I thought this was interesting (long read)

[imported_Cassie]

I thought some people here may find this interview with Ray & Lorna Coppinger some what interesting. I read the book the arthurs are speaking off, its a pretty interesting book.

People have speculated on the origins of the dog for centuries, with the
most common view that people took wolf pups from their dens and tamed them, thus creating the domestic dog or Canis familiaris.
Ray and Lorna Coppinger, biologists and dog trainers, offer a very different view, suggesting that dogs evolved to fill a new niche created when people began to create permanent villages.
[b]Barbara Petura:[/b] Before we start talking about the new ideas about
dogs in your book, would you talk a bit about your experiences with
different kinds of working dogs? I have the sense from the book that those
experiences were important to your thinking.
[b]Ray & Lorna Coppinger[/b]: Our experiences with different kinds of working dogs have been intense and diverse. We both started off as kids with pet dogs, but after we were married in 1958 we started to attract hordes of them for some unknown reason. We raised and trained sled dogs throughout the 1960s and 1970s. While Ray was struggling to train and race the team, Lorna took photographs and wrote the first comprehensive book on the history and sport, The World of Sled Dogs. We also helped our children train retrievers and various other
breeds - border collies, Welsh corgis, and various mutts. Dogs became the
basis of our academic research and teaching, and far-flung lecturing. To us
as behavioral biologists, dogs are infinitely fascinating.
[b]Barbara[/b]: Was there a particular experience with your own dogs that got you thinking about the topic of the new book, namely a new view of the origin of the domestic dog? Or was it something else?
[b]Ray & Lorna[/b]: No single experience triggered our thinking about the origin of domestic dogs, although we admit to feeling unfulfilled by the widespread acceptance of what we call in the book The Pinocchio Theory of Dog Origin. (Briefly, the wild wolf pup, taken from its den by people, strives to become a real dog.) All the dogs we have known, both at home and the hundreds we've watched all around the world, have contributed to our understanding. By connecting our field observations and research with that of many others, we were able to construct a 'new' explanation of dog origin, one that makes biological sense. As biologists at Hampshire College, in 1977 we co-founded the Livestock Guarding Dog Project,
with research into the behavior and use of dogs as a non-lethal way to
protect livestock from predators. During the next 15 years, we completed
many field trips to various Old World sheep pastures, and imported dozens of pups to raise, breed, and introduce to New World ranchers and farmers.
Eventually, our project monitored long-term records of behavior for over
1400 guardian dogs. The most amazing experience abroad was observation of the transhumance migrations, which we first saw in Yugoslavia in 1977. The transhumance, or twice-yearly migrations of millions of sheep, shepherds and dogs, occurs between winter and summer pastures in all livestock-raising cultures from Portugal to Tibet, from South Africa to the North Polar Regions. Watching the guardian dogs and their behavior, counting the miles they travel and the numbers involved, opened a view of dog evolution and behavior that helped us to understand many of the biological mechanisms operating in the perfection of canine form and function. Also, our first visit to Pemba in east Africa solidified the concept of the village dog -- the idea that dogs in many parts of the world, and no doubt since their beginning -- are like pigeons, rats and cockroaches, carrying out their lives in the company of humans but with no overt assistance in either their feeding or reproduction. The village dog is a key to understanding the earliest evolution of breeds.
[b]Barbara[/b]: You propose a new view of the origin of dogs, suggesting that people did not domesticate dogs but rather some wolves domesticated themselves. How did that occur, in your view?
[b]Ray & Lorna[/b]: In DOGS, we propose a model whereby wild canids -- call them wolves -- domesticated themselves in response to humans providing them a new ecological niche, that is, 'permanent' human settlements. But remember, most 'new' ideas are made up of pieces that have been kicking around for a long time. The anthropologist Frederick Zeuner wrote in the 1960s that many of the domestic species were originally crop pests, species adapting to a niche that humans created. Biologists Alan Beck in the US and Luigi Boitani in Italy showed modern examples of village scavengers, dogs living well on the surplus of human habitation. Walter Poduschka in Austria emphasized the realities of population biology. Psychologists John Paul Scott and John Fuller understood the importance of the genetic tameness of dogs in contrast
to the genetic wildness of wolves. These and many, many other scientists
provided evidence on which to build a theory. But it was Dmitri Belyaev's
long-term project in Russia that first demonstrated, we believe, how the
genetic transformation from wild to domestic canine could occur, without
human intervention. It's based on 'flight distance,' a component of wild
animal behavior that dictates how close the individual can approach some
object before turning and running away. This is all in Chapter 1, one of our
most favorite chapters in DOGS.
[b]Barbara[/b]: Do you consider this new view of the domestic dog to be important for owners and trainers of working dogs of various kinds? How might people change their thinking about dog behavior and training?
[b]Ray & Lorna[/b]: The village dog origin of our modern dogs won't in
itself change dog training techniques. Dog training has been changing
rapidly over the past few years anyway. Besides, we never found that dog
trainers paid very much attention to evolutionary theory. Dog trainers
would tell you that you should dominate the dog like the leader of a pack of
wolves, and then tell the dog in a high squeaky voice, "Good Boy!" We think the importance of DOGS may be that it helps dogs more than their owners. A view of dogs as essentially village scavengers that are easily adapted to people and kind of fun to play with, opens many new windows for people in their relationships with their dogs. Relationships should be based on positive situations, play, having fun.
[b]Barbara[/b]: Among your new views of the dog is a rejection of the trainer as the "alpha wolf" and the dogs as the "submissive pack member." Why have you rejected what has essentially become
dogma in the dog training world?
[b]Ray & Lorna[/b]: The alpha wolf model of dog training certainly does appear frequently in print, but we wonder if it was ever really incorporated into serious dog training. We suspect it was never very useful in training dogs, and that almost everybody intuitively knew that. It was "say one thing, do another." Certainly all the new techniques, such as click and treat, are not based on dominance. We've watched top trainers like Terry Ryan and Ken McCort, and never saw any hint of "I'm the dominant wolf." People who try modifying aggressive dogs don't try to "dominate" them into submission. Everybody agrees that would be a disaster. Imagine training a wolf by dominating it. Quick way to get killed. It is a mistake to think that because dogs are descended from wolves, they behave
