# Dominance Theory



## Ashley Hiebing (Apr 6, 2008)

Recently on a pit bull community I belong to (almost entirely pet owners), a post came up (that I would link to, but you have to join the community to read it) about someone's dog that, while she (the owner) was laying on the couch, would come and position herself over the owner's torso and face. Immediately people told her that this was dominant behavior. Then someone butted in and said that the "dominance theory" was a myth and to just teach her dog better manners. So there was a back-and-forth for a while, with the "myth buster" letting everyone know that he/she was a professional dog trainer/behaviorist/what-have-you. So we asked him/her to post resources that debunk the "dominance theory," and this is what we got: 

http://www.4pawsu.com/dominancemyth.pdf
http://www.iiacab.com/_Media/whatswrongwithdominancetheo.pdf
http://4pawsu.com/pmdominance.htm
http://www.apbc.org.uk/article13.htm
http://dogpublic.com/articles/article.aspx?sid=14&pid=1640
http://www.professorshouse.com/pets/dogs/is-your-dog-dominant.aspx
Alpha Theory (long URL)
http://www.dogscouts1.com/Letting_go_of_Dominance.html
http://www.nonlineardogs.com/embed-SocOrg.html
http://www.mnforsustain.org/wolf_mech_dominance_alpha_status.htm

Now I have not read all of these pages yet, and I'm not asking you guys to read them all, either. I've just heard a lot of conflicting opinions on dominance and I would appreciate some clearing up. Thanks a ton in advance.


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

Ashley,

It's all about thresholds. Every dog has the propensity to bite. There is a threshold, a level at which the dog will be antagonized to bite. But that threshold varies widely among individual dogs and individual situations. Some dogs will live their whole lives with never reaching the threshold and never biting. Others have a low threshold and will bite early.

The same for dominance. Every dog will assume a position within a pack. Every dog has a threshold for when it will attempt to gain a higher status within the pack. This threshold also varies widely among dogs, situation and packs. 

If a person has not had a wide range of experience, it's easy for that person to believe an extreme - either "dominance is a myth" or "dominance is everything." A person needs to learn to read each individual dog and situation.

The dog leaning on a person is one of the more difficult situations to read. 

I had rescue APBT's with dominance problems that would do this behavior to demand attention or to dominant.

I had another that did it out of submissive attention-seeking.

I had one now that does it because she gets tired of holding her head up and is looking for a chinrest.

In the situation you briefly describe, both can be correct. Whether or not the behavior is dominant, it is considered unacceptable in the situation and TEACHING the dog an appropriate behavior is correct. If the dog does, in fact, have a dominance issue, it will come out in other ways. If simply teaching the dog an appropriate behavior solves the problem, is that an issue? No. 

I have handled dogs so dominant/with such low threshold that forward-tilting body language was all the dog needed to attack. (I got a couple scars from that one). I have handled dogs so submissive/sensitive to handler that forward-tilting body language was all the dog needed to roll on its back. These are two extremes. But it is very obvious to me that pack structure is a huge influence on the way dogs and people function together. The extreme to which it affects an individual relationship will depend on the dog's thresholds.

Questions?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Every dog??????? Not in my experience. Not at all. I have worked too many that had no interest, and when pushed, just went into avoidance to the point of blowing anal glands and screaming. I have had others that just sat there and ignored me. To say that all will bite is irresponsible, and not true.

I really don't think that the owner is in some imminent danger, and the manners reply was appropriate.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I remember a Dobermann that wouldn't bite. The decoy tied it to a tree and threatened it - then lashed at it and still it wouldn't defend itself which is when I intervened. It would never have bitten.


----------



## Lynn Cheffins (Jul 11, 2006)

I think the dominance theory stuff is alot of time overstated - you almost would have to see the dog and the rest of its body language to state what it is. 

I have seen people really over react to the actions of some poor dog just because it jumped up, or leaned etc and it was not a dog that wanted to take over the town anytime soon.

I have seen other people tolerate really bad behaviour and be oh so close to getting themselves bit (or getting bit) because they can't read the dogs body language.


