to earn their respect or impose my leadership on them, it's really more about teaching them good manners and impulse control - sitting and waiting to be released to go through doors rather than rushing through willy nilly (not for potties though, I let them right out in the morning when they've got to GO!), sitting before putting the leash on, sitting and maintaining eye contact when I've got a biscuit or bully stick or some other treat to give them, waiting in the car before being released to get out, sitting for ball play, before taking the leashes off at the park, etc. Those things - controlling the stuff they want and imposing rules about how they may earn it - may HELP earn their respect for my leadership, but it's not really done with that in mind.


I really think this is how I operate with my dogs. My husband and my in-laws think that I am too strict with the dogs, but I need to set clear boundaries that they understand and know to follow. Not so much with my Border Collie, as she is a relatively soft dog, but my very large, Marmaduke-like GSD Chaos will (purposely or not) walk all over anybody that will let him get away with it. That includes my husband, in-laws, and any visitor that I'm not actively managing. He'll barrel past people on the stairs, knock them out of the way as they're opening the door or going through a doorway, won't listen to basic commands unless there's a treat in it for him, etc. Speaking of treats, I am the only one who can feed him ones that are appropriately sized. My in-laws, (aka fantastic daily dogsitters :wub feel they must feed Chaos giant-sized treats, and still will usually throw them to him, in fear of Chaos lunging for it and snaring their fingers. Even my husband feels the need to throw treats to him. I, on the other hand can feed him a treat the size of a grain of salt between my thumb and forefinger, and he will take it slowly and gently. He waits for me to finish climbing/descending the stairs before following, and never knocks into me no matter how excited he is. He also does not annoy me while I'm eating, and will wait until invited to play or for affection. And this is because I am the only one who consistently shows him that I am in charge. 

Just an FYI, being in charge does NOT mean that I am physically hands-on forceful with my dog. The physical aspect of our interactions is purely my body language. All it takes is a freeze, a hard look, or an occupancy of my personal space with my body stance. If neccessary, I will add a low growl or a quick verbal correction, usually "DOG". I do not need to TOUCH him. So, in my case as least, demanding respect (or being "dominant", or "alpha", or whatever the lastest term is) over one's pushy dog absolutely does NOT require the use of physical contact.

I do sometimes worry that I could be damaging my relationship with my Chaos when I read posts on here about dogs that obey because they think they HAVE to, rather than want to. I hope that is not the case. When I am engaging my dogs with a training/learning session, rather than just general everyday household manners, there is a clicker as well as treats galore, and they are always very eager. At those times, there are no "looks" or use of body language; it is always positive reinforcement when they get known requests right, and negative punishment (walking away) when then don't.

But overall, I am still demonstrating my authority, or acting like the "alpha", so who knows if they are obeying because they want to, or because they they think they have to.  :shrug:

My cat, on the other hand, is free to demand exactly as he chooses; one cannot deny a cat...


----------



## jakeandrenee

If another dog starts to put its head over Keef's neck, I get between them and break it up immediately before he tells the dog off himself.

He doesn't seem aggressive more playful but What does that mean? What is he trying to say to the other puppies???


----------



## holland

If you liked the Farley Mowatt book another one he wrote was the "Dog who wouldn't be"-funny book long time since I read it-With the exception of a few times I don't feel I need to be the alpha with Rorie. She loves to work and when we are doing something training wise she really wants to try and figure it out. When she is not listening it is usually she was having fun and has figured out it is time to go and doesn't want to and over time I have figured out how to handle it


----------



## Chicagocanine

I don't consider myself to be "alpha" because I am not a dog.


----------



## doggiedad

i've never worried or thought about being alfa.
i train and socialize my dogs and things seem
to fall in place. 

when i get up in the morning my dog often
eats before me. when i feed him the only
thing he has to do is wait outside of the kitchen
while i prepare his meal. as everyone else i open
and hold the door for my dog even if i step
out of the door first i still have to hold
the door open for him.

now that i think about my dog is the alfa one.

here's why:

i bring him his food twice a day. <
i give him fresh water several times a day.<
i drive him to the dog park, the woods,
the Pet Store, the Vet and everywhere else
he needs to go while he sits in the back seat of the car <
i pay all of his bills. <
i bathe him and dry him off with fine cotton
towels. <
he has full roam of the house. <
he sleeps in our bed when he wants too. <
what am i forgetting? <

we co-exist with our dog and it's a good life
for all of us.


----------



## kidkhmer

I read a lot of info about the GSD breed before taking the plunge and there was this whole DOMINATE your dog thing everywhere. Of course I get the " show them who is boss / be the leader of the pack " thingy but one of the things that was constantly mentioned was DO NOT EVER LET YOUR DOGS UP ON THE FURNITURE ETC. Then I came here and bloody ****.....seems like everyone is sleeping with their dogs on the bed !  I have seen so many photos of dogs here lying on couches and on chairs etc:wild: 

Here in Cambodia we can buy these great cane chairs called Papasan chairs. They look like a mini satellite dish. About a week ago my little pup Karma started jumping into it and rolling around and I would make her get out of it. Last night after her long muddy walk along the banks of the Mekong River here in Phnom Penh we had a nice hot shower together ( she loves hot water ! ) and after a good slathering of tea-tree shampoo and a drying off she was as clean as a whistle. Whilst we sat down for dinner Karma sat nearby and looked at the chair and then looked at me and then looked at the chair and then looked at me and then looked at the chair and then looked at me. In the end I thought "bugger domination....if she wants her own chair.....she got it ". I pointed and set "KARMA -IN YOUR CHAIR " and she bounded in and was asleep within minutes.

It is now hers to do with as she will. Karma sleeps next to me in an open doored crate or on the cool tiles of our Aircon'd room but she will never get on the bed ( check that ; Sunday morning hugs are OK ! ) nor will she ever be allowed on the couch.

You can't be a dictator all the time !:wub: In fact if anything as I enter middle-age this puppy is teaching me to be less hard-arse and more patient.


----------



## Jelpy

I'm afraid in my case "Alpha" means they let me answer the door. 

Jelpy


----------



## Heagler870

This post is really old and I haven't read every post but I thought I would put in my .02 cents. Alpha is just the first letter of the Greek alphabet. It just signifies someone to be before someone/something else. To me being "Alpha" over your dog is just to be their leader, not a dictator of sorts. Being your dogs or kids Alpha may or may not be the same thing as a dictatorship. I can lead my dog without being a dictator. Someone else can be a total dictator over their dog, but they're complete losers for doing it. That's no way to treat a dog, you don't give a dog respect by being a dictator. But people do it non-the-less. I want my dog to follow me instead of me following my dog. That's what Alpha means to me.


----------



## DanielleKeith

Great discussion. The wolf pack, alpha theory is ridiculous and always has been. These aren't wolves, they are domesticated animals many centuries removed from the wild. That is like saying that I am a barbaric gaul like in the Roman times just because I maybe descended from them. Whatever. Anyways, has anyone here ever seen the look on a shepherd puppy's face after you've forced them to be on their back and stared them in the eyes? I have. It's the saddest thing and you can see the confidence and pride of the breed just drain out of their faces. I will NEVER force dominate or alpha whatever with a German Shepherd. These are the most stunning, intelligent, and proud creatures with good reason, and it is a shame there are people that apply idiot training methods to these dogs. I AGREE With all of you totally and I'm so glad to see there are so many other shepherd people who truly love their pets, not buy a lawn ornament to rot in their yard and irritate the neighbors.


----------



## RudeDogTraining

*Thank you for having your head on straight!*

I 110% agree. People don't know what they are talking about most of the time when they say "you need to be alpha", or "you need to be the pack leader", or any of that garbage. I say it's garbage because people destroyed the meaning of it...kind of like how the F word is used so nonchalantly these days. To me, being alpha means setting an example, and being able to provide. The dog should feel confident in you, and not fear you. Personally my methods and techniques I tell my clients is "you aren't the dog's mother, nor are you a dog yourself, so you shouldn't try to mimic what you see on TV" because 9.9 times out of 10, they are wrong. Someone told me they use a prong collar because its supposed to mimic the mother biting the scruff (which is total b/s to begin with but I disregarded that and said): "You aren't the dog's mother. You are it's owner." With that said, people should provide guidance to their dog. Show the dog how to properly do something when you ask, and not make it do what you ask, or force them to do what you ask. And a good bridge between human communication and canine communication is through food reward for motivation. You see compulsive trainers that use "alpha" and "pack leader" every other word, and totally throw out the idea of motivating with food, but they fail to realize that the food treats aren't going to be used for the rest of the dog's life either. I've watched Cesar Millan and I think he's an idiot, and the people he teaches "his methods" to are clueless. I don't mean to be bias, but no dog should be forced to do anything...it should choose to. (sorry if i went off on a bit of a tangent!)


----------



## onyx'girl

I agree, the words are overused and silly when I hear them used.
But in my "pack" of dogs, there is an alpha within the three of them. So really dogs do have a caste system or pecking order(whatever words you want to use) if you have more than two.

The dog should be taught first, then if the dog chooses to refuse you need to look at your training method and change it. 
It is not the dogs fault for not complying, it is usually the handlers communication to the dog...doesn't matter which collar in your toolbox you are using, communication is key.