like wolves. Wolves do not show the "alpha roll," or any other hierarchical
behavior, except in specific circumstances, particularly during reproductive
and feeding behaviors. Wolf packs on a hunt are working cooperatively, and hierarchy goes by the board.
Training dogs is fun for me and for the dog, as it should be. Our sled dogs ran because running is fun and feels good. Endorphins are released, social interactions are increased. Try running while you're being submissive. Dogs aren't pulling sleds because they are forced to or are submitting to some person's will. Everybody who ever drove dogs knows that you absolutely cannot force them to do it.
[b]Barbara[/b]: It will be hard to get that alpha wolf/submissive wolf thinking eliminated from the parlance of dog training, but for starters, how should people think about their relationship with their dog?
[b]Ray & Lorna[/b]: It won't be hard to get the wolf pack mentality to go by the board simply because we don't think many of the experts ever really believed it. It is through social play behavior that animals learn from one another. Further, it is fun to play with our dogs even if none of us learn anything. It will certainly make more sense to the dog than to be tumbled onto its back and growled at by a human. Colin Allen
and Marc Bekoff have recently drawn attention to a category of behaviors
they call intentional icons. Dogs have signals they use when they want to
play - the play bow. The play bow is a signal that all the following
behaviors like growls and snarls are all in fun. Consider what might happen
if you gave the "dominant male" intentional icon, indicating everything that
happens from now on is about the driver being the dominant dog. The sled
dogs, if they were reacting as submissive wolves, would then lie on their
backs and pee in the air instead of running as a team. Instead of
threatening our dogs every time we want to train them, we need to perfect
the human play bow which tells the dog the games are about to begin.
Remember that games have rules, and what the dog and the humans learn during play is what the rules of the game are. That makes sense in teaching or training, whether it is dogs or students. The intent of dominance display is to exclude the subordinate from some activity, like breeding. The alpha wolf isn't trying to teach the subordinate anything. [b]Barbara[/b]: You also tackle the nature/nuture issue in the book, looking at the relative importance of genetics and environment in shaping a dog's temperament and behavior. You clearly think both play a role in a dog's development, but how important is each? Are genes and environmental experiences equally important, or is one dominant? Why?
[b]Ray & Lorna[/b]: The nature/nurture dichotomy has been dying for
a long time. Daniel Estep said it very well a few years ago, that talking
about behavior as "genetic" is just a shorthand that many of us use --
including in DOGS. Behavior is actually epigenetic, or above (or more than) the genes. It is like saying that an animal's size is genetic, implying that there is no environmental input. But everyone realizes, if an animal doesn't eat it won't grow to its normal size. On the other hand, all the food in the world won't make an animal any bigger than its genetic potential. Now, think of behavior as a size and shape. If you don't nurture a dog's behavior it won't grow to its genetic potential. No matter how much you nurture a pup's behavior, it can't go beyond its genetic potential. It is the
interaction between genes and the environment that determine how the dog will behave.
[b]Barbara[/b]: Important to all breeders and trainers of working dogs
in your discussion of the "critical period" in a young puppy's life. You
give great examples of what is done with livestock guardian dogs during that critical period to prepare them for their life's work. What about sled dogs -- what experiences should a sled dog pup have during that critical period? How can others generalize from these ideas?
[b]Ray & Lorna[/b]: We showed why it was important to raise livestock guarding dogs with sheep during the critical period as an illustration of what every professional should know about raising working dogs. Sled dogs are usually raised in big pens, playing with other dogs, and often going out on fun runs. We know at least one driver who fed his pups separately so that they would not have any resource to fight over. The idea is not to let hierarchies develop during the critical period of social development. We want our sled dogs' social behavior centered around play with other dogs and me. The driver should be a fun guy and when he shows up they are going to play games, and when they get through everybody is going to feel good. Pups develop the attitude that
other dogs are fun to be with, not to be avoided. Most professional dog
handlers have fun tricks to play with their dogs. Bird dog people have an
old quail wing on a string that the pup chases and starts learning the rules
of the game. Ray has a bright silver de-hooked lure that he casts out with
his fishing rod to see if he can keep our Jack Russell terrier from getting
it. He loves the chase. But, it is getting to the point where Ray needs a
bigger, faster reel. Critical period gets several long looks in DOGS, and
we show how it is related to breed differences and working abilities in
several behavioral types of dogs. It should be easy for readers to
extrapolate to other breeds, once they understand how it works.
[b]Barbara[/b]: What reactions are you receiving to the book?
[b]Ray & Lorna[/b]: Reactions to the book have been wonderful. People have been kind with their praise for various sections. You can tell they are good "dog" people because they respond so quickly with the "good boy!" They write, "I have only finished the first chapter but wanted to say . . ." That is the sign of somebody who understands click and treat. So far we have seen only one cranky response.
[b]Barbara[/b]: What impact do you hope the book will have?
[b]Ray & Lorna[/b]: We hope the book will open the different issues of dog evolution and behavior to a healthy discussion. The idea behind science is to generate a testable hypothesis and then see whether the data support or deny the hypothesis. It is in the spirit of the process where the action is. If people offer data that refute all of our hypotheses, we will have to go back to the drawing boards. People have already started with, "That is really a new and interesting way to look at something, but it isn't the way I understand it. Couldn't we consider the following observations?" That is marvelous. We don't know it all, of course, nor was our intention to try to explain it all. Really, the reason we wrote the book was to have fun, and play with some ideas. We really hope that readers will have the same good sensations playing with those ideas.