----------



## liz shulman (Aug 28, 2008)

IME, pet people tend to blame anything that's not their idea of what a dog should be (think Disney) on "dominance".

As for the links, I've read much of the same stuff. The debunking of dominance theory claims that wolves were studied in captivity with unrelated wolves which doesn't portray how wolves in the wild are structured.

My dogs are four unrelated dogs living in captivity. I would think that would be a closer comparison to the original wolves in captivity studies. But my dogs aren't wolves. So I don't like the wolf based dominance theory being used to discuss dogs. I don't like the wolf based debunking of the wolf based dominance theory being used to discuss dogs.

Are there dominant dogs? Sure. When a pet owner claims their dog is dominant, is it being dominant? Usually not, but it's something that's impossible to be sure of on a message board.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Even worse, I had a 10~or~so year schutzhund participant who trains regularly with with a "big name" in sports send me a dog that was proclaimed as "very dominant". I could mention a lot of other interesting character traits, but the dog was totally NOT a dominant dog.


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

liz shulman said:


> IME, pet people tend to blame anything that's not their idea of what a dog should be (think Disney) on "dominance".


Yea, but what about Tramp? He was a dominating dog, no? :lol:


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Daryl, does your Gabby show any signs of dominance? The reason I ask is that my Fiona does show some behavior that I am interpreting as "dominance". Then again, maybe I'm totally misreading her. Just because a dog will "push the envelope", so to speak, doesn't necessarily mean it's acting dominant, no? She doesn't and hasn't ever "defied" ME, but that doesn't mean she's NOT acting dominant at times with other members of my "pack", such as my son, no? 

Daryl, if you don't mind, could you share with us what behaviors you would consider as "dominant" and what other behaviors might be mis-read as "dominant"? 

I hope others, too, will feel free to chime in. I am particularly interested in Daryl's point of view because he does this professionally AND his bitch, Gabby, is a full littermate to my Fiona.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Gabi is not a dominant dog, but I'd never allow her loose around small children or unwary adults. The only reason is because I've always allowed to jump and push off of me, and she is a LOT more solid than she looks. To take it, I really have to brace myself, and demand she contain herself (though she might burst). The typical drive killing commands only escalate her drive. I've never seen her afraid of anything, very aggressive and relentless in training and play. Overall a very tough girl, but never played a dominant role. She's not so independent or defiant, she's very willing to please the handler, and likes attention/interaction with other dogs, but submits if they aren't in the mood.


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

That's great Daryl. Thank you.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Interesting thread. I realize that most of you have dogs that are, more or less, bred to view people as fair game where mine are not. Dogs live in two worlds, ours and animals. What I have seen when they are in their world is that a "truly" dominate dog does not posture. They don't bare their teeth, they don't strut their stuff. They take care of business with no fan fare. Example. In a dog park, they pick the worst dog present, position themselves in front of the dog, and calmly stare at it with a total lack of emotion. The dog reads this and most all submit. Bull breeds are the ones that may take the challenge. 
I would guess that since the dogs in question are bred for manwork to a large extent, you will see a senario very similar being played out. Body language is important! Does the dog want to be petted or is he asserting his domnance? Watch the eyes would be my guess. It is a tough call on a message board because everyone has their own interpretation of what they see. 
My experience with trully dominate dogs is there is a total lack of posturing. They won't posture because they are not afraid. If they are posturing, they are unsure or afraid, and are not really dominate in that case.


----------



## Julie Ann Alvarez (Aug 4, 2007)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Interesting thread. I realize that most of you have dogs that are, more or less, bred to view people as fair game where mine are not. Dogs live in two worlds, ours and animals. What I have seen when they are in their world is that a "truly" dominate dog does not posture. They don't bare their teeth, they don't strut their stuff. They take care of business with no fan fare. Example. In a dog park, they pick the worst dog present, position themselves in front of the dog, and calmly stare at it with a total lack of emotion. The dog reads this and most all submit. Bull breeds are the ones that may take the challenge.
> I would guess that since the dogs in question are bred for manwork to a large extent, you will see a senario very similar being played out. Body language is important! Does the dog want to be petted or is he asserting his domnance? Watch the eyes would be my guess. It is a tough call on a message board because everyone has their own interpretation of what they see.
> My experience with trully dominate dogs is there is a total lack of posturing. They won't posture because they are not afraid. If they are posturing, they are unsure or afraid, and are not really dominate in that case.