----------



## CassandGunnar

I love this discussion thread. As a newer member, this is exactly the kind of thing I come here for. Like a lot of things, training animals of all kinds has evolved over the years. I'm just shy of 50 and grew up on a horse farm. My parents always had GSD's and they worked for a living on the farm. As a child, training dogs was primarily the "dictator" method. Much like saddle training a horse involved gettin' on and doing it until the horse "broke".
My first shepherd was trained in kind of the same fashion. Over the years, especially after having multiple dogs at the same time forced me to change. Having a softer dog and dog that has more prey/work drive make this necessary. (Of course we all mellow as we get older......lol)
I think a lot of people who have owned dogs for many years practiced NILIF for years before it ever had it's official name, I know I did.
You can be alpha without being harsh or mean. I also prefer to think of myself as a leader. 
Like I said earlier, this is one of the best discussions I've seen.
Thanks to everyone.


----------



## bocron




----------



## G-burg

I know this is an older thread...

But working in a training facility.. I've not heard the terms "alpha or dominance" used by too many.. In fact, most people we come in contact with are clueless when it comes to dogs and dog training.. Their dogs are truly in charge of the household, no bond between dog/owner and most have a too kind personality when it comes to their dogs..


----------



## PaddyD

bocron said:


> YouTube - "Alpha" Wolf?


Thanks Bocron. He starts out by saying that the term alpha is now incorrect then he goes on to give a few examples of alpha situations. He can't seem to make up his mind.


----------



## Pepper311

" I personally think "being Alpha" is more about being a calm, confident leader who can and will lay down the law when necessary with a firm but appropriate correction. There seems to be a mindset any more Alpha = dictator and to me this attitude can ruin what could otherwise be an awesome relationship with the family dog or even a working partner. " 

That's it you said is it perfectly. The problems we see is when a dog challenges and wants to become the leader. That's when people start to label the dog as being alpha but in fact the dog is not alpha dog but is trying to become that. power struggles bring out the worst in everyone. 

Also all this comparing dogs to wolves I think is not going to help us Learn anything about dogs. Dogs are not wolves and have not been for 15,000 years. Watching our dog interact with each other is the only way to Learn about dog behavior. we need to Learn from our dogs not there very distant cousin.


----------



## Pepper311

PaddyD said:


> Thanks Bocron. He starts out by saying that the term alpha is now incorrect then he goes on to give a few examples of alpha situations. He can't seem to make up his mind.


He said the term is used incorrectly when you look at a natural pack. It's when you have unnatural packs like a wolf group in the zoo all from different parents. THEN you could use the term alpha for the dog that leads that group. 

In general a natural pack that is formed by 2 parents and there offspring are not going to have ALPHAs. They are going to have parents that teach right from wrong but do not need to dominate. If an offspring does want to become dominate and challenge it is chased off to start it's own pack.


----------



## OriginalWacky

Most people might say I am the alpha in our home, but to me its more a case of not caring so long as certain rules are followed. I guess if that's alpha, then I am.


----------



## codmaster

Pepper311 said:


> " I personally think "being Alpha" is more about being a calm, confident leader who can and will lay down the law when necessary with a firm but appropriate correction. There seems to be a mindset any more Alpha = dictator and to me this attitude can ruin what could otherwise be an awesome relationship with the family dog or even a working partner. "
> 
> That's it you said is it perfectly. The problems we see is when a dog challenges and wants to become the leader. That's when people start to label the dog as being alpha but in fact the dog is not alpha dog but is trying to become that. power struggles bring out the worst in everyone.
> 
> Also all this comparing dogs to wolves I think is not going to help us Learn anything about dogs. Dogs are not wolves and have not been for 15,000 years. *Watching our dog interact with each other is the only way to Learn about dog behavior. we need to Learn from our dogs not there very distant cousin*.


 
A lot of research also suggests that dogs are like immature wolves - thus wouldn't they need a "parent"? (Alpha?)


----------



## Phoebes

When I got my dog his trainer's evaluation was that he is a "natural alpha."
I know it is a subject of controversy, but that's not why I'm bringing it up. I mention it to offer the observations of how she came to that conclusion.

I was supposed to choose between Shadow and his brother to be my future service dog. They were 5 weeks old. Shadow walked steadily to me, and sniffed my hand. Then he went to lay down in the shade. His brother Jason ran to me and bit me. While Shadow rested in the shade, Jason roamed around and checked everyone out.

My parents and I talked to the trainer and the breeder for a while and the trainer poured the pups some kibble in a big bowl. Jason went for it right away and ate sticking to the edges of the bowl. Then Shadow walked over with all his steady calm, went for the kibble in the center of the bowl and planted his paw in the bowl. Jason went away. Shadow ate until maybe 6 or so bits, went back to his spot in the shade and Jason came and ate the rest.

I took both dogs home. Shadow stayed by my bed and Jason explored the whole place. His brother would initiate all the play fighting and fighting (I couldnt always tell the difference) and he would bite a lot harder.

Another observation was when Shadow was 4 months old he met a senior Weimaraner, Cinnamon. Cinnamon has an injured paw and she growled at Shadow when he sniffed it. Shadow retreated and then came forward in full dominance stand (ears forward, chest out, tail wagging) and he talked to her. It was a gentle bark, til she put her head down and laid down. 

So the alpha is calm, gentle, steady, not aggressive.


----------



## Justaguy

This is definitely a good thread. Gives a good explanation on the alpha role. Great read!


----------



## dpc134

I just read this thread and I find it amusing that most disagree with the whole "alpha" and "dominance" theory, but anybody who does any type of training at all is already exhibiting an "alpha" being. Call it what you want, but your pet sees you as the alpha.
I also don't understand all of the negativety associated with being "alpha". Your pet wants you to be alpha and is looking to your for guidance and companionship - both of what, I believe, is being alpha.
Also, scientific research clearly associates GSD (all domestic dogs) to be genetically tied to wolves and have similarities to a pack structure, like wolves. Some dog breeds more than others. GSD are one of the more "pack" oriented breeds. This is based on books that I read, and I believe it. It just makes sense.


----------



## Liesje

dpc the difference for me is that I don't personally believe dogs interact the same way with people as they do with other dogs. I'm fine if one of my dogs is the alpha among my dogs. I allow my dogs a lot of leeway in how they interact and communicate, and unless someone is out for blood I allow them to set their own boundaries and even correct each other (along with showing affection to each other and playing with each other). I'm not the "alpha" in that sense since I do not micromanage dog interactions or care who is the alpha or not as long as the pack is functional. I control all the resources, period, but I don't consider myself an alpha because my relationship with each dog and with the pack is completely different.


----------



## Shaolin

Liesje said:


> dpc the difference for me is that I don't personally believe dogs interact the same way with people as they do with other dogs. I'm fine if one of my dogs is the alpha among my dogs. I allow my dogs a lot of leeway in how they interact and communicate, and unless someone is out for blood I allow them to set their own boundaries and even correct each other (along with showing affection to each other and playing with each other). I'm not the "alpha" in that sense since I do not micromanage dog interactions or care who is the alpha or not as long as the pack is functional. I control all the resources, period, but I don't consider myself an alpha because my relationship with each dog and with the pack is completely different.


This!

I define being Alpha as being the source of all things awesome and the rule maker. I don't micro manage at all, but I allow the animals to do as they see fit as long as they aren't trying to kill each other. I'll let Finn stop Abi from playing if he's had enough, but I'll step in if Abi keeps bothering him after his initial stop. As "Alpha", I make sure that all basic needs are continually met and available at all times: food, water, and a warm spot to sleep in. I hate to use the word "earn", but they earn everything else by being good dogs: no fights over chews means they get to have constant access, responding immediately to commands earns lots of lovin' and treats, and going above and beyond being a good dog and doing something awesome earns them super rewards. If they do something wrong, then an extra is taken away for a period of time, then slowly reintroduced.

I think the word "Alpha" has the negative connotation because of how some people treat "being Alpha". I know dog owners who control their dogs' every movement; the dog doesn't do anything without authorization and affection is the occasional "Good dog". Some believe that being Alpha means that they dole out punishment for every failure and the dogs' reward for doing something good or right means they don't face punishment.

I feel being Alpha is leading by example. I am calm and quietly assertive and my dogs mimic my actions. If I have to be "mean", I am fair and firm in my actions without being aggressive or abrasive. I don't even have to yell, just a firm tone is enough to get the point across that I am displeased and they need to stop whatever they are doing immediately. I don't hold anything against them; I deal with the infraction in the moment, then we move on to bigger and better things.