[mouseatthebusstop]

:)long but very interesting :lol:

[kendalyn]

[quote]People who try modifying aggressive dogs don't try to "dominate" them into submission. Everybody agrees that would be a disaster. Imagine training a wolf by dominating it. Quick way to get killed. It is a mistake to think that because dogs are descended from wolves, they behave
like wolves.[/quote]

This is my favorite part. I've never agreed with using wolf pack rules and applying them to dogs. Dogs are nothing like wolves and most of our pets have never lived in any sort of wolf pack. I'm am not my dog's "Alpha" anything. He has no idea what that means anyway.

[imported_nea]

That is interesting.. :)

[imported_Cassie]

[quote]I've never agreed with using wolf pack rules and applying them to dogs. Dogs are nothing like wolves and most of our pets have never lived in any sort of wolf pack. I'm am not my dog's "Alpha" anything. He has no idea what that means anyway.[/quote]
kendalyn, I couldn't agree more with you :wink: I always get a chuckle when I hear people going into indepth explanations of wolf pack order to explain domestic dog behavior :lol:
In the book Dogs by Ray & Lorna Coppinger they studied domestic dogs which have lived in the wild within villages. These dogs have probably been wild since dogs domesticated themselves. They live amoung people who are their food sources, but, the dogs are genetically tame, probably more so than most of our purebreds as they do not have any hard wired motor patterns selected for which makes them safer amoung humans as they do not have enhanced predatory drives. These dogs do not run in packs, they live semi solitary lives. This is very interesting to learn, I find it enlightening to read a book which actually studies dogs.

As for myself having adopted an aggressive Rottweiler, I couldn't agree more that you should NEVER try to dominant an aggressive dog. This just confuses the dog and can be dangerous. I used only a reward training with her and positive reinforcement....you would never believe she is the same dog I adopted almost 4 years ago....she is a new, laid back, sweet dog.
I also watch all 6 of my dogs and try to decide if I can spot the most dominant of my dogs...I can't...my dogs are all equals, they do not compete for any resources, they get along famously. I think we as humans create more problems for our dogs by trying to implement pack rules and dominance training into their lives. I also do not consider myself to be some sort of "Alpha" towards my dogs :lol: basically I consider my dogs to be scavengers and I am their host. They depend on me for food and love, and they know that I am their provider. It works the same for wild domestic dogs which live in wild in small villages. They live off the human waste and they know that the humans provide food for them...they do not consider these people Alpha's...they operate more like other scavengers like crows, rats etc. they "know" that humans are food providers.
It is also discussed in the book dogs that all of our wild canines have a "common" ancestor. That does not mean our current dogs evolved from the wolves we have living amoung us presently. They also point out how useless mtDNA testing is. They did their own mtDNA tests on different wolves, coyotes and dogs...with some wolves it showed that they had more coyote mtDNA in them and same with our domestic dogs. Then there are some wolves which have dog DNA in them. They state that the mtDNA tests are not very accurate.

[Canis erectus]

I'm going to have to get this book. I've always wondered if dogs' "domesticating themselves" was actually the case, similar to the theories of how cats were domesticated. I figured that wild canids would be competition and greatly feared and loathed by early man, and so couldn't really see the logic of going out of their way to bring these animals into their lives.

I've also wondered if the real ancestors of some dogs are "extinct" species that have simply evolved themselves into dogs and lost all of thier origional traits over time. I find it hard to swallow that all dogs and dogs breeds are the decendants of the European Wolf.

[imported_Cassie]

[quote]I figured that wild canids would be competition and greatly feared and loathed by early man, and so couldn't really see the logic of going out of their way to bring these animals into their lives. [/quote]

Canis erectus, that is exactly what they explain in this book called Dogs. It would have been very difficult for our ancestors to have fallen in love with a wolf pup and raise it to be a pet. Just think about how many people have tried and failed to tame our current wild wolves in todays world where we have more time to spend trying. It would have taken many many generations and determination. I think our forefathers were more concerned about survival than making pets.
In this book they explain that humans provided the niche wild candids required to domesticate themselves. Once humans had permanent settlements and started leaving waste in one place this helped to evolve some wild candids to hang around these settlements and live basically as scavengers. They learned to live amoung humans without being feared and to follow their food source. There are wild Canines which still live in villages all over the world which have never been domesticated, they look a great deal like hound dogs. The people in some villages value chickens and let them run loose throughout the villages, these dogs will not touch these chickens even though they are hungrey they know that to survive you don't touch "some" things.
I find dogs very interesting and after you read the book every thing makes sense.
It was very easy for man to look at the local genetically tame scavenger dogs which followed them to their fishing boats, lived in their back yards etc. to think about using them for different purposes.

[quote]I've also wondered if the real ancestors of some dogs are "extinct" species that have simply evolved themselves into dogs and lost all of thier origional traits over time. I find it hard to swallow that all dogs and dogs breeds are the decendants of the European Wolf.[/quote]
The book "Dogs" explains this in great detail. Basically our domestic dog is at most a distant cousin of our current wolves.
I could go on but it would take me forever. The book is in detail and makes 190% more sense than I do :lol:

[courtnek]

I have always felt that wolves opted to join us. We couldnt have forced them to anyway, and how (and why) would someone try to take a pup from a den without the pack attacking them? Packs are very protective of their young.

as far as pack rules, I honestly think most households exercise them without even realizing they are doing it. You are the one providing the food, shelter and affection, and in return you expect the dogs to obey you
and do what they're told. That's basically the way a pack works. Everyone agrees to get along, because it's in everyone's best interests to do so.
Contrary to popular culture, most packs dont fight with each other (other than the occasional squabble, which is usually all show anyway, even pet dogs do that sometimes; mine do) and the Alpha is more of the "benevolent King" type, rather than the popular notion of nasty and
vicious.

dogs are not wolves, and their reactions are somewhat more intuned to people, but the instincts are still there. But I do believe they need a strong
hand and voice, to teach them what is proper and allowed for them to do.
That's what an Alpha does. Most people mistakenly think of the Alpha as the "hand of doom". That's not the case.

:D

[imported_Cassie]

Courtnek,
I don't treat my dogs as if they were a pack. I treat my dogs like the scavengers they are. My dogs do not consider me to be an Alpha any thing, the view me as the provider of food or the host and my dogs are my parasites. My dogs live in a happy group, not a pack. People apply the same training procedures such as click and treat for other species such as killer whales to train them. It seems to work well with many species of animals to use a reward based system to train and teach good manners. Last I heard wolves do not make the other wolves sit before eating or many of the other training exercises I perform with my dogs :lol: .

People who have studied dogs which still live as wild dogs which are not domesticated by man live semi solitary lives. Dogs do not require packs to eat discarded food left by humans.

It just seems funny to me that we have been living with dogs for thousands of years and we still have to refer to wolves in order to explain different behaviors :-? :roll: . I perfer to refer to my dogs as dogs, I don't need to refer to wolves when explaining a behavior or behavioral problem as it is a dog issue not a wolf issue.
Our dogs evolved not to be wolves, and I think alot of people screw their dogs up by misinterpreting pack and wolf behaviors.