I competely agree with you Don- good post!


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Truly dominant dogs are rare.
I've only ever seen them in the military, and I suspect it's because the military is (stupidly) breeding and selecting dogs for this quality.


Dogs will fill a perceived leadership "vacuum" if forced to, but it isn't in their nature, they don't find comfort in that role, and the conflict is what causes a lot of behavior issues. These are the dogs you see folks like Cesar Milan working with. The reason he is able to fix the problems so fast is because the dog is NOT dominant, and relieved to be out of the leadership role and have clear structure again.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Alyssa Myracle said:


> Truly dominant dogs are rare.
> I've only ever seen them in the military, and I suspect it's because the military is (stupidly) breeding and selecting dogs for this quality.
> 
> 
> Dogs will fill a perceived leadership "vacuum" if forced to, but it isn't in their nature, they don't find comfort in that role, and the conflict is what causes a lot of behavior issues. These are the dogs you see folks like Cesar Milan working with. The reason he is able to fix the problems so fast is because the dog is NOT dominant, and relieved to be out of the leadership role and have clear structure again.


It sounds like two different levels of dogs Alyssa. I think a truly dominate type is quite comfortable in his role. Dogs, like people, are always trying to be dominate over one another. If they are clearly the dominate one, they do it comfortabley. If there is question, there is uncertainty and with that comes the signs that they are unsure in the way of profiling. With many dogs, this may go back to a another great thread on "social dominance". With dogs in this level, it is compulsory that they be in control. My personal male dogs are this way in the animal world which does not include human control. When dogs are specifically bred for including man as fair game, I would think it could get pretty dicey at times.


----------



## David Scholes (Jul 12, 2008)

Alyssa Myracle said:


> Truly dominant dogs are rare.
> I've only ever seen them in the military, and I suspect it's because the military is (stupidly) breeding and selecting dogs for this quality...


Does the military actually get involved in breeding or are they just requesting dominant dogs from their suppliers which may trickle down to influence the breeder? By your comment, I assume these dominant dogs you've seen also view themselves as above their handler?


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> It sounds like two different levels of dogs Alyssa. I think a truly dominate type is quite comfortable in his role. Dogs, like people, are always trying to be dominate over one another. If they are clearly the dominate one, they do it comfortabley. If there is question, there is uncertainty and with that comes the signs that they are unsure in the way of profiling. With many dogs, this may go back to a another great thread on "social dominance". With dogs in this level, it is compulsory that they be in control. My personal male dogs are this way in the animal world which does not include human control. When dogs are specifically bred for including man as fair game, I would think it could get pretty dicey at times.


That was actually what I was trying to convey in my post; that there are the rare, truly dominant dogs and then there are dogs that are simply filling a role that they see as being empty (which they find to be an uncomfortable position).


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

David Scholes said:


> Does the military actually get involved in breeding or are they just requesting dominant dogs from their suppliers which may trickle down to influence the breeder? By your comment, I assume these dominant dogs you've seen also view themselves as above their handler?


My understanding is that in the past the military, while not actually breeding the dogs themselves, had a lot of oversight and involvement in the breeding process with the breeders they took their dogs from. Currently, I believe the military at Lackland has developed their own breeding programs.

The best example of a truly dominant dog is a dog out of Fort Lewis. I doubt anyone who has ever been a part of the Ft Lewis MWD program has *not* been bitten by her, to include her many handlers. She has had several, because she respects no one, and as a result, can be handled by very few people. 
She loves bitework, but will do little else. Compulsion is about the only way to have this dog do anything, and since the dog is incredibly handler aggressive, hard and dominant, unless you absolutely know what you are doing with her, she will tear you up. 

