Dogs are not pack animals???

[AgileGSD]

Originally Posted by codmaster

I get it now, I should base my beliefs on what I read here rather than what I have heard and discussed with other folks!

You can base your ideas on what ever you choose to but it doesn't mean they will be supported by facts. I was simply suggesting if you want to have factual and knowledge on wolf behavior, a lot of that was posted on this thread. If not, you are free to continue basing your ideas about dog behavior on extremely outdated ideas about wolf behavior.

[codmaster]

Originally Posted by AgileGSD

You can base your ideas on what ever you choose to but it doesn't mean they will be supported by facts. I was simply suggesting if you want to have factual and knowledge on wolf behavior, a lot of that was posted on this thread. If not, you are free to continue basing your ideas about dog behavior on extremely outdated ideas about wolf behavior.

Why, thank you! You have no idea how much your opinion means to me!

And to be fair, I will also let you base your ideas on whatever "new" research that you would like to listen to today!

[doggiedad]

i didn't understand this but i agree.

Originally Posted by AgileGSD

"The term “dominance” is widely used in the academic and popular literature on the behavior of domestic dogs, especially in the context of aggression. Although dominance is correctly a property of relationships, it has been erroneously used to describe a supposed trait of individual dogs, even though there is little evidence that such a trait exists. When used correctly to describe a relationship between 2 individuals, it tends to be misapplied as a motivation for social interactions, rather than simply a quality of that relationship. Hence, it is commonly suggested that a desire ‘to be dominant’ actually drives behavior, especially aggression, in the domestic dog. By contrast, many recent studies of wolf packs have questioned whether there is any direct correspondence between dominance within a relationship and agonistic behavior, and in contrast to wolves, hierarchical social structures have little relationship with reproductive behavior in feral dog packs. Nor do the exchanges of aggressive and submissive behavior in feral dogs, originally published by S. K. Pal and coworkers, fit the pattern predicted from wolf behavior, especially the submissive behavior observed between members of different packs. In the present study of a freely interacting group of neutered male domestic dogs, pairwise relationships were evident, but no overall hierarchy could be detected. Since there seems to be little empirical basis for wolf-type dominance hierarchies in dogs, the authors have examined alternative constructs. Parker's Resource Holding Potential (RHP) appears to be less useful when applied to domestic dogs than to other species, although it has the advantage of incorporating the concept of subjective resource value (V) as a factor influencing whether or not conflicts are escalated. The authors propose that associative learning, combined with V, can provide more parsimonious explanations for agonistic behavior in dogs than can the traditional concept of dominance."
Elsevier

[LouCastle]

Originally Posted by DogGone

All of the alleged research that bashes alpha theory and alpha rolling seems to be people motivated by greed that are trying to sell something like training and or people there are motivated by a political agenda/power.

Based on the frequency with which you make this statement it would seem that YOU are the one who's " ... motivated by greed ... trying to sell something like training and or people [who] are motivated by a political agenda/power. "

I bash the Alpha Roll because it's dangerous even when done correctly and it's a poor imitation of what it purports to be. Dogs in the wild don't roll one another except in play. Rather the submissive dog rolls himself. This is NOT what is done in an Alpha Roll.

Originally Posted by DogGone

Most of the research and all of the facts I have seen indicate that Alpha theory is on the mark.

It's close. This work was done on packs of wild wolves that had been captured and put together. They were not, as is a wild pack a group of (mostly) blood related animals. Rather they were a group of strangers thrown together. Domestic canids sometimes form packs but they resemble neither the naturally occurring wild wolf packs nor the artificially formed packs put together for study. In the wolf packs only the alpha male and alpha female will breed. In domestic packs any male will breed with any female. In the wolf pack the alpha wolves will feed at a kill first and the other animals will wait until they are done before moving in. Violating this unwritten rule, usually results in a display of dominance and if that doesn’t work then mock combat (which is just another display) and if that fails, true combat, where injuries can and do occur. In the wild there is ONE alpha male and ONE alpha female. In packs of domestic dogs the alpha role often switches depending on the activity that the pack is involved in.

Originally Posted by DogGone

As far as packs not being fluid. I don’t know where you got that from. All the literature I have seen and all the facts I have seen over the past four decades indicate that packs are dynamic. You must have been reading garbage that I don’t bother with.

Please show us this "literature" and the sources for "the facts." Dismissing the opinions of others as "garbage" is just rude!

[LouCastle]

Originally Posted by DogGone

That’s but yet another false assumption. I have seen many videos of non-captive wild wolves fighting for dominance. Alpha rolling is often how they communicate and establish rank and order to prevent fighting.

Please direct us to this video with a link. This will be the third time that I've asked you to show us such video.

Originally Posted by DogGone

Alpha rolling if done properly is not going to make a dog aggressive [Emphasis Added]

True, but it might make a dog defensive. EVEN if "done properly." Bites often happen because the dog feels threatened, whether he really is or not.

Originally Posted by DogGone

on the contrary is likely to reduce the odds of aggression and mental instability.

I disagree. Please show us something that supports this beyond your opinion masquerading as fact.

Originally Posted by DogGone

If you abuse your dog it very likely could become fear aggressive and mentally unstable. There needs to be dominance, discipline rules and boundaries to increase mental stability and reduce the odds of aggression.

True but there are better ways of establishing dominance than the Alpha Roll.

Originally Posted by DogGone

For the most part the dogs that I have seen that were aggressive were in public; the vast majority of them were from dogs that were not properly dominated/disciplined and did not have good rules and boundaries and or a stable fair leader. Most of the aggressive dogs I have seen have been dogs that were spoiled and/or not properly disciplined and/or didn’t have proper rules and boundaries, and/or didn’t get good exercise, and/or did not have a stable pack leader (trainer/owner). Like they say in the computer world. Junk in; junk out.