----------



## sarah1366

Yes where all alpha but it's rare I have to be firm my dogs get treats when there good And 99.9 percent of time there good on the rare occasion there naughty then usually get told that was naughty in firm voice and ignored for little while but I find shepherds rarely need you to be firm they seem to know what's expected of them mine most definitely understand every command given although I find males more dominant my youngest she now and then has what I call selective hearing but if you raise your voice she soon listens in the end all alpha means is yoyr dog has respect for you and will listen especially at the most important times when situation arise that you need them to listen in the end where role models and our dogs look up to us and important we instill the right rules for our dogs but not expect our dogs be perfect all the time mine get loads treats and little hooligans biggest part time usually teasing each other when playing but when out and about there good as gold and listen when need them too and thats what matters and they know there loved 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## dpc134

sarah1366 said:


> Yes where all alpha but it's rare I have to be firm my dogs get treats when there good And 99.9 percent of time there good on the rare occasion there naughty then usually get told that was naughty in firm voice and ignored for little while but I find shepherds rarely need you to be firm they seem to know what's expected of them mine most definitely understand every command given although I find males more dominant my youngest she now and then has what I call selective hearing but if you raise your voice she soon listens in the end all alpha means is yoyr dog has respect for you and will listen especially at the most important times when situation arise that you need them to listen in the end where role models and our dogs look up to us and important we instill the right rules for our dogs but not expect our dogs be perfect all the time mine get loads treats and little hooligans biggest part time usually teasing each other when playing but when out and about there good as gold and listen when need them too and thats what matters and they know there loved
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Wow - I hate to be the internet grammar police, but that was tough to read without punctuation.


----------



## jvaughn

I agree with you. Calm and confident is the best way to describe "alpha". One of the things that our trainer taught us was that in most cases your dog don't want to be the alpha because it's too stressful and to them it's too much responsibility, they only do it when you won't. How can they trust an "alpha" that is always loosing it on them? I try to allow Samurai a little time and patience to "get it" first. Sometimes we forget that they have bad days too. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Juliem24

Remember, the dog grants you the leadership, you don't just assume leadership, he or she has gotta say "ok". More like a brotherhood in my house, with me being the oldest wisest brother!


----------



## SunCzarina

Some dogs you have to have the leadership and they'll test you for it. 

My female is very accepting of guidance and gentle leadership. As a consequence I'm less strict with her than the male - who's 4 years older. If I spoke to Venus like I have to be so firm like a drill sargent with Otto, she wouldn't melt but it's really unnecessary with her.


----------



## Wolfgeist

Juliem24 said:


> Remember, the dog grants you the leadership, you don't just assume leadership, he or she has gotta say "ok". More like a brotherhood in my house, with me being the oldest wisest brother!


I don't believe that is true. It is the very reason dogs and wolves will leave their packs and form new ones if they do not accept the reigning authority. 

What if your high drive, high energy, rank driven dog decides to say "no"?


----------



## Juliem24

I think I didn't speak clearly, sorry. I am the "leader of the pack" because I don't allow my dogs to think otherwise. In that sense, they don't grant me leadership, but they do allow me to keep that role. I sorta have to fool them into thinking I'm bigger (not), stronger ( definitely not) and smarter ( sometimes not). Rudy however, does think I'm bigger and stronger, so he allows me the privilege. Still not exactly what I mean, it's late and the brain isn't so bright (don't tell Rudy)!


----------



## David Taggart

Your question is very complex. All social creatures share same behavioral characteristics, whether it people or elephants, all of us need a leader, and, in this sense a dog pack structure could be seen in the same way as human community. Patricia McConell believes that the issue how humans or other animals become leaders is genetic. She quotes famous authors about it. You have to be born Spartacus, recognized as Spartacus from the very birth in order to carry the war against invaders, and also to expand your people's territory. Among bitches it is the alpha-mother decides who of her daughters can better play the future alpha role, though the alpha male is chosen by the whole pack. Another interesting thing is that alpha behaviour of a male is different than that of a female. 

Instinct in both males and females to protect his pack and subsequently his defense drive supports inborn qualities to become a leader. But, this conserns situations when there's a choice with many creatures in the group/pack, what about a small human family with a puppy? In absence of a leader in the pack any dog would try absolutely naturally (sometimes badly) to play alpha role, if he senses his owner's inner weakness, because for us to be a leader mainly means - ambitions, and for our dogs, who live by instincts, it means - survaval, they simply cannot afford to live without a true strong defender of the pack. Your dog should recognize you as a leader whom he/she can trust, that's why building a strong bond with one particular member of human family is so important. If you wonder if you are an alpha to your dog - ask yourself - does your dog trust you? Would he follow you into the fire, water, would he jump, if you jump? Dog can have only one owner, one leader, naturally he wants to obey only one person, not several. As in any other hyerarchal order, other family members would be inferior to him in his doggy mind. Of course, it doesn't automatically mean agression (mistakingly dominance is associated with agression). The trouble appears more often in the families, the members of which compete for the position of being the boss. Dog senses it, if there is a competition between husband and wife, when everyone wants to be an alpha, to command, including small children who copy their parents. For the dog it means - absence of a true leader. Normally, families with a sound leadership of one person don't deal with problems such as bitten children by their family pet, or obedience problems.

But, dogs extend this alpha issue beyond their home and pack. I believe, that is because it is natural for dogs to swap their packs. In the doggy park they behave differently than with family members. And not only because they use their doggy body language more freely, but also because the pack has a diffrent order. Like we, humans do at work, every doggy park has its own Head of the Department, middle management, workers and pawns.


----------



## Jarkko

David Taggart said:


> Dog can have only one owner, one leader, naturally he wants to obey only one person, not several. As in any other hyerarchal order, other family members would be inferior to him in his doggy mind. Of course, it doesn't automatically mean agression (mistakingly dominance is associated with agression). The trouble appears more often in the families, the members of which compete for the position of being the boss. Dog senses it, if there is a competition between husband and wife, when everyone wants to be an alpha, to command, including small children who copy their parents. For the dog it means - absence of a true leader. Normally, families with a sound leadership of one person don't deal with problems such as bitten children by their family pet, or obedience problems.


I think is a very important question. How can a person be a firm leader for a high-drive dog and at the same time his/her authority be questioned within the family? Leadership is not very modern concept in family life, I would say, not at least in a same way as it would be in the dogs world. Maybe this was the situation in the 1800's, but not anymore . I believe the best answer to this is to socially isolate (somewhat, not completely of course) high-drive competition dogs so that the handler will do most of the interaction with the dog. Kennel outside the house would be perfect solution. This way the dog cannot see the normal human interaction and yes, basically absence of true leader, which is the norm (at least it should be) in the modern family (of course I mean adults, not children).


----------



## Lykoz

For the dog:
1) Build a relationship. Engagement.
2) Management of dogs (Freedoms, Control of food,Not put dog in positions where he may engage in inappropriate behaviours early on.)
3) Consistency
4) positive Reinforcement
5) Establish clear understanding 
6) Posturing
7) Corrections (only when dog understands right from wrong)

For Me:
1) Be confident
2) Patient
3) Consistent 
4) fair
5) Have a presence (Dogs must mind me)


----------



## SuperG

Smarter than the dog and 3 steps ahead of them. "Smarter" encompasses an awful lot....

SuperG


----------



## Prager

One of the ways you can look at Alpha dog is as a relative relationship which you have with your dog. Even a weak dog will become alpha if your leadership is weak. 
True Alpha is a dog which will challenge all the time and is not able to submit. but those dogs are very rare.


----------



## Prager

DancingCavy said:


> That's pretty much the way I see things too. The whole 'be an alpha' thing makes me cringe all the time. Not because you shouldn't be a good leader to your dog but because everyone thinks it's a 'DO IT NOW OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES' type of training style. And I'll admit, I sort of started that way with Ris. Sit when I say sit or there will be **** to pay (once she knew what sit was, of course). Yes, I am ashamed I did that to her, but I didn't know better at the time. I'm glad I changed my ways. Our relationship has blossomed because of it.
> 
> I've learned a lot about dogs since I brought Ris home. . .and I thought I knew it all before! I think of my canine relationship more as a partnership. I am not the boss of Ris, but I am in charge. I'm in charge of keeping her safe and happy. If she refuses to sit when I ask her. . .I should ask myself "Why?" In most cases, it's not her challenging my position (actually I don't think Ris would even do such a thing). She may be distracted. She may not have heard me. She might be too afraid/worried to sit down. Not taking the "It's my way or the highway" approach with her has helped her see me as a better leader and makes her pay attention to me better. I actually take her concerns into consideration and don't just lay down the hand of God because she didn't do what I asked. And with a reactive/fearful dog, that means the world to them!
> 
> There are rules in my house and they are followed. I don't let her barrel out of doors ahead of me, but it's for safety more than anything. I also expect her to not drag me around town on a leash. To wait before just diving into her food every night. She does eat after me, but it's more out of convenience for us than anything else. While she's calming down from exercising, I can make and eat my dinner.


So if you do not train the dog to respond on the first command since it "makes you cringe' when do they respond? on 2nd or 5th command or when ever that feel .


----------



## Prager

Dog can have more then one leaders. it is a hierarchy where the dog may be 3rd thus if 31 leader is not present then the dog will see #2 as a leader. Also if more members above the dog are present, then unless the commands are contradictory then the dog will respond to the one who is giving the command or the last command. Thus yes the dog can have or recognized several people as a leader.