She is a nasty re-biter, has to be choked off and will rebite the handler if he isn't quick.

Good luck getting her to down, let alone a long down.

If a handler kicks her ass enough times, she _might_ view them as equal, but she will never view a handler as being dominant to her. In nature, she would either be one of the alpha pair, or the alpha pair would have to kill her.

Everyone who has met her, hates that bitch, but damn is she fearless in her bitework.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Every dog??????? Not in my experience. Not at all. I have worked too many that had no interest, and when pushed, just went into avoidance to the point of blowing anal glands and screaming. I have had others that just sat there and ignored me. To say that all will bite is irresponsible, and not true.
> 
> I really don't think that the owner is in some imminent danger, and the manners reply was appropriate.


 
I was bit by a dog that would probably behaved that way on the field. Me....a Little kid ....dog in his own house was scared ran behind the couch, I went back to "comfort" it and .........got bit lol. Will every dog bite? Dont know but they all have the ability to and sometimes that is not seen unless the conditions are right. I gave him no room to go anywhere and therefore in his mind little option to prevent me from coming closer.

t


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

I own what I would consider a "dominate" dog (animal/ human). She definitely struts her stuff, all the time in fact, but that could be her confidence and maybe what some would consider a different character trait.....personally I think they overlap.....I agree there is little to no warning, I learned ALOT from her and how to read subtle body language.....amongst other things :twisted: . 

t


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

With everything as far as behavior there are modifiers. For me, a dog that has to posture all the time may have a modifier of insecure. 

As far as cornering a dog as a child and getting nipped, I am not sure how much I would count that as a bite.

Alyssa, most military dog handlers create their own problems, and are not as skilled at dog training as the average person thinks. Multiple handlers can have effects as well. She sounds like a dog I would like to work with. LOL

My dogs stand over me if I am laying down on the floor, and I have never seen this as dominant, just that they want me to get up and do something. However, if you add the modifier "pushing" you down, then there are probably some issues to deal with.

All my dogs stand over one another, and they are not battling to the death, just trying to get the other dog to do something.


----------



## David Scholes (Jul 12, 2008)

Alyssa Myracle said:


> My understanding is that in the past the military, while not actually breeding the dogs themselves, had a lot of oversight and involvement in the breeding process with the breeders they took their dogs from. Currently, I believe the military at Lackland has developed their own breeding programs.
> 
> The best example of a truly dominant dog is a dog out of Fort Lewis. I doubt anyone who has ever been a part of the Ft Lewis MWD program has *not* been bitten by her, to include her many handlers. She has had several, because she respects no one, and as a result, can be handled by very few people.
> She loves bitework, but will do little else. Compulsion is about the only way to have this dog do anything, and since the dog is incredibly handler aggressive, hard and dominant, unless you absolutely know what you are doing with her, she will tear you up.
> ...


Alyssa, Thanks for sharing your experience. I find it very interesting that the dogs I've owned that have been more dominant toward other dogs have always still viewed their owner ... not just as members of the pack but as a god. The confidence you describe is impressive but definitely not a dog for everyone.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I think that's interesting, what you call modifiers, and Tracey's mention of overlapping behaviors.

STRESS - LEARNING - AGGRESSION - FEAR - CONFIDENCE - DOMINANCE - BULLYING

These are very interrelated tags that we give when we see the effects of hormonal response of behavior to the environment. However you choose to define them and use them as labels, none seem to act solely independant themselves. How many perceived "truly dominant" dogs can handle very hard corrections, show pronounced aggression, or seem unimpressed by the usual threatening circumstances? Quite a few I'm sure, and enough to justify correlating these patterns of characteristics with an individuals' hormonal balance.

Cortisol is secreted in response to stressful or threatening situations, or when presented with new, unpredictable or uncontrollable contexts. Consistently low salivary levels of the stress hormone cortisol in young males are associated with early onset and persistence of extremely aggressive behavior. Subjects with low levels of cortisol respond to potentially stressful situations without fear of retribution or threat of punishment in normal reactive ways. They appearantly don't feel stress in the same way, so doesn't warrant avoidance of stressful situations.