[quote]as far as pack rules, I honestly think most households exercise them without even realizing they are doing it. You are the one providing the food, shelter and affection, and in return you expect the dogs to obey you
and do what they're told. That's basically the way a pack works. Everyone agrees to get along, because it's in everyone's best interests to do so.
Contrary to popular culture, most packs dont fight with each other (other than the occasional squabble, which is usually all show anyway, even pet dogs do that sometimes; mine do) and the Alpha is more of the "benevolent King" type, rather than the popular notion of nasty and
vicious. [/quote]

When you think about how we train our dogs and how many species of animals can be trained the same way...why do we always have to refer to the training as a pack thing, or wolf behavior. The reward based system works well with all species, they do this training with humans all of the time...you make your quota in sales this month and you will get a cash bonus, you work hard and you get a raise etc etc. it motivates us to perform better and gives us some thing to strive for. Your child gets good grades in school he may get a bike etc. these rules can apply to alot of different species.

[imported_Cassie]

[quote]dogs are not wolves, and their reactions are somewhat more intuned to people, but the instincts are still there. But I do believe they need a strong
hand and voice, to teach them what is proper and allowed for them to do[/quote].
I don't exactly understand what you mean by this.
With all of my dogs I used only positive training...my Newfoundlands would not understand a strong hand and voice. I have to be happy and encouraging for them to have become top performers especially in the obedience ring.

It was a strong hand and voice which almost ruined my Rottweiler. I had to use only positive happy training to make her into the wonderful canine citizen she is today.
As mentioned before I could apply this same training to children and employees as well as other animals.
I have seen too many people ruin dogs by trying to dominant their dogs...it has always turned out very badly for the dog.
I don't know if that is what you meant about training with a strong hand and voice if you were referring to dominanting the dogs or not. I never found that type of training worked ver well.

[Canis erectus]

I don't know about training your dogs as a pack, but I think I undestand what cournek was getting at. All canines (wild and domestic) are social animals, which is different from being a 'packing' animal. A solitary animal not normally tolerate another of it's kind in it's presence and will generally react with immediate aggresion.

Dogs, being social animals, have a series of visual, audio, and scent cues to communicate their intentions (this applies to all animals but much more so with social species). Even if they are not packing, all canines share a very general guideline of communication and interaction with thier own species. And I may be mistaken, but I'm certain that many canine species live in a generally solitary nature, but ALL of them can and will pack together for an occaision of mutual benefit (I know first-hand that dogs will, I've been hunted by a pack od feral dogs once). Even though dogs ought not to be treated like wolves, they still retain many of the social mannerisms, as do all canines. It's not something that came from wolves per say, it's in their genetic hard-coding from some common ancestor that all modern canines had at some point.

Cassie, you may not realize it but you do play an alpha role in your dogs' life. You provide food and you teach and instruct them. You dictate what your dogs will generally do in a given day and set guidelines whether you are contiously (sp?) doing it or not. This is the same as a canine pack leader will do, and while the alpha canine does not make his 'lower' pack members sit per say, he/she will make them go somewhere else until the the alpha has decided that the other members can come to eat.

Mind, I'm not supporting any sort of hard-handed or aggresive training here. I'm just saying that whether or not dogs had evolved from wolves or from some other species by thier own accord, all canines have a basically similar social structure that we should all keep in mind.

BTW on a related note, a read a book some time ago titled "Rare Dog Breeds of the World" that gave a well researched account in one chapter of the history and life of the Israeli Canaan Dogs. I'd have to look up who the author was, but it was interesting to note the relationship between man and dog that was described there.

[courtnek]

[quote]Mind, I'm not supporting any sort of hard-handed or aggresive training here. I'm just saying that whether or not dogs had evolved from wolves or from some other species by thier own accord, all canines have a basically similar social structure that we should all keep in mind.
[/quote]

I wasnt speaking of aggression either. By "strong" I mean that if I use "that" tone, they know they have displeased me. They are also command trained with hand signals. which I use to reinforce an order I want obeyed NOW.

Like this morning. Laurel was bugging me to get up, by putting her paws on the bed and licking me. I got up and let her out, then after 10 minutes or so called her to come back in. If they come back the first call, they get reinforced with a small biscuit and soft words. I went back to bed. 10 minutes later she woke me up again. She went out, came immediately back in, and wanted another bone. For that she got a stern NO! and GO lie down!!

She is very intelligent, and will try to manipulate, and sometimes has to be reminded who is running the show here.

[Seijun]

[quote name='kendalyn'][quote]People who try modifying aggressive dogs don't try to "dominate" them into submission. Everybody agrees that would be a disaster. Imagine training a wolf by dominating it. Quick way to get killed. It is a mistake to think that because dogs are descended from wolves, they behave
like wolves.[/quote]

This is my favorite part. I've never agreed with using wolf pack rules and applying them to dogs. Dogs are nothing like wolves and most of our pets have never lived in any sort of wolf pack. I'm am not my dog's "Alpha" anything. He has no idea what that means anyway.[/quote]