----------



## newlie

Brightelf said:


> I think it depends more on the type of dog than any other factor. Has my dog got a towering, tyrannical dominance agenda? Or is she/he the meek, unassuming Edith Bunker of the dog world?
> 
> Our ideals for what type of training & management is "best" need to sometimes be set aside when the dog needs something different than we plan to give in terms of management. There are dogs (& relationships) that are truly damaged by old school, heavy-handed techniques. There are, however, also dogs who completely fall apart withOUT some firm corrections. And here again, dogs & relationships can be damaged in this case too, if the handler isn't openminded enough to correct when the dog needs it.
> 
> My own dog thrives on positive training for learning new things, positive, motivational training for keeping our relationship healthy, but this is a dog who can only relax, settle and be comfortable with reliable firm-but-fair corrections should he test.. and test again. NOT a dog with a towering dominance agenda, but a dog who totally relaxes when someone keeps things feeling safe for him that way. "Oh.. the top spot in the pack is still taken? Okay, cool! Gonna go chew my Kong now, Mom."
> 
> If I could go back in time, I would have stopped the original owners of my last GSD from using harsh methods with Chell. If I could go back in time with the dog I have now, I would have been more balanced in my training with him-- yes, tons of motivational, positive training... but I would have been a firmer leader with him re corrections. Thank God, I have a dog who doesn't need frequent reminders.
> 
> In any event, whether doing NILIF to calm an anxious dog/stabilize & soothe an aggrivated dominant dog... or choosing a training style.. it can never be one size fits all. I think we have to be openminded to what each dog needs, watch how our manegement styles effect them, and accept criticism, and work to do what brings our own dogs the most stability and comfort, whatever fosters a loving, warm relationship-- and run management/training advice through our mental filters.
> 
> Gotta do what is best for each individual dog, and prioritize what works best for that specific dog, over other people's advice-- and sometimes even over our own ideas.


I agree. Newlie was not my first dog, but he is my first GSD. My first dog was a yellow lab, very gentle, and a simple look from me or a "No" was enough. He would have been crushed with anything much beyond that.

Make no mistake, Newlie is a wonderful dog in his own right, but he is different than Max. Different breed and much younger when I got him. For those of you that have had a lot of experience with dogs, he probably would be a piece of cake, but for me, he has been more of a challenge. He does not care much for other animals but loves and is good with people of all ages and is affectionate and loving with me. I don't really think he is a dominant dog, per se, but I think he can be a little stubborn and hard-headed and I think he could become a problem if given too much license.

I honestly would be perfectly willing to do nothing but positive reinforcement if Newlie responded to it the way Max did but he doesn't. Oh, I don't want to sound like a tyrant, he gets loads of praise and rewards and affection, but there are times when none of that means as much as doing what he wants to do. So, if he doesn't feel like shaking hands or something like that, I will try to motivate him with encouragement and a cookie and praise. But when it's something important that I am telling him, something that could conceivably mean the difference between life and death for him, I want him to respond and respond now, not 6 months from now or when he feels like it. I have found through trial and error that he responds much better to these kind of commands when I use a firm, no-nonsense, "do-it now" voice. 

There is no question that Newlie knows what I am asking when I require compliance. If I had any doubts about this it would be a different story. I have had Newlie for over two years now. I can say "Sit" in my regular voice and he will generally do it immediately if he sees a treat in my hand. and sometimes he will do it immediately without a treat. But often, he will look at me and you can just see the wheels turning: "Where's my cookie?" "Is she really serious?" "Do you think she will mind if I don't do it till later on?" Oh, he generally does do it eventually, but not until he makes up his mind and that can take a few minutes. Now, if I give the same command in a strong, forceful voice, he does it immediately. 

Yesterday, we were out in my yard and the little girl came over to show me some new chicks that they had and Newlie started to go into his idiot routine (where he runs back and forth, charges the fence, stands on his hind legs and barks, etc) and I wheeled around and told him to "Sit" in my no-nonsense voice and he did it! I was amazed, I had to turn around and look again myself, he actually did it when every cell in his body was telling him not to. Now, he had not reached his red zone yet but still...

This does not come easily for me and I still sometimes forget and use my regular voice, but I have seen for myself what a difference it makes. And so I have to do what I think is best for the dog, not what is comfortable for me.


----------



## Prager

No,... one size does not fit all indeed but you can not deny gravity either. There are certain undeniable rules of life by which the dog needs to be trained and if they are ignored then that may lead to serious trouble. The modern so call enlightened and evolved methods are the biggest culprit in "denying of gravity." They think that if the dog can be trains to sit or not to attack other dogs or what ever with positive only then all in his life needs to be positive. Nothing is farther from the truth and nothing confused the training concepts to novice trainers more then such notion.


----------



## Nikitta

I am the boss of my house. You growl at me, you get slapped. You try to bite me, you get slapped. I know many people disagree with me when puppies go through their land-shark stuff. I have raised 7 GSDs. You bite me, you get slapped. There is no redirect in my house. I'M the boss. I don't abuse my dogs but I don't put up with crap either. Call me wrong. Those are the facts.


----------



## ILoveBella478

Nikitta said:


> I am the boss of my house. You growl at me, you get slapped. You try to bite me, you get slapped. I know many people disagree with me when puppies go through their land-shark stuff. I have raised 7 GSDs. You bite me, you get slapped. There is no redirect in my house. I'M the boss. I don't abuse my dogs but I don't put up with crap either. Call me wrong. Those are the facts.


I agree with you I see numerous people give little taps on the muzzle or grab the muzzle bella bit me and broke skin one time because she was in brat mood she got a pop on the muzzle and went in time out and we have the most concentrated relationship she really treats me like a dad she always want to cuddle wants my attention doesn't want to leave my side she always wants to play so I agree with you its rare if she gets a quick pop


----------



## Prager

Nikitta said:


> I am the boss of my house. You growl at me, you get slapped. You try to bite me, you get slapped. I know many people disagree with me when puppies go through their land-shark stuff. I have raised 7 GSDs. You bite me, you get slapped. There is no redirect in my house. I'M the boss. I don't abuse my dogs but I don't put up with crap either. Call me wrong. Those are the facts.


 I would try to change your mind on "slapping" your dog regardless how measured and minimal such "slap" is. It simply "does not compute" and dog , if treated in such way is bound to get confused and scared of you. Dogs do not understand strikes because they do not strike each other. They bite.
So use your hand to bite the dog. Choker and pinch dose the same. 
I hit a dog as a correction only in my self defense, when the dog mounts full blown attack on me.


----------



## Baillif

They understand it is unplesant and if it is connected to their action of biting then they learn to avoid it by not biting. Nothing wrong with using a strike to punish a dog as long as it is marked well timed and clear to the dog. Also you should use that same hand to pet and love the dog to keep the dog emotionally neutral to the hand and not make the dog hand shy.


----------



## Prager

Baillif said:


> They understand it is unplesant and if it is connected to their action of biting then they learn to avoid it by not biting. Nothing wrong with using a strike to punish a dog as long as it is marked well timed and clear to the dog. Also you should use that same hand to pet and love the dog to keep the dog emotionally neutral to the hand and not make the dog hand shy.


You are kidding right? Just checking. Are you actually advocating to hit as a mans of training a dog and you do that on international forum?


----------



## Baillif

A slap on the muzzle or the head isn't different from a prong correction or an e collar. You have this weird idea in your head about dogs understanding electrical stimulation but not a physical correction with your hand. 

As long as the dog isn't physically hurt or emotionally or mentally damaged by a method of correction and it is clear and fair and timed then game on. You have no moral ground to stand on.


----------



## ILoveBella478

Baillif said:


> A slap on the muzzle or the head isn't different from a prong correction or an e collar. You have this weird idea in your head about dogs understanding electrical stimulation but not a physical correction with your hand.
> 
> As long as the dog isn't physically hurt or emotionally or mentally damaged by a method of correction and it is clear and fair and timed then game on. You have no moral ground to stand on.


Exactly it worked for me and my relationship with my dog is beyond great she's happy as can be she's a spoiled little brat but wife always brag how good our bond is I don't physically hurt her I barely ever do it she gets the point she use to bite me and evey time she did I gave a little tap right on muzzle and said "NO!" Now when we play fight she doesn't break skin she'll just put her mouth around me and let go in the wolf world when one gets out of line the alpha male bites down on the muzzle


----------



## Prager

Baillif said:


> A slap on the muzzle or the head isn't different from a prong correction or an e collar. You have this weird idea in your head about dogs understanding electrical stimulation but not a physical correction with your hand.
> 
> As long as the dog isn't physically hurt or emotionally or mentally damaged by a method of correction and it is clear and fair and timed then game on. You have no moral ground to stand on.


 I still am considering your post as a form of simplistic trolling since it is unforeseeable that you are serious in saying that it is OK to beat dogs as a legit training method. 
And also 
nowhere have I said e collar or electrical stimulation. I am basically against e collar . Also I have not say anything about moral ground all those are your words not mine with which you are intending to inflame legitimate discussion . Quite primitive attempt for entertainment. Nice try though.


----------



## Baillif

Primative is your understanding of dog training. A slap is considerably different from beating your dog.

People who truely understand dog training can take a stick and direct the dog with the stick, punish the dog with the stick, play with the dog with the stick, pet the dog with the stick and at the end of the day have the dog emotionally neutral to the stick. You clearly don't understand training.


----------



## Prager

felimi


Baillif said:


> Primative is your understanding of dog training. A slap is considerably different from beating your dog.
> 
> People who truly understand dog training can take a stick and direct the dog with the stick, punish the dog with the stick, play with the dog with the stick, pet the dog with the stick and at the end of the day have the dog emotionally neutral to the stick. You clearly don't understand training.