Maternal stress and stress hormones influence fetal brain development in utero, as optimal environments may produce beneficial effects on brain development, hostile environments may produce detrimental effects on brain development.

A recent twin study reveals that the genetic and environmental bases of hormonal response to stress depend on the context in which a child grows up. For children growing up in a favorable family environment, genetics account for 40% of the individual differences in cortisol response to unfamiliar situations. For children raised in difficult family circumstances, the environment completely overrides the genetic effect as if it had established a programmed hormonal conditioning to stress.

When disinterested, scared or threatened, ability to learn is reduced. Studies on squirrels have shown that correct levels of stress hormones facilitate a 50% learning advantage if they have a modest amount of cortisol than those with either high or low levels of cortisol.

Dehydroepiandrosterone-S (DHEA-S) is a hormone produced by the adrenal glands and is believed to be secreted in response to stress. DHEA-S may also provide beneficial effects, such as enhancing memory and reducing symptoms of depression. In humans, levels of DHEA-S peak around the ages of 20-25 years, and then decline to 20 percent to 30 percent of the peak values at ages 70 to 80 years. 

Studies show that the DHEA-S—cortisol ratio may play a role in lessening the impact of stress. The DHEA-S—cortisol ratios during stress are significantly higher in subjects who reported fewer symptoms of dissociation and exhibit superior performance. DHEA-S level is increased by acute stress and the DHEA-S—cortisol ratio indicates the degree to which an individual is buffered against the negative effects of stress.

What I'm inferring is, that perhaps a dominant dog has relatively lower levels of cortisol or better, a higher DHEA-S—cortisol ratio. And while this type of character depends initially on a given inherited predisposition (genetic & epigenetic), how it's manifested in it's environment is quite conditional on the context of growth, again emphasising the importance of Nature AND Nurture.

In the last few years, I've raised only one among dozens of what I would define as a "truly" dominant dog, and only aware of one other at the local club I go to (a half brother to the one I owned). I developed a strong, though unaffectionate bond with that one (no sissy-stuff), and he would occasionally rechallenge me, but I greatly admired him. Without a very assertive handler, I suppose many dogs could be perceived by that handler as "dominant", in a relative sort of way.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

[quote=Jeff Oehlsen;88801]With everything as far as behavior there are modifiers. For me, a dog that has to posture all the time may have a modifier of insecure. 
As far as cornering a dog as a child and getting nipped, I am not sure how much I would count that as a bite. [/quote]


Is it even possible that there are dogs out there that "posture ALL the time?". I cant even envision this. I would also question why? If you were referring to my dog who “struts her stuff” not really sure they are one in the same……….well in fact I disagree that they are one in the same, to me strutting is confidence posturing is making oneself appear larger. 

The bite as a child.............well it sure did feel like a bite and my comment was based on the original context of the thread and the second post which was about having the potential to bite........which I took as pets and pet homes and broken skin from dog’s teeth lol. 


On the military dog.........wouldnt fighting the dog only further teach the dog that this behavior is acceptable? I mean if the dog is truly an “alpha” dog, you are not going to teach it to be submissive so wouldn’t “fighting” the dog only further the behavior. I tried that with my dog……or I should say my husband did……..and it was NOT the way to go and only taught her to fight him and at no point did she respect him as her alpha. I on the other hand not having the ability or experience at the time, channeled her drives and taught her to work with me and not against me and that seemed to give the better result.

T


----------



## Lyn Chen (Jun 19, 2006)

> Is it even possible that there are dogs out there that "posture ALL the time?". I cant even envision this.