Actually, the people who work with and train wolves HAVE to train them by being alpha. For wolves, pack position is extremely important. If you are working with a wolf pack, you HAVE to be the alpha. Serious dominance challenges in wild packs rarely occur, and serious challenges on an alpha wolf are even rarer. If you let a wolf be YOUR alpha, it could be very dangerous trying to reclaim alpha position, and dangerous to stay submissive because alpha wolves often correct submissive wolves through methods that could draw blood on a fragile human. People who I know who work with wolves who have become dominant over humans are often forced to never go into the pen with that wolf ever again because of the potential danger of the wolf exhibiting dominant behaviors towards the humans.
I do not think wolf-pack training methods should be completely thrown out though when working with dogs. Alpha roles and other physical dominances like that are not often used on adult dogs, but ARE used on young and particularly rebellious puppies, in both wolves AND dogs. Dogs and wolves speak the same basic canine language, and even if dogs don't live in wolf packs, they will still see the others around them as either alpha or submissive. Canines DO NOT live in a democracy, treating them as equals can be dangerous, especially if you are working with an alpha-personality dog. I have seen many, MANY cases where owners try to treat the dogs as equals and let them do whatever they want, this is the same thing as telling the dog that you are not willing to take the alpha position, and therefore they should fill it in. The situation turns dangerous when the dog begins trying to "correct" the owner for exhibiting "bad" behavior. Cassie, if your dogs see you as the provider, then they see you as alpha, whether you like it or not :wink: The first thing a person learns when dealing with an alpha dog is to make that dog think of them as the provider. By letting your dog know that you are the source of all good things, you are setting yourself up as alpha. If you let a dog get whatever they wanted, whenever THEY wanted it, then you would be setting THEM up as alpha. Some dogs are submissive no matter what you do, others may have their canine instincts so watered down, that it is difficult to tell that they live by any sort of pack rules, but there will always be some degree of wolf pack mentality in a dog. No, this does not mean that we should start alpha rolling our dogs for every mistake, trying to train them entirely by dominance, or trying to take back our alpha position by challenging a dog, but that does not change the fact that wolves and dogs are still canines, and no matter what dog you are working with, they will STILL either view you as their dominant or submissive "pack mate", NOT an equal, that would be going against all that we know to be true in canine behavior. As for correcting a dog by challenging it directly, this would be dangerous even for a wolf in a wolf pack. Today’s training methods teach us to fix alpha problems in a dog not by challenging it for alpha status, but by asserting our alpha status through non-confrontational, positive methods. Either way, it is STILL showing the dog that we are alpha! You should never try to train a dog entirely through dominating it, possitive reanforcement is the best way to train most dogs, but dominance as a training method can and should still be used. Dog puppies, for instance, can be just like little kids, they can be brats and just like with a kid, being nice won't always work. With pupies, you sometimes HAVE to use wolf-pack based training through dominance. Even mother dogs will discipline their puppies through dominant behaviors such as scruff shakes and muzzle holds, depending on how badly the puppy was behaving.

Once again, dogs DO maintain SOME wolf-pack mentality (even if they don't all live in a strict and clearly visible pack structure), and dogs do not look at humans as equals! If they DID look at humans as equals, then people wouldn't have problems with dominant dogs. I have seen numerous times on this list and others, people coming foreword for help when their dog growls at them when they approach it while it is sitting on the owners couch, or they ask what it means when their female dog humps their male dog, or one of their dogs at the dog park keeps "picking on" other dogs. These are all cases of normal dogs showing wolf pack structure mentality, to deny that dogs no longer live in any sort of pack hierarchy would be foolish, as anywhere you look you can find evidence AGAINST this.

~Seij

[imported_Matty]

[quote]Cassie, if your dogs see you as the provider, then they see you as alpha, whether you like it or not The first thing a person learns when dealing with an alpha dog is to make that dog think of them as the provider. By letting your dog know that you are the source of all good things, you are setting yourself up as alpha. If you let a dog get whatever they wanted, whenever THEY wanted it, then you would be setting THEM up as alpha[/quote]
Quote by Seijun, Alpha is such a loose term. I am the Alpha of my horse as well, last I heard my horse was not a member of a wolf pack :lol:

[courtnek]

Matty **sigh**

"Alpha" just means "top" - the top of the "group", the leader. Yes, your horse could easily see you as Alpha without being in a herd. You provide, he responds. That was my whole point.

in a pack setting, the Alpha "provides" by being their leader. He dictates what the pack will do, he watches over them, he allows feeding and calls them to hunt. They respect him for this function, not resent him. in a wolf pack, other females in the pack will develop teats, and feed the Alpha females young, if for some reason she cannot. It is a cooperative effort for all members. It is literally a society. They have an ingrained sense of
survival. it has been proved over time that the pack mentality keeps them alive and well the longest. Most of us dont have to have the "Alpha" tough
guy attitude with our dogs. the majority of our dogs are quite happy with being more submissive, like Cassies. However, I have had to break dogs who became too dominate in a household situation. and the best way to do that is too become the pack alpha, even where there is no pack. Not threaten them, but take priveledges away, that only the alpha would normally get. that doesnt mean beat them into submission. you can use their own natural insticnts to stop them from thinking they are "top dog"....

[Seijun]

[b]Very[/b] good post Courtneck! :D I think a lot of people see using wolf-pack psychology as forcing dogs into submission through fear, but it isn't like that at all! Part of it might be because on wolf programs, they always show the alpha wolf standing over a submissive one, growling and snarling aggressively. It gives the impression that the alpha rules by fear. Such aggressive stances are not uncommon, and although it looks quite vicious, it really isn't. A LOT of the communication between wolves can look vicious and dangerous because wolves often express themselves through growling, bared teeth, and intense posturing (in dogs, this communication is much more subtle and usually appears a lot less 'vicious'). This is all just their way of communicating. During breeding season these conflicts can escalate into fighting, but it is usually among lower ranking wolves. When young wolves mature they may sometimes challenge more dominant wolves and get alpha rolled for it, but even that rarely hurts them (wolves depend on their pack to survive, they can't afford to hurt each other with fighting). There [b]are[/b] what are called "super-alphas" though. These are wolves who are so alpha that they will repeatedly become dangerously aggressive with the pack. An alpha is supposed to be looked up to as a protector and caretaker, a "super-alpha" abuses this right, and becomes more like a dictator. The Druid Peak Pack is one fine example of this. The alpha female (don't know about the alpha male, he is not mentioned much, he too might have been overwhelmed by her) was what is referred to as a "super-alpha". She ran her own mother out of the pack. Later, she killed a litter of puppies born to her sister, an omega wolf (known as the "Cinderella wolf" because her alpha sister picked on her so). In the following season, two more litters were born, one from the alpha, and another from the Cinderella wolf. The alpha female again tried to kill the Cinderella wolf's litter of puppies. Before she could, the Cinderella wolf and the rest of the pack turned on her, killing her. The omega sister became alpha and raised both her and her sister's puppies. It is VERY important for us as dog owners to understand that being our dogs’ alpha does NOT mean we should rule them with fear. If we do, then we will be acting just like the "super-alpha" in the Druid Peak Pack. Alphas are not supposed to rule with fear and physical dominance. Like all leaders, an alpha is to respect the "pack" (dog or wolf) and watch over and protect them. (In one of my most favorite stories, a man's wolf was attacked by a pit bull. The wolf did not fight back but howled/yelped and tried to hide behind his 'owner', as the owner was alpha, and as the "alpha", it was the owner's job to protect him! :D ). Even though the behavior of dogs’ is usually much less intense than that of wolves, and like Courtneck said, many dogs are more than happy to accept as alpha regardless of our actions, I think we can still learn a lot about our canine companions by watching and studying the behaviors of their wild ancestors.