 So you are serious. And now we are at sophistry of semantics and at hominem attacks. Well that means that I must have said something right. 
"Slap" . OK fair enough you said "slap". Slap is synonymous ( equal) with hit, strike, smack, clout, cuff, thump, punch, spank;..... so forgive me use different, but equal word to word "slap" - "Hit" . 
Also it is amazing that when I say "slapping the dog is not my preferred training method" that you would immediately deduct from it that I do not know how to train dogs and my training methods are "primitive" . Curious. ....
Yes, as you say, you can train a dog many different ways . I personally prefer to train the dog with methods going "along with the dog" and methods naturally and inherently understandable to the dog. hitting or forgive me "slapping " the dog is not part of such approach. 
Yes, dog understands slap, hit , because it hurts ... and yes if used in order to avoid pain, it will work and yes he understand if you hit him , oh I am sorry you said "punish him with a stick" he will try to avoid such situation and will associated it with NO!,... if it was said before the "punishment w. the stick" .
But such Machiavellian - end justifies the means - is not what I as a trainer prefer to do. 
I always prefer to come to as close to dog's understanding of, in this case my leadership position and direction away from trouble, as possible. Example Dog understands what growling means - thus they understand what NO! said with deeper then normal voice of the handler means and I will use it in order to condition him with it consistently,persistently and with good timing for hundred's of repetition. And dogs understand what grip or bite in the back of the dog's neck means, thus he understand the similar feeling produced by my hand, pinch or chock collar menas. That is not matter of morals as you said before, but of communication with the dog on level to him easily understood and backed by his inherited instincts. 
You can "punish your dog with stick" that is fine with me . I'll use my methods though. As they say. To each his own. No need to get personal.


----------



## Moriah

I am so not an expert.

Off topic: Having seen many of the videos that Baillif posts of Zebu and Crank, though, I can't imagine seeing happier dogs doing advanced obedience. With audio, Baillif's "yes" is priceless when marking behavior. I am trying to copy that "yes!"


----------



## Stonevintage

The post titled "Crank has laser focus" with the video's shows some amazing results (pages 3 & 4) some good explanations....


----------



## Moriah

Oops! I am imitating Baliff's "nice" when I say "yes." My dog loves it


----------



## David Taggart

In the dog pack the Alpha never fights any other dog for his/her position until old age when his powers expended. Fights to gain or approve position in the pack hierarchy happen between Beta dogs. First I have read it in Patricia McConell books, then started to notice myself that there is a lot of truth in her words.
If you physically supress your dog - you automatically sign yourself in Beta position. Of course, you are stronger than your dog, but your "fight against him" would never stop, because Beta dogs fight for higher position all their lives.
Patricia McConell says that the dog has to be born to be alpha, his mother should have been Alpha, and it was her who decided to choose one of her puppies to be her hierarchal follower. Very few people posess such dogs, the majority of us have Beta issues with our dogs thinking that we are solving Alpha problems.


----------



## Prager

bocron said:


> YouTube - "Alpha" Wolf?


 So the "father wolf" is not alpha? He is not in top dominant position? And he is not challenged periodically for food or breeding rights by his progeny? And if he is periodically challenged doesn't he kick ass? And when he gets too old then he get's his ass kicked. How does this make sense? 
So if there is no violent conflict according to this academic dude why is there growling, dominant posturing, bearing teeth , towering, hackles up strongly inherited in all wolfs and dogs if there is no reason for it. Ever ?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Prager, a friendly heads up several of the people quoted here wrote those posts 2-3 years ago. They probably won't answer as they don't really post here anymore or that often.

The thread is rather old. Further Baillif didn't commit an ad hom. He didn't attack you personally, just your reasoning regarding training methods. Just sayin'


----------



## David Taggart

> why is there growling, dominant posturing, bearing teeth , towering, hackles up strongly inherited in all wolfs and dogs if there is no reason for it. Ever ?


Growling, dominant posturing, bearing teeth , towering, hackles up - wrongly interpreted by us agression when there's none. The pack wouldn't have survived if the leader was under constant attack. The leader is only groomed, liked and benefits from all dogs in the pack attention, he is the subject to jealosy (common in human family with a dog). And if he favours another dog - that one becomes the second in the pack. If your dog minds you an Alpha - turning your back to him and depriving him from your attention would be the worst punishment for him. But, of course, you have to be Alpha if you want to use your ignorance to your dog as a training tool.


----------



## Stonevintage

Dogs do not have the level of reasoning that wolves do. The Alpha is constantly having to win challenges by the Beta members. If you wanted to set up that scenario with an Alpha or Beta dog, you may get attacked, unless you have the 3rd kind, the subordinate.


----------



## Baillif

Just as an aside dominance theory has been debunked period. I don't subscribe to it at all. It is an outdated false paradigm that needs to be killed off once and for all but it just keeps living. Everything i do falls within the realm of operant and classical conditioning and learning theory although there is some room for cognition and things like social facilitation.

Dogs are contextual learners and although there is some bleed over that can occur it is often over stated. So for example. Eating before your dog or stepping through a door before your dog won't make the dog respect you or see you as dominant and naturally yield to you in other situations in life. Not gonna happen.


----------



## David Taggart

> If you wanted to set up that scenario with an Alpha or Beta dog


I would never be able to recreate anything. "Alpha" is not just one type, there are several types of Alpha males and Alpha females, and they behave differently according to their age. Can an average human behave like Alpha at all naturally? Unlike small dog packs, our human society is huge, and you can see your Alpha only on TV. The small world of our own family doesn't provide us with opportunities to exercise our ability to become a real leader of the pack. So, I read the books and learn how to "fool" my dog from the very start when he/she is little. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNtFgdwTsbU


----------



## Prager

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Prager, a friendly heads up several of the people quoted here wrote those posts 2-3 years ago. They probably won't answer as they don't really post here anymore or that often.
> 
> The thread is rather old. Further Baillif didn't commit an ad hom. He didn't attack you personally, just your reasoning regarding training methods. Just sayin'


 OK about 2-3 years ago. So what? Is that against tot rules here to post on old posts? If it is I stop. 

Ad hominem: And to call my training primitive and saying that I do not understand training and that real trainers do it differently is not personal attack? Funny. I think it is.


----------



## Prager

Baillif said:


> Just as an aside dominance theory has been debunked period. I don't subscribe to it at all. It is an outdated false paradigm that needs to be killed off once and for all but it just keeps living. Everything i do falls within the realm of operant and classical conditioning and learning theory although there is some room for cognition and things like social facilitation.
> 
> Dogs are contextual learners and although there is some bleed over that can occur it is often over stated. So for example. Eating before your dog or stepping through a door before your dog won't make the dog respect you or see you as dominant and naturally yield to you in other situations in life. Not gonna happen.


How had it been debunked? Are you telling us that dominance among dogs does not exist? Are telling us that there are no leaders of the pack. that dogs do not fight, growl, posture, snare, hackles up....? And if they do then why if not for showing dominance? = I mean mental and physical dominance.


----------



## Prager

David Taggart said:


> Growling, dominant posturing, bearing teeth , towering, hackles up - wrongly interpreted by us agression when there's none. The pack wouldn't have survived if the leader was under constant attack. The leader is only groomed, liked and benefits from all dogs in the pack attention, he is the subject to jealosy (common in human family with a dog). And if he favours another dog - that one becomes the second in the pack. If your dog minds you an Alpha - turning your back to him and depriving him from your attention would be the worst punishment for him. But, of course, you have to be Alpha if you want to use your ignorance to your dog as a training tool.


 I do not agree with this notion that "Growling, dominant posturing, bearing teeth , towering, hackles up - wrongly interpreted by us agression...." if it is not aggression then what it is. It is a threat and threat is a type of aggression. To say otherwise would demand explanation.


----------



## Prager

Stonevintage said:


> Dogs do not have the level of reasoning that wolves do. The Alpha is constantly having to win challenges by the Beta members. If you wanted to set up that scenario with an Alpha or Beta dog, you may get attacked, unless you have the 3rd kind, the subordinate.


Dogs do not have level of reasoning as wolfs do but all their reasoning is derived from a wolf. The rest of the post is very interesting but to me hard to comprehend what exactly are you trying to say. Can you elaborate in greater detail and clarity? 
Thank you.


----------



## Stonevintage

If a dog perceives you as subordinate or dominate but weak, he may assert himself to the point of challenging or attacking/biting you.

Pro trainers, to me have more than just training tools and known methods. They go in and take control, never doubting, never questioning that they are the leader. 

Subordinate wolves normally only fight the pack leader to challenge for position as alpha (which translates to breeding rights). So, it puzzles me why a dog would want to challenge a person in the first place (to drive the person away from his pack maybe)? The concept or instinct that wolves have in order to support a healthy pack hierarchy seems to be partially missing in the dog (or at least some dogs). 

Sorry Preger - this is probably clear as mud too. I'm just saying that I do believe in dominance/alpha behavior but I also believe that something is different or missing with dogs that separates them to the point that wolf behaviors and pack order is fragmented in the dog.


----------



## Phantom

I feel like the "alpha" is kind of like an overseer. Not a bully or a power hungry jerk. Simply a calm being who supervises and directs others(when necessary). Someone who wants to make sure everything runs smoothly and that everyone gets along and is safe.