How do you know that these dogs "were spoiled?" How do you know that they did not "have good rules and boundaries?" I'd bet that, in reality, you have no idea of how these dogs were treated at home; more than likely, you're just guessing.

Originally Posted by DogGone

I’ve had 2 GSDs that were extremely alpha. He was a trained guard dog. The first one was alpha mainly with humans but to a lesser extent with dogs; he was a pistol; in the wrong hands he was dangerous; he had to be dominated; otherwise he was a loose cannon.

I regularly work with dogs like this and have owned several of them. Never have I felt the need to Alpha Roll any of them.

Originally Posted by DogGone

The other GSD was excessively dominant with other dogs but showed no desire to dominate humans. The dog had lived on the streets ...

Originally Posted by DogGone

The dog was mean to other dogs evidently because while it was on the street it had to fight other dogs to survive and get food. That dog had to be forced into an alpha roll to submit to a new dog, otherwise he would attack from the get go.

Are you saying that YOU Alpha Rolled the dog to get him to submit to other dogs? If so, how did this transfer from you rolling him to the other dog. Or are you telling us that this other dog had to roll him to prevent the attack?

Originally Posted by DogGone

I rescued another GSD that I wouldn’t consider alpha; but fear aggressive. It was in a black neighborhood and many of the adolescent males had racist attitudes about GSDs. They hit her with sticks and threw rocks at her and she could not escape the attacks because she was left out in the yard on the leash with no shelter; so she was very fear aggressive of young black males. It took me about a month to rehabilitate her. I had to force her to submit (alpha roll) her to adolescent black males as part of her rehabilitation. She had to learn that not all young black males are bad.

Same question. Are you telling us that YOU Alpha Rolled this dog and as a result she submitted to others? If so I think it really shows just how little you understand the Alpha Roll. A dog that rolled will show submission to the person that rolled her but NOT to others, in this example (and the last one involving the dog that was mean to other dogs) it's just used as a punishment, it has nothing to do with dominance! The dog did something you didn't like and so you used a punishment, rough handling and pinning the dog to the groundto get the dog not to repeat the behavior.

Originally Posted by DogGone

Alpha rolling was a very small part of their rehabilitation, but I think it was a very key component to start the ball rolling.

I'd bet that it retarded their progress, rather than helped it.

Originally Posted by DogGone

Alpha rolling properly does not hurt the dog physically or psychologically. Alpha rolling properly is roughly the equivalent of giving a toddler a timeout. It teaches who is in charge and that there are consequences to breaking the rules. [Emphasis Added]

Nonsense! Alpha Rolling a dog is an extremely violent movement. It's NOTHING like "giving a toddler a timeout!" I've seen many handlers bitten while doing this and many prolonged episodes of combat when it went wrong.

[LouCastle]

Earlier Doggone wrote,

Alpha rolling properly does not hurt the dog physically or psychologically. Alpha rolling properly is roughly the equivalent of giving a toddler a timeout. It teaches who is in charge and that there are consequences to breaking the rules.

Originally Posted by Whiteshepherds

No offense but that's seriously bad comparison. The correct comparison would be: If your child misbehaves, wrap your arms around them, gently lay them on the floor and hold them until they stop squirming.

I don't think so. There's nothing gentle about an Alpha Roll. The dog is grabbed by the loose hair around his neck with enough force so that it tries to get away you can hold on. Then he's wrestled to the ground with this grip. If he resists it can turn into a prolonged struggle. If he resists your face is within inches of his mouth. If he panics he can easily inflict a serious, disfiguring bite on your face or your arms.

Anyone who claims this is "gentle" either is doing something else or has never seen an Alpha Roll done properly. This is not "coaxing" the dog to lie down with gentle pressure. It's FORCING him down.

[LouCastle]

Earlier Doggone wrote,

... I have seen many videos of non-captive wild wolves fighting for dominance. Alpha rolling is often how they communicate and establish rank and order to prevent fighting.

Originally Posted by Chicagocanine

Do you have any links? I would really be interested to see video of alpha rolling in a wild wolf pack.

Doggone I think that's the FOURTH person to ask you to supply videos of this. Ever going to do so?

[Good_Karma]

LouCastle, what do you think of the original article (disregarding the alpha roll tangent)?

[LouCastle]

I like what she says about crates. I used to have a dog that slept in his crate of his own choice. He didn't like my other dogs (when I first got him he'd have happily killed them) and at times he'd pull the door shut with his paw to "get away" from them.

As to the pack discussion I disagree with her on many levels. While we may not be a pack by the definition of dogs sticking together under any circumstances; by the mere fact that we take dogs into our homes we form a pack. It may be artificial but still, it's a pack. Many pack dynamics need to be considered in our relationships with the dogs.

I also know that she's wrong about dogs sticking with us only because of food. Dogs are the only species that prefer us to their own species and that has nothing to do with food. Of course this is a very general statement and many people know of exceptions.

Her statement, "Wolves pack, dogs don’t." is belied by the studies showing that domesticated dogs DO pack.

[Good_Karma]

I kinda suspect that if I ever got into a situation like she described (say I fell and broke a leg in the woods), I'm pretty sure both my dogs would leave me. I'd like to think they wouldn't, of course, or that they'd go into town and get me a cheeseburger when I got hungry, but I just don't see them having that "stick with me til the end" dedication. I was wondering if the dog owners that DO think their dogs would never leave them are just being overly optimistic.

But then of course, just because a dog would leave his owner to ensure his own survival does not preclude the possibility of dogs as pack animals. I thought that was an odd way to make her argument.