~Seij

[courtnek]

[quote]She ran her own mother out of the pack. Later, she killed a litter of puppies born to her sister, an omega wolf (known as the "Cinderella wolf" because her alpha sister picked on her so)[/quote]

THAT'S messed up and it shows two things. One, that the "super alpha" was truly pushing her luck, and two that nature provides. In a normal pack, the Omega would never give birth. She would not be allowed to mate, until she had climbed the ladder to a higher status. in fact, she wouldnt come into heat. nature somehow decides for them what females come into heat, and its usually the higher ranking, because they are stronger, faster, and have the best sets of genes to carry on the pack.
which is how they became higher ranking in the first place. I find it very interesting that the Omega was both her sister, and that she came into heat. and that the rest of the pack allowed her to mate. nature and nurture combined, it seems. there must have been a lot of stress in this pack, as far as rank and position, for this to happen. I would be interested to know who the father was. Possibly the male alpha? he too may have contributed to try and correct the mess the pack was in...this is so out of the ordinary its amazing....

although I did see a wolf show where the omega male was the alpha's son, and of course he was the last end of everthing. but as the male grew older, and started losing his alpha status as he lost strength, suddenly in three seasons the Omega male had worked his way up to the top, and became alpha when the alpha "retired". Now these wolves were closely observed by, and moved by humans from one location to another, and the humans were actually considered to be part of the pack. After being moved and settled, the people came back 3 years later to observe them.
the Omega male was now Alpha, and the pack recognized them instantly and came out to visit with them. they werent expecting that. the now alpha male allowed them to handle his pups, while the female watched, not
quite happy about it, but not resisting either. these pups were old enough to be eating solid food, or I think the female may have fended them off. But the alpha let them pick them up, and the female just watched closely.
The alpha had known them since he was a pup himself.

[Seijun]

[quote]THAT'S messed up and it shows two things. One, that the "super alpha" was truly pushing her luck, and two that nature provides. In a normal pack, the Omega would never give birth. She would not be allowed to mate, until she had climbed the ladder to a higher status. in fact, she wouldnt come into heat.[/quote]

The very fact that the one wolf was such a "super alpha" probably contributed to what happened within the pack. I am not entirely sure of the details of how she came to power, but I have a feeling whoever was alpha male got pushed out of the picture for the most part. With the alpha female pushing everyone around so much, it could easily have created such displacement within the pack that a male wolf would have been given a chance to get to the omega female. I have never heard though that the omegs shouldn't come into heat, I will look it up. It is normal for a pack to only have one litter per year like you said, but if their is extreme discplacement and unsettlement within a pack, multiple litters can be born. Wolf culling for instance, can actually increase wolf numbers by destroying the delicate "balance" of the pack when certain members are killed, this can disrupt a pack enough that two or even three litters will be born to the remaining pack, instead of just one.

~Seij

[courtnek]

usually only the alpha pair and sometimes the beta pair, will mate. its genetics beyond what people are accustomed to. handled by nature. nature seems to decide that they either need more pups, or they dont.
if they dont (depending on the food available) only the alpha pair will mate. if the pack is very small (not viable) or the food is very good, the beta pair will mate and have puppies. it amazes me that nature can decide that anyway! the whole purpose is to have pack members with the BEST genes available. keeps the pack strong, healthy and viable.

nature also seems to decide whent he gene pool needs to be increased.
if a pack is too small, not viable to the gene pool, more females will come into heat, and more puppies will be born, if the prey can sustain them.

[imported_Cassie]