I am not sure you can just become a leader. Some are born leaders, some can act as leader, but some are just not meant for that position.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Not necessarily against the rules, but frowned upon, especially when it's dragging up an old thread, responding to people who don't post here any longer and taking an exceptionally unnecessary and argumentative tone.

Have a good day. 




Prager said:


> OK about 2-3 years ago. So what? Is that against tot rules here to post on old posts? If it is I stop.
> 
> Ad hominem: And to call my training primitive and saying that I do not understand training and that real trainers do it differently is not personal attack? Funny. I think it is.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Oops, wait a minute. My mistake on one aspect, this thread is stickied to the top. So old thread doesn't matter.


----------



## ctidmore

To me “Alpha” really only means that a puppy/dog will rule if their owner/handler does not set the rules for them. A passive dog will go along and not be pushy, and can do fair with minimal training; but to me an “alpha” will say I am going to do it this way no matter what IF the owner/handler lets them get by with it. I DO NOT believe you have to really do anything different in the way you train/handle a “alpha” dog, you should just really know HOW to train/handle period if you are going to have dogs. BUT NEED to KNOW better if you have an “alpha”. I don’t cringe or anything when I hear the term, but maybe because I am thinking a puppy/dog that needs to know for sure he/she won’t be the ruler and have to guide them into understanding that. I recently took back a male puppy that I consider “alpha”; his new owner had no idea how to handle him and became afraid of him at 4 months. L They did NOT know how to train. With me he is VERY confident, does try to push or be Alpha over pups his age, but respects the older dogs. Balance training to me consists of praise/correction equally. IMO Relationship with ALL dogs is really the basic beginning, and I think some people don’t get that. IF you have no relationship you won’t get respect (mutual) between you and your dog.


----------



## Jax08

Prager said:


> How had it been debunked? Are you telling us that dominance among dogs does not exist? Are telling us that there are no leaders of the pack. that dogs do not fight, growl, posture, snare, hackles up....? And if they do then why if not for showing dominance? = I mean mental and physical dominance.


The dominance theory was disproved in that the original study was done on captive wolves which created an artificial pack structure. When done one wolves in the wild, by the same researcher, he found that they do not have the dominant/alpha pack structure that he found in captive wolves. You should be able to easily find more in-depth information on an internet search

Dogs are now wolves. There is a study out there on a pack of feral dogs that again showed a different natural construct within a pack of dogs. Dogs do not follow the most aggressive "alpha" dog. They follow the one that will cooperate. Again, you can find more info on the internet.

But none of our dogs are feral and they aren't wolves. So where does that leave us? With an artificially constructed pack of DOGS. I think, and this is just my opinion based on the above studies, that we humans mess things up. In a feral pack, the aggressor would be left out of the pack. But we continue to force the dogs to be confined together and create rules for them to live by. I think that's why we still see dogs in our "packs" that are more dominant over another.

And yes, I think that truly dominant dogs to exist. I think those are the ones 99.9% of people can not handle.


----------



## WesS

Jax08 said:


> Prager said:
> 
> 
> 
> How had it been debunked? Are you telling us that dominance among dogs does not exist? Are telling us that there are no leaders of the pack. that dogs do not fight, growl, posture, snare, hackles up....? And if they do then why if not for showing dominance? = I mean mental and physical dominance.
> 
> 
> 
> The dominance theory was disproved in that the original study was done on captive wolves which created an artificial pack structure. When done one wolves in the wild, by the same researcher, he found that they do not have the dominant/alpha pack structure that he found in captive wolves. You should be able to easily find more in-depth information on an internet search
> 
> Dogs are now wolves. There is a study out there on a pack of feral dogs that again showed a different natural construct within a pack of dogs. Dogs do not follow the most aggressive "alpha" dog. They follow the one that will cooperate. Again, you can find more info on the internet.
> 
> But none of our dogs are feral and they aren't wolves. So where does that leave us? With an artificially constructed pack of DOGS. I think, and this is just my opinion based on the above studies, that we humans mess things up. In a feral pack, the aggressor would be left out of the pack. But we continue to force the dogs to be confined together and create rules for them to live by. I think that's why we still see dogs in our "packs" that are more dominant over another.
> 
> And yes, I think that truly dominant dogs to exist. I think those are the ones 99.9% of people can not handle.
Click to expand...

Wow. Somebody who read and understood, applied mechs literature correctly.

A sight for sore eyes. Well done. I See mechs newer work misquoted continuously.

At the end of the day we do form artificial packs with out dogs. And they react biologically to the new situation.

Also they don't get to imprint on us as they do with their parents. As happens in natural wild wolves.

I just wanted to add that I don't believe truly feral dogs exist. So it's hard to study them. There is always human intervention and likely hard to find a second third generation born of that pack.

To be honest I think some of the feral studies are a bit hope and miss. People with dogs day in and day out probably observe them better anyways. 

We live with them and see how they react. Yet we're always looking for outside 'scientific' studies to justify the observations right in front of us.


----------



## BritishLineOwner

WesS said:


> Wow. Somebody who read and understood, applied mechs literature correctly.
> 
> A sight for sore eyes. Well done. I See mechs newer work misquoted continuously.
> 
> At the end of the day we do form artificial packs with out dogs. And they react biologically to the new situation.
> 
> Also they don't get to imprint on us as they do with their parents. As happens in natural wild wolves.
> 
> I just wanted to add that I don't believe truly feral dogs exist. So it's hard to study them. There is always human intervention and likely hard to find a second third generation born of that pack.
> 
> To be honest I think some of the feral studies are a bit hope and miss. People with dogs day in and day out probably observe them better anyways.
> 
> We live with them and see how they react. Yet we're always looking for outside 'scientific' studies to justify the observations right in front of us.


I feel like I should add this, bare with me as I can't remember who conducted the study but I used to speak to someone from Germany who was a scientist and specialised in dogs and cattle, and she had told me that there have been studies that have evidenced that domesticated dogs do not actually act differently from wolves in terms of social structure, that they look at humans the same way they look at their parents and behave in a similar way, they found this through brain scans I believe. 

I don't know all the ins and outs of it, I, personally, do not misquote Mech's studies because you really don't need to, when there are actually other studies aside from Mech's that have shown that dogs owned by humans still don't act in alpha/dominance based structures.

I think a lot of people seem to think that Mech is the be all and end all, when in actuality he was the one that got the ball rolling and there has been a lot more work done into the research since then that is confirming the notion that domesticated dogs use the same structure as wolves. 

I think it's a good thing to look into studies and that, from myself as a dog owner, I'm fully aware that I don't know everything and I myself have made a lot of assumptions about my dogs that I later found out were not true. I'm aware that while I'm a dog owner and I'd like to think I'm a decent trainer, I'm not someone who literally studies dog psychology and social behaviour as their job, which is why I've always been more inclined to believe a scientist over another dog owner. 

I hope you understand what I'm saying.


----------



## WesS

BritishLineOwner said:


> WesS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Somebody who read and understood, applied mechs literature correctly.
> 
> A sight for sore eyes. Well done. I See mechs newer work misquoted continuously.
> 
> At the end of the day we do form artificial packs with out dogs. And they react biologically to the new situation.
> 
> Also they don't get to imprint on us as they do with their parents. As happens in natural wild wolves.
> 
> I just wanted to add that I don't believe truly feral dogs exist. So it's hard to study them. There is always human intervention and likely hard to find a second third generation born of that pack.
> 
> To be honest I think some of the feral studies are a bit hope and miss. People with dogs day in and day out probably observe them better anyways.
> 
> We live with them and see how they react. Yet we're always looking for outside 'scientific' studies to justify the observations right in front of us.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like I should add this, bare with me as I can't remember who conducted the study but I used to speak to someone from Germany who was a scientist and specialised in dogs and cattle, and she had told me that there have been studies that have evidenced that domesticated dogs do not actually act differently from wolves in terms of social structure, that they look at humans the same way they look at their parents and behave in a similar way, they found this through brain scans I believe.
> 
> I don't know all the ins and outs of it, I, personally, do not misquote Mech's studies because you really don't need to, when there are actually other studies aside from Mech's that have shown that dogs owned by humans still don't act in alpha/dominance based structures.
> 
> I think a lot of people seem to think that Mech is the be all and end all, when in actuality he was the one that got the ball rolling and there has been a lot more work done into the research since then that is confirming the notion that domesticated dogs use the same structure as wolves.
> 
> I think it's a good thing to look into studies and that, from myself as a dog owner, I'm fully aware that I don't know everything and I myself have made a lot of assumptions about my dogs that I later found out were not true. I'm aware that while I'm a dog owner and I'd like to think I'm a decent trainer, I'm not someone who literally studies dog psychology and social behaviour as their job, which is why I've always been more inclined to believe a scientist over another dog owner.
> 
> I hope you understand what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Good post.

I also wanted to add that despite the mans vast experience on wolves. (Mech).

His actual time in the wolf realm and his observations pale in contrast to some dog people who are involved in breeding-working dogs-etc.

Now the dog guys are not really writing peer reviewed academic studies. But they have an observational relationship and everyday interaction with dogs that in my opinion far exceeds wolves.