You've not met that kind of dog then? The one who has to hump everything and everyone, or growl at everyone all the time, or pick fights when they can, and people are all gaga over the dog because of how dominant it is.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> On the military dog.........wouldnt fighting the dog only further teach the dog that this behavior is acceptable? I mean if the dog is truly an “alpha” dog, you are not going to teach it to be submissive so wouldn’t “fighting” the dog only further the behavior. I tried that with my dog……or I should say my husband did……..and it was NOT the way to go and only taught her to fight him and at no point did she respect him as her alpha. I on the other hand not having the ability or experience at the time, channeled her drives and taught her to work with me and not against me and that seemed to give the better result.
> 
> T


When a dog wants to kick your ass 100% of the time, the only option is to kick it's ass first.
Do you understand what I mean by fighting the dog/kicking it's ass?


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Alyssa Myracle said:


> When a dog wants to kick your ass 100% of the time, the only option is to kick it's ass first.
> Do you understand what I mean by fighting the dog/kicking it's ass?


Im not sure dominate and aggressive are one in the same and always coupled. A dominate dog does not want to "kick your ass 100%" of the time........only if dominance is challenged or to gain dominance. That is just my opinion of course :-# 

Is a dog that cant be interacted with a dominate dog? or are there other "issues" or character traits showing here?

t


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

The problem with a dominant Military Working Dog is that you are constantly asking the dog to do things.
Virtually none of your interaction with the dog is neutral. The dominant dog has no desire to obey your requests, because the dog has zero respect for you.

This is a dog that will bite you, because you failed to respect it's space. This is a dog that will refuse to perform simple commands, unless there is a clear benefit to the dog. It has absolutely no biddability.
This type of dog will take any and every opportunity to challenge it's handler.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

tracey delin said:


> Im not sure dominate and aggressive are one in the same and always coupled. A dominate dog does not want to "kick your ass 100%" of the time........only if dominance is challenged or to gain dominance. That is just my opinion of course :-#
> 
> Is a dog that cant be interacted with a dominate dog? or are there other "issues" or character traits showing here?
> 
> t


I have to agree with this interpretation that there is a difference between dominance and aggression. Bearing in mind, my dogs do not include humans as fair game, a stranger would not want to walk in and openly challenge them by adapting an aggressive posture. A few have done it because they see the dog is avoiding direct contact with them in wide open yards where the dog could easily move to safety. The peoples aggressive posture ended with them being pinned to the fence calling for me to get the dog. They are not afraid of people they don't know, they simply avoid and watch them and they react only when challenged. This is dominance rather than aggression. On the other hand, in the animal world, they react only if their dominance is challeged. They never start a fight, they never pick on smaller, lesser dogs even if they are growling and carring on because they simply don't pose a threat. They do challenge any dog they think may be a threat but it is done silently, with confidence by positioning themselves right in front of the perceived threat and staring at them. This is all dominance and totally non aggressive unless the other dog pushes the point, then and only then, you have aggression.
I think what Alyssa is seeing in many military dogs is what was discussed as "social aggression". In the social environment the dog was bred to work in, he is the dominate one and he sets the rules.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I think that the outdated military "cookie cutter" training probably did that dog a diservice. I also do not think that kicking the crap out of a dog is going to aleviate any problems when dealing with, what sounds to me, a training problem. While I am not against giving a dog a crack in the head for unacceptable behavior, the dog described seems to have been encouraged in some way, most likely through the fear of an inexperienced handler.

I prefer to see dominence of the confident sort, and not the humpy the clown crap. THat is a candidate for neutering in my world.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I believe that dominance and handler aggression are learned or acquired behaviors, punctuated by the natural levels of suspicion and aggression, which are core qualities of the temperament. The thresholds and magnitudes of suspicion and aggression will vary from dog to dog, and its expression perhaps greater during the prime of its lifetime. These inherent characteristics are not only useful, but essential for working dogs in various degrees for the jobs that they perform.

In my opinion, behaviors such as dominance or handler aggression have no place in the dog-handler relationship or the pack relationship of the household, and if they are expressed there must be a reason, like Alyssa says a void to fill, as the behaviors have in some way proved useful (to the dog) or simply tolerated by the handler. Rather than attempting some silly notion of eliminating an aggressive form of dominant behavior, instead it would be much easier to redirect the dog's use for its natural aggression in a fitting CONTEXT. Ideally, there should be no conflict in the dog if allowed to exhert its aggressive energy in a useful form of behavior, releasing tension in a controlled situation under your directive.