[quote]Most of us dont have to have the "Alpha" tough
guy attitude with our dogs. the majority of our dogs are quite happy with being more submissive, like Cassies. However, I have had to break dogs who became too dominate in a household situation. and the best way to do that is too become the pack alpha, even where there is no pack. Not threaten them, but take priveledges away, that only the alpha would normally get. that doesnt mean beat them into submission. you can use their own natural insticnts to stop them from thinking they are "top dog"....[/quote]
Courtnek, first off I work with dogs daily and I have always owned a multie dog house hold. I have taken in adult dogs which had become spoiled and aggressive in other households. My Rottie and other dogs I have owned in the past could not be placed in normal homes after they were confiscated by the SPCA, thats how I ended up with them. Dogs have a hierarchy within their own species, but they do not have a
hierarchy with humans in the same way. If I live with a dog, it does not view me as a dog.
Teaching rules has nothing to do with hierarchy. Everybody is different and
what rules one person has living with their dogs, another person wont have, we are all individuals but we need rules to live in harmony whether that's with our offspring, pets or even visitors in some cases. When we use the NIFIL policy or by taking priveledges away...this is not really using pack rules this policy can be used with any species. By with holding a childs toy, or grounding a child and taking away TV priveledges I am not demoting that child I am teaching house rules and keeping the child from becoming a spoiled little brat. A dog can also become a spoiled little brat, they are opportunist animals.
[quote]The Dog In Your Living Room
If you have a dog, are you the pack leader? Are you sure that with Mum, Dad, 2.4 children and a dog, the dog has the lowest status in the pack?
For many years now dog owners have been told they must be the pack leader. Everyone in the family must be dominant over the dog, or it may become dominant over them. Any sign of human weakness, and a dog with a dominant disposition may take advantage and make a bid for a higher status within the 'pack'. This, we are told, is likely to lead to behavioural problems or the dog being stubborn in obeying commands. If this were to happen we were advised to implement a Rank Reduction Programme which includes, amongst other things, eating something before feeding the dog, not allowing him to sleep on your bed, not playing games of tug, and not allowing him through doorways first. In addition, as the dog's ancestor is the wolf, the Rank Reduction Programme is based on wolf behaviour, despite the fact we have a dog in our living room, not a wolf.
New research and new theories on dog behaviour have recently come to the fore, so out of interest let's look at a dog's life from a different
perspective. The first question we have to consider is whether the dog is a
pack animal. According to ethologist Ray Coppinger, it isn't. He studied a
group of feral dogs that lived in and around a village. They had all the
means of survival readily available, food from the village dumps, water, and shelter so there was no reason for them to form a pack. They lived
semi-solitary lives or in small groups, probably mum and her offspring. We
know dogs are social animals, as are we, which is why we can live together
under the same roof. So on the basis of Coppinger's research, as we provide our dog with sufficient food, water is always available, they have five star accommodation, exercise is provided and their health cared for, why would they form a pack with us?
Another aspect of the pack theory is that packs tend to be conspecific; in
other words they are made up of the same species. Therefore dogs and people cannot form a pack in the true sense of the word; a social group yes, but not a pack. Dogs don't think like us, behave like us, smell like us, or live by the same values as us. Given these facts, shouldn't we be questioning whether our dog in the living room really is looking for opportunities to raise its status?
Before his sad, untimely death, John Fisher was starting to question whether dogs perceived themselves as part of our pack and whether they should live by the pack rules that would supposedly reinforce our position as pack leader. Regrettably, he didn't have the opportunity to put too much in writing about his modified views, although one of the few things he did publish was "...if it's how you want to live with your dog I have news that is going to disappoint a lot of people who have striven to reach Alpha status - it all means diddly squat to your dog."
I think it's worth questioning some of the pack rules we have been told over the years about how to bring up a dog to prevent it from becoming dominant. Bear in mind though that the rules are based on how wolves behave and not how our domestic dogs behave.
* Eat something before feeding the dog, because the Alpha always eats
first. So we get our new puppy home, call the family together, eat a
biscuit, then put the pup's food down. What is the pup really going to
understand from that? Not a lot! According to research by David Mech, in a
free roaming wolf pack, if the kill is big enough, there is no 'pecking
order', and all the wolves would get stuck in. If food were in short supply,
the pups' would eat first. The dam has invested 50% of her genes in her
puppies and to ensure their survival she would go without food herself. Our
behaviour in making the puppy wait may cause it stress or we might encourage it to jump up in order to get its food.
* Go through doorways before the pup because subservient wolves stand
aside to allow the Alpha wolf to go through small openings first. As
canine-to-canine communication is different to canine-to-human
communication, is the pup going to understand the message behind this
behaviour? We cannot mimic a dog's body language or facial expression so the true reasoning behind this rule will be lost to the dog.
* A dog that pulls on the lead is attempting to take charge of the
walk, just as a dominant wolf will decide where the pack will go. OK, so a
dog walking to the park is pulling on the lead, as it's so excited at the
prospect of having a good run. On the way home, when it's tired, it's
walking on a loose lead. Should we then deduce that the dog is being
dominant on the way to the park and subservient on the way home? Common sense says not.
The comparison between our dogs' behaviour and wolf behaviour is misleading. Although the dog evolved from the wolf, the wolf has changed very little. We on the other hand have produced breeds of all shapes and sizes. We have breeds with different coat colours, types of coat, length and even no coat at all. We have dogs with different gaits, tail and ear positions. We have bred dogs to help man for guarding, retrieving, herding, pulling, sledges, hunting and just lapdogs. The dog's brain has changed; it's smaller than a wolf's. It has a different conformation, different innate motor patterns, drives and motivations. A dog is not a wolf in dog's clothing; it's simply a dog!
There are of course no guarantees that a dog will not develop behavioural
problems, but there are steps you can take to minimise the risk. Choose a
puppy from a breeder who rears the pups indoors so they can start to become accustomed to household noises and the comings and goings of people to the house. The breeder should also start off the socialisation process, which must continue when it gets to its new home. Teach it house rules so it knows what it can do and what it can't do. If a large, hairy adult dog is not appreciated lying on the sofa, don't encourage it when it's a puppy. Start basic obedience training straight away using motivational reward-based methods, so the pup ends up being a sociable, well behaved dog with manners.
We don't have to be Alpha, dominant or pack leader, and neither does our
dog. All we need to be is an owner responsible for guiding our dog, shaping
and influencing its behaviour through correct socialisation and training so
they can live in harmony with us.
Author Barry Eaton [/quote]


[b]Seijun said[/b]
[quote]Actually, the people who work with and train wolves HAVE to train them by being alpha. For wolves, pack position is extremely important. If you are working with a wolf pack, you HAVE to be the alpha. Serious dominance challenges in wild packs rarely occur, and serious challenges on an alpha wolf are even rarer. If you let a wolf be YOUR alpha, it could be very dangerous trying to reclaim alpha position, and dangerous to stay submissive because alpha wolves often correct submissive wolves through methods that could draw blood on a fragile human. People who I know who work with wolves who have become dominant over humans are often forced to never go into the pen with that wolf ever again because of the potential danger of the wolf exhibiting dominant behaviors towards the humans.[/quote]

[b]Director of Wolf park Erich Klinghammer quote[/b]
[quote]No one at wolf park-least of all the handlers-is ever fooled into believing the adult wolves are pets. In fact, handlers operate as if they are entering the wolves world, and they behave within the social rules of woves. They are carefully taught how to work with the wolves without antagonistic confrontations. [b]The handler does not try to behave like a pack leader and make the wolves submissive[/b]. [/quote]

[quote]I have seen many, MANY cases where owners try to treat the dogs as equals and let them do whatever they want, this is the same thing as telling the dog that you are not willing to take the alpha position, and therefore they should fill it in. The situation turns dangerous when the dog begins trying to "correct" the owner for exhibiting "bad" behavior.[/quote]
No one ever said we were treating our dogs as equals, I am just stating that my dogs do not view me as a member of their species. I set rules for my dogs just as I would any other animal or human. I find the whole Alpha pack mentality of training to be very misleading and most dogs I have witnessed from owners with this mode of training have dogs which are confused as most people do try to dominate their dogs. Instead of referring to wolf packs and the pack mentality when I am helping clients deal with an agressive/spoiled dog I advise them on the bases of the dog being a dog.
[quote]Dog puppies, for instance, can be just like little kids, they can be brats and just like with a kid, being nice won't always work. With pupies, you sometimes HAVE to use wolf-pack based training through dominance. Even mother dogs will discipline their puppies through dominant behaviors such as scruff shakes and muzzle holds, depending on how badly the puppy was behaving. [/quote]
:o I have whelped hundreds of litters of pups, and have helped raise many many litters including my own dogs last litter. Never once have I seen a mother dog scruff shake or muzzle hold, usually when the pups start getting rowdy momma dog leaves the whelping box. With the pups; the pup who gets rowdy and gets too rough looses his/her play mates. The other pup will screetch and won't play with the other pup for awhile. Thus the other pup learns to be more gentle.