Also the social environment of a dog, unlike the wolf is now living with humans. It's nice to see their 'wild state' free of human interaction. I believe in evolutionary biology and so forth. But sometimes in the name of science people are sometimes held back by an elitist academia together with the inability to acquire funding for certain things. At the end of the day most too trainers have learned what they know through mostly an apprentiship model rather than mostly through academic study.

I saw a video the other day of a dog and two cats. Should try look for it and attach it.

The cats were fighting. Dog came corrected the cat. And then left when they stop fighting. I think again that shows the extent that dogs might ascribe to some form of pack structure.

I don't see the term alpha and dominance as really synonymous words. A jumpy aggressive dog is not really the 'alpha' at all. 

The way people define and redefine and then interpret how they see such things. Often guys 'both' sides of the arguement riled up.

I believe dogs do need leadership to be good partners in our home. How people define it, is semantics really.

What really gets me is people who always attack pack structure because they think it was somehow 'disproven'.

Edit: found the video.


----------



## Kathrynil

I define being "alpha" or "the leader" as getting the dog to understand that you are the one he should look to and listen to no matter what, and knowing that he is not the one who gets the advantages and privileges.


----------



## car2ner

in my house my hubby and I are They Who Must Be Obeyed. We are benevolent dictators. No need to press the "alpha" idea. No need to eat first. They already know we decide when breakfast is, when and what dinner is, where the sleeping places are, and who decides when the doors open and close. They even have to depend on us to let them know when they can "go to the bathroom"! They see us leave the house and come home with bags of food. They must think we are exceptional hunters. They see us leave the house and might wonder if we are going to the park without them. They have no clue about going to work in offices, the doctor, school, etc. 
We then have have to be clear as possible communicating what we expect of our dogs. The rules have to be fair and firm. Consequences quick and to the point, not over harsh and not wishy-washy. And it is best if we have some fun together. After that we have to let dogs be dogs with as much flexibility as is reasonable.


----------



## GSDchoice

Kathrynil said:


> Wolves have the decision to either continue fighting with their leader or to obey, so they choose the more smart position, but they definitely would love to take a chunk out of their pack leader given a chance.


As Jax08 pointed out earlier, a wolf pack consists of an alpha male, alpha female (his life mate) and their pups. A pack is more like a Family. The image of hostility and "upsmanship" in wolf packs has been updated, due to biologists observing natural packs in the wild instead of the artificial pack created by putting a bunch of unrelated wolves into a zoo.
So the analogy has often been made that being a good Pack Leader to your dog is more akin to being a good Parent...firm, consistent, but loving...

Another note (something I've experienced in Real Life) is that sometimes when a dog growls, it's not because it's trying to dominate...it's because it feels nervous or fearful - the opposite of dominance. If you punish the dog or force it into a vulnerable posture, you may make things worse and make the dog even MORE nervous/fearful and more likely to bite. So, I think an important note is to not assume every bad behavior is due to dominance...but try to understand why the dog is doing what it is doing. ( For example, sometimes your dog may walk ahead of you on leash...not because he thinks he's the boss, but just because he's in a hurry to check out that smell! )

_( i'm an animal geek and read books about wolves (and dogs and other animals) for fun...)_


----------



## Sabis mom

Kathrynil said:


> Well, I define being "alpha" or "the leader" as getting the dog to understand that you are the one he should look to and listen to no matter what, and knowing that he is not the one who gets the advantages and privileges.
> 
> In a wolf pack, the alpha leader is the wolf who all the other wolves look to and obey. He eats first, he sleeps first, he leads the pack to where he feels they should go, no matter what they think. He only gains this position, however, by gaining the respect of the other dogs, which usually means fighting and winning the fight. To me, you have to take a similar position, but not exactly the same.
> Your dog,specifically if he's the most dominant of the litter, will think he is the boss and will think he gets to do the things that the pack leader would get to do. This can only be corrected by proper training. This kind of behavior can be fixed by you doing what he was doing before. You make him stay and walk in the door first, eat thirty minutes before he does, correct his pulling or go the opposite direction, things like so. Soon he will learn that he is not in control and to listen for your commands.
> 
> I don't believe that you would need to be harsh with this training at all. You just need to correct the puppy the proper way for him to understand. I believe that just saying"no"in this position and with this type of problem is the wrong approach,because when you say no, he can stop, but his mindset won't change. To change his mentality, you have to do it by giving him the chance to make the decision to obey. Wolves have the decision to either continue fighting with their leader or to obey, so they choose the more smart position, but they definitely would love to take a chunk out of their pack leader given a chance. This doesn't have to be the mindset for your puppy and it won't be if you show him kindly
> but firmly what is right and what is wrong.(this is what I meant by similar but not same position.)


Lets just make a few corrections. SHE rules, not he. Alpha female choses mate, he is quite simply hired muscle. She choses den site, she decides to hunt, she organizes subordinates.
I dislike comparing dogs to wolves, they are so different. The wolves our domestic dogs evolved from are genetically extinct, but since this can of worms is opened let's do it.
Almost all canines are pack animals, the degree varies a bit. However all canine packs are family units. Wild canines typically birth 3-7 pups, German Shepherds 6-12. To some degree pack placement is determined genetically. I specified GSD because they are a breed noted for same sex aggression. There is a very interesting theory that I am inclined to believe that plays out something to the effect that the abnormal size of domestic litters doubles up on the positions which creates conflict were it should not be.
Regardless there is no Alpha thing going on, dogs don't wanna take a chunk out of their leader because she is their mother. Wolves know what humans cannot seem to grasp. An oppressed group will eventually rebel. 
That dog at the park that is walking around picking fights is not an ALPHA, he's a jerk. If you want to find the true Alpha's look for the dog that the other dogs gravitate to, the one that is rarely in a conflict. 
Most important of all, dogs are not stupid, they know we aren't dogs. They have evolved to be our partners, protectors and companions. First word is everything. Partner. Think mutual respect. Firm, fair, consistent will get you there every time.


----------



## tim_s_adams

For me, the whole question is wrong. I'm human, domestic dogs are just that, and wolves are something quite different.

But either way, from my perspective it seems more reasonable to consider how amazing it is that two completely different species can live, work, and communicate, on any level really, it is amazing! And to be successful, you have to keep in mind how amazing it is!

Alpha is a term generally used to describe dominance. People, wolves, kids, doesn't matter. It's a term that means "to forcibly take charge".

I don't ever do that, because I'm ALWAYS in charge. From the first second to the last. I'm the human. I don't and never have thought that the dog, any dog!, thinks about it any other way LOL!


----------



## cliffson1

I don’t think dogs think like humans nor humans like dogs( excepts for folks that have trained many many dogs over time), I also don’t think dog’s behavior is because of human motives, but moreover derived from drives modified to fit into the environment they habitate.( home, kennel, wild, etc)
There are no absolutes in types of dogs, imo, though less of certain types because of breeding preferences, training methods, and societal acceptances. 
I have definitely seen dominant dogs ( owned, and trained them) within context of the definition of dominanc, but they are rare these days and usually end up in unfavorable situations unless in expert hands.


----------



## Kyrielle

To me "alpha" in terms of the human-dog pack simply means I'm the supervisor and the dog is my employee. My job, as supervisor, is to guide the dog to greatness, give credit where it's due, discipline where that's due, establish "workplace" policies, and offer raises when a habit of expertise in an area has been achieved.

After all, who would want to go to a job where none of the above occurs! You'd be lost, stressed, depressed, and eventually just quit or revolt.


----------



## cliffson1

Lol, i agree with the supervisor analogy, ideally. But as someone that had over 800 people under my supervision, I can tell you there are employees that are compliant, non compliant, subordinate, insubordinate, and everything in between.....regardless of the level or competence of the supervision. The same with dogs, most are compliant with adequate supervision, but some are always seeking to go higher up the social pack to the top.


----------



## Kathrynil

Sabis mom said:


> Lets just make a few corrections. SHE rules, not he. Alpha female choses mate, he is quite simply hired muscle. She choses den site, she decides to hunt, she organizes subordinates.
> I dislike comparing dogs to wolves, they are so different. The wolves our domestic dogs evolved from are genetically extinct, but since this can of worms is opened let's do it.
> Almost all canines are pack animals, the degree varies a bit. However all canine packs are family units. Wild canines typically birth 3-7 pups, German Shepherds 6-12. To some degree pack placement is determined genetically. I specified GSD because they are a breed noted for same sex aggression. There is a very interesting theory that I am inclined to believe that plays out something to the effect that the abnormal size of domestic litters doubles up on the positions which creates conflict were it should not be.
> Regardless there is no Alpha thing going on, dogs don't wanna take a chunk out of their leader because she is their mother. Wolves know what humans cannot seem to grasp. An oppressed group will eventually rebel.
> That dog at the park that is walking around picking fights is not an ALPHA, he's a jerk. If you want to find the true Alpha's look for the dog that the other dogs gravitate to, the one that is rarely in a conflict.
> Most important of all, dogs are not stupid, they know we aren't dogs. They have evolved to be our partners, protectors and companions. First word is everything. Partner. Think mutual respect. Firm, fair, consistent will get you there every time.