A good example of the social system of dogs is sled dogs
[quote]On a 12-16 dog team, the leaders are usually paired. The leaders can be paired as males or females. What does that do to the theory of the alpha dog? 2 females alpha dogs? A dogs team with good depth has many leaders. It has alternates that the driver can substitute up front to replace animals too tired to keep a winning pace.
Dogs are not wolves. Dogs are not running as a pack. A pack is about chasing something. Sled dogs are running because other dogs are running. They are motivated by something the animal behaviorists call social facilitation. The structure and behavior of a dog may superficially resemble that of wolves, but in fact, to focus on similarities does the dogs a great disservice. Sled dogs are an evolutionary advancement over wolves. Sled dogs are as close to an evolutionary perfection as you can get. They do something better than any other organism. [/quote]

Any way, I am not disputing the fact that all animals living in a social organization need rules. I just think that people should concentrate more on dogs being dogs and how to train dogs rather than trying to study wolves to learn about dogs. I really have seen alot of harm done to many many dogs by people who have some misguided information about pack rules and how to apply them to our dogs. There have been alot of very confused dogs out there which do not have a clue of what their owners are trying to do. Dominance may work quickly in some situations, but, in the long run its just not worth it.

[courtnek]

[quote]Any way, I am not disputing the fact that all animals living in a social organization need rules. I just think that people should concentrate more on dogs being dogs and how to train dogs rather than trying to study wolves to learn about dogs. I really have seen alot of harm done to many many dogs by people who have some misguided information about pack rules and how to apply them to our dogs. There have been alot of very confused dogs out there which do not have a clue of what their owners are trying to do. Dominance may work quickly in some situations, but, in the long run its just not worth it.
[/quote]

I think you're misunderstanding me. Pack rules are just that, rules. I am not talking aggression, or punishment, by employing them. I know that dogs dont think we are dogs, but I do think they believe we are part of their pack hierarchy. not to the extent of a wolf, but the instincts and mannerisms are still there. aggressive ruling is just as bad as non-ruling.
a good pack alpha employs the animal version of NILIF every day.
The wolf that takes down the kill gets to eat first, with the Alpha's. that in itself is a reward for a job well done. The alpha may decide to lay down and "groom" one of the omega's. he is generally very benevolent to his pack members. there is reward, and punishment, but punishment in a true pack is very rare, and only when it cant be helped. I think what Seij said about how wolves are seen on TV, and in legend, has put a lot of people on the defense about pack training, because they really believe it is "rule by fear". It's not.

and the reference to sled dogs....sled dogs are a team, trained to do what they do best, run as a team. But so is a pack. If you watch a pack run, it is remarkably (without harnesses) like a sled team. when they migrate, which some of them do, they look like a sled team covering the territory they cross. they run in pairs, with a point and flank scout.

I am not advocating aggression at all as "alpha" in my household. I think your analogy to a kid being a "spoiled brat" when not raised properly is dead on. and yes, dogs can be spoiled brats as well. I think we're actually on the same page, just using different terminology.

:D

[Seijun]

[quote]but they do not have a
hierarchy with humans in the same way. If I live with a dog, it does not view me as a dog. [/quote]

They don't have to see you as a dog to see you as submissive or dominant. Most dogs are willing to accept that you are dominant. Most dogs won't take advantage of "open spaces" and take over. But they will STILL view you in an order of rank (even if the dog isn't able to fully inderstand rank to the degree that a wolf will). My own dog DOES have a very pushy personality. I ALWAYS have to reinforce my apha role because she WILL take advantage of me when I don't. Some dogs are just like that. They don't need to view you as another dog, they just have to see you as part of their family/pack/whatever you want to call it.

Many people beleive that dogs are actually like juevenile wolves-like puppies who never grew up. In a wolf pack, the puppies will naturaly see the adults as alpha. Dogs who are in this permanent juivinile stage may also see their owners as more like parents then pack mates, which helps contribute to their willingness to be submissive (although this is not the case for ALL dogs).

[quote]I have whelped hundreds of litters of pups, and have helped raise many many litters including my own dogs last litter. Never once have I seen a mother dog scruff shake or muzzle hold, usually when the pups start getting rowdy momma dog leaves the whelping box. [/quote]

Can't help it if you have never seen it. I have seen adult dogs use scruff shakes, muzzle holds, and even alpha rolls on pups.

[quote][b]Seijun said[/b]
[quote]Actually, the people who work with and train wolves HAVE to train them by being alpha. For wolves, pack position is extremely important. If you are working with a wolf pack, you HAVE to be the alpha. Serious dominance challenges in wild packs rarely occur, and serious challenges on an alpha wolf are even rarer. If you let a wolf be YOUR alpha, it could be very dangerous trying to reclaim alpha position, and dangerous to stay submissive because alpha wolves often correct submissive wolves through methods that could draw blood on a fragile human. People who I know who work with wolves who have become dominant over humans are often forced to never go into the pen with that wolf ever again because of the potential danger of the wolf exhibiting dominant behaviors towards the humans.[/quote]

[b]Director of Wolf park Erich Klinghammer quote[/b]
[quote]No one at wolf park-least of all the handlers-is ever fooled into believing the adult wolves are pets. In fact, handlers operate as if they are entering the wolves world, and they behave within the social rules of woves. They are carefully taught how to work with the wolves without antagonistic confrontations. [b]The handler does not try to behave like a pack leader and make the wolves submissive[/b]. [/quote][/quote]

People who DO own wolves as 'pets' usually prefer to be seen as alpha, especially when they actively work to be seen by the wolf as part of the wolf's pack. (Sorry for not making that clearer. when I was refering to people who train and work with wolves I was thinking in the context of them being private owners) Wolf Park's wolves are used for study, not private ownership, so it is not nesasary for the handlers to be seen as alpha. They have to be careful not to be seen as submissive either.

~Seij