Alright, so I was wrong. Maybe I just need to be quiet and listen instead of interfering next time. I have obviously gotten some old info, due to almost every book I've read about wolves being about the alpha being the wolf who fights everyone into respecting him. (White Fang, Call of the Wild for example) 
I also study up a lot on horses, and sometimes my knowledge on them overlaps and interferes with knowledge on other animals. In a herd of horses, the males fight for respect and females. once he gains that respect everybody listens and beings to bond with him and his lead mare, then they turn into kind of a family. But with horses, everyone is still fighting no matter how much they love each other. This fighting is so brutal it comes to the point where the yearling males are chased out of family herds and have to live by themselves until they gain a mare by *fighting* another stallion. Its like a big fighting circle when it comes to horses, and I've always assumed(and read) that wolves do the same thing. Any way, I'm sorry I had to talk. My bad. 
Also, I was not saying that alpha picks fights, I was saying that he *wins* the fights if the other dogs decide to pick them. If he doesn't win the fight, the other dog is automatically the alpha or the boss over him. At least that's what I've read. 
I understand dogs know we aren't dogs, because animals were made for human use and disposal. That's one of the reasons they choose not to rebel against us. They know we are something more than just an animal and they understand that we will dominate over them. Dogs will look to us as the person who knows how to ge them out of a fix and a person who can comfort them. (of course to a much lesser extent than humans comfort each other.) Horses do to, but they like to test our knowledge and leadership before they come to the same conclusion. 

Thank you for correcting me. I always think of corrections as different info that can make me better than I was before.


----------



## Kathrynil

GSDchoice said:


> As Jax08 pointed out earlier, a wolf pack consists of an alpha male, alpha female (his life mate) and their pups. A pack is more like a Family. The image of hostility and "upsmanship" in wolf packs has been updated, due to biologists observing natural packs in the wild instead of the artificial pack created by putting a bunch of unrelated wolves into a zoo.
> So the analogy has often been made that being a good Pack Leader to your dog is more akin to being a good Parent...firm, consistent, but loving...
> 
> Another note (something I've experienced in Real Life) is that sometimes when a dog growls, it's not because it's trying to dominate...it's because it feels nervous or fearful - the opposite of dominance. If you punish the dog or force it into a vulnerable posture, you may make things worse and make the dog even MORE nervous/fearful and more likely to bite. So, I think an important note is to not assume every bad behavior is due to dominance...but try to understand why the dog is doing what it is doing. ( For example, sometimes your dog may walk ahead of you on leash...not because he thinks he's the boss, but just because he's in a hurry to check out that smell! )
> 
> _( i'm an animal geek and read books about wolves (and dogs and other animals) for fun...)_


Right. So this is true. I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the pack relationship ideas has been changed. I completely forgot something. Wolves are born into their alpha position, and the females they choose are automatically the boss females. I made a mistake so please forgive me. I read a lot about dogs and wolves and other animals, and I've always heard that they fight for their positions. (White Fang, Call of the Wild) I didn't obviously study as much as I thought I had.


----------



## Kyrielle

Kathrynil said:


> Right. So this is true. I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the pack relationship ideas has been changed. I completely forgot something. Wolves are born into their alpha position, and the females they choose are automatically the boss females. I made a mistake so please forgive me. I read a lot about dogs and wolves and other animals, and I've always heard that they fight for their positions. (White Fang, Call of the Wild) I didn't obviously study as much as I thought I had.


Well Call of the Wild and White Fang are fictional stories with knowledge appropriate for the early 1900s when they were written. That is what people believed at the time, and perhaps it's what they observed in certain circumstances.

That said, with technology and trail cameras, I think we've gotten a much better look into wolf behavior. Now we can watch them without them knowing we're watching, which produces far more accurate results.

Generally, though, I don't think dogs or wolves truly fight to gain or establish any social position. There's a tremendous amount of ritualistic posturing and a dispute is better equated to a minor fist fight rather than a knock-down-drag-out.


----------



## Jax08

GSDchoice said:


> Another note (something I've experienced in Real Life) is that sometimes when a dog growls, it's not because it's trying to dominate...it's because it feels nervous or fearful - the opposite of dominance.


I agree that sometimes it's nerve or fearfulness. But I think confident dogs can growl and give a warning to odd situations without being fearful. There was nothing fearful or nervous in my 15 mth old's body language when she growled at the guy in the elevator staring her down. She was calm, ears up and forward. Totally focused on the weird guy. The keyword here is "confident", not dominant. A confident dog can react to a threat appropriately (being stared down) without being fearful. A dominant dog may not have given that warning.

Overall, IME, pack dynamics are fluid depending on the dogs and the immediate situation.


----------



## car2ner

fluid is the correct word. It depends on the situation.


----------



## Kathrynil

Kyrielle said:


> Well Call of the Wild and White Fang are fictional stories with knowledge appropriate for the early 1900s when they were written. That is what people believed at the time, and perhaps it's what they observed in certain circumstances.
> 
> That said, with technology and trail cameras, I think we've gotten a much better look into wolf behavior. Now we can watch them without them knowing we're watching, which produces far more accurate results.
> 
> Generally, though, I don't think dogs or wolves truly fight to gain or establish any social position. There's a tremendous amount of ritualistic posturing and a dispute is better equated to a minor fist fight rather than a knock-down-drag-out.


Right


----------



## Jax08

@Kathrynil Kyrielle isn't rubbing in your errors. She's trying to explain why the Call of the Wild and White Fang are written as they are. She's just having a discussion, not being mean  And you don't need to apologize for being mistaken. We all learn here.


----------



## Kathrynil

Jax08 said:


> @Kathrynil Kyrielle isn't rubbing in your errors. She's trying to explain why the Call of the Wild and White Fang are written as they are. She's just having a discussion, not being mean  And you don't need to apologize for being mistaken. We all learn here.


Okay, I was a little frustrated at the moment. I didn't mean to say that. I was actually going to edit that part of the post when I saw your message.


----------



## GSDchoice

@Kathrynil
Don't feel bad! And no need to apologize. I loved those books (I also read Black Beauty and just about every horse fiction book I could find, the Plague Dogs and Watership Down by Richard Adams, the Incredible Journey...lots of great animal fiction out there!) And I do think that with strange dogs who don't know eachother, there are some pack ranking dynamics going on (for instance, my guy, who likes to fancy that he is "The Big Dog in Town", will posture and growl at other large males - but he is gentle and kind with smaller dogs).

@Jax08
Agreed - sometimes a growl means business!

@sabismom - Yes, dogs no longer form the pack structure of wolves and feral dogs apparently hang around in loose groups, scavenging (not working together to hunt). Yet they still share 99% of the same DNA, which is amazing. Then again, hmm, humans share 99% DNA with chimps, but I'd say we're pretty different! 
_( Weird sidenote: Just googled it and humans/mice share 90% DNA, humans/dogs share 84% DNA...ok back to normal thread!)_


----------



## car2ner

Every group of living thinking beings forms a hierarchy. How that forms depends on the personalities in the group and the needs in the situation. The most confident seem are usually followed by the less confident.


----------



## cvamoca

It's spooky all these old, old threads keep popping up.


----------



## Nigel

You don't need to be alpha or dominant, just be awesome and your dog will love and respect you.... simple really.


----------



## Kyrielle

Kathrynil said:


> Okay, I was a little frustrated at the moment. I didn't mean to say that. I was actually going to edit that part of the post when I saw your message.


Don't worry about it. Just know that I'm not the type to rub people's noses in anything during a conceptual discussion (even political discussions when I severely disagree with someone's perspective). For what it's worth, I haven't checked the forums in a couple of days, so I have no idea what you said. 

I read a lot of classical works, so it's something I think about from time-to-time while reading. It's worthwhile to learn about how people saw the world at various times in history--and not all of those perspectives are negative or necessarily "wrong".


----------



## Kathrynil

@Kyrielle, GSDchoice, and Jax08: Thanks for that guys. 
I'm so glad there are people here that don't have to say nasty things back when one person says something bad. (even if I do egg them on a bit. I'm kind of argumentative)  I've never been on a forum before, but Iv'e heard that in some places like Facebook and even Amazon reviews people are really nasty to others commenting and try to start arguments. I'm so glad that's not the case here. I can't wait to get to know you all better!


----------



## car2ner

Oh trust me, we do get the hairs on the back of our necks standing up now and then. But if that happens there is usually somebody around to try to and remind everyone to take it easy. Many people get on forums and join online groups because they enjoy an intelligent debate. And dominance theory can bring about quite the debate. 

Typically when I see someone post about being a dog's alpha the real unwritten question is "how do I get my dogs to follow human rules better".


----------



## Kathrynil

I believe it. 
It is nice to be able to argue a point without having to get angry at each other. It gives everyone a chance to throw their views and beliefs out there so that they can have a the challenge of defending themselves while learning new things. I'm introverted, so I like being able to get out there and challenge myself to do things I don't like to do. Sooner or later I'll learn to make less inaccurate arguments like the one I made yesterday.


----------



## Quorthun

A Calm and Clear Communicative Leader.


----------



## drparker151

Let talk humans. Many associate "alpha male" with tough and aggressive. However this is very wrong as those types are just bullies. A true alpha is a presence, it is subtle, all in body language and eye contact, what many label as a born leader, that people want to follow. 

A true alpha signaling a competing male to back off is very subtle and non verbable, most people won't even notice it has happened.


----------