I think I would take it as a subtle cue, that if you find yourself believing you have a "dominant dog", then you may not be assertive enough, or need to consider making necessary adjustments to your lifestyle that ensures the safety of people or other animals, or consider getting a different type of dog that better fits your situation. There may be minor or major consequences failing to do so. Thanks to my dominant male's uncontrolled use of aggression in a single incident, I now have a horse with dog aggression, who was otherwise normally curious about and friendly with dogs before. In turn, this horse has imprinted a newer, younger horse with aggressive fear behavior toward dogs.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I've only had two dogs in my lifetime that most would call dominant or handler aggressive. Still have one. He and the first "dominant, handler aggressive" dog is/was tempermentally nuts. 
I used to seriously beat the crap out of the first one because "that's how I learned to control him". He never said uncle with all the beatings but he did obey. I can control the present "dominant, handler aggressive" dog with my voice. Get physical and it's like I'm trying to grab a running chain saw by the blade. 
I think pure aggression can be and is bred for by some but I would consider many of these dogs as tempermentally unsound. 
Temperment issues, poor or excessive correction in training is where most "dominance" and "handler aggression" come from. 
If a person constantly has to look for out for his/her own dog to challenge their leadership I believe something else is going on. 
Why pick a fight with a dog that loves to fight or a dog that stresses under to much physical control?
Leadership and the use/need for physical control have nothing to do with one another. JMHO!


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Wow I was expecting to wake up this morning and continue the debate, but I have to agree with the last several posts. 8-[ 

t


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Daryl


> I believe that dominance and handler aggression are learned or acquired behaviors, punctuated by the natural levels of suspicion and aggression, which are core qualities of the temperament.


Are you saying all dominance and aggression are learned or just that which is directed towards the handler? If so, I agree as a weak handler may encourage a marginal dog to step up to the plate and take over. other than that, I would say, in the animal world, true dominance is born to certain specimens.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Ashley Hiebing said:


> Recently on a pit bull community I belong to (almost entirely pet owners), a post came up (that I would link to, but you have to join the community to read it) about someone's dog that, while she (the owner) was laying on the couch, would come and position herself over the owner's torso and face. Immediately people told her that this was dominant behavior. Then someone butted in and said that the "dominance theory" was a myth and to just teach her dog better manners. So there was a back-and-forth for a while, with the "myth buster" letting everyone know that he/she was a professional dog trainer/behaviorist/what-have-you. So we asked him/her to post resources that debunk the "dominance theory," and this is what we got:
> 
> http://www.4pawsu.com/dominancemyth.pdf
> http://www.iiacab.com/_Media/whatswrongwithdominancetheo.pdf
> ...


Ashley, I went back to your original post and read some of the links. Personally, I think the "dominance theory" is utter BS. This is the modern theory that the person is the alpha. I am not going to act like a dog and I don't want my dogs viewing me as a dog. After reading many of the posts, I am beginning to see a pattern. Dogs in these posts that are challenging their owners may well have been subjected to well meaning people trying to act like alpha dogs and are not cutting the mustard. The problem is since they have lowered themselves to acting like dogs, the dogs are going to treat them like dogs. Big mistake IMHO. I have a lot of heavy duty dogs that think nothing of grabbing dangerous game. The thought of walking out into the yard with 20 of these dogs would make me more than uneasy, to say the least, if I thought for a moment that they were viewing me as an equal. When they start viewing a person as another dog, eventually you are going to get challenged and you are going to get to pay the piper for acting like a dog. I don't own a dog that I can beat down if they are serious. I can't have them looking at me as a dog. I am their lord and master and they damned well better know it. 
I think a good comparison of why many dogs are challenging their owners can be seen with todays way of raising kids. Be their friends? Be understanding? When they start looking at their parents as their friends you get much the same thing as what you are seeing with dogs. I see kids in stores all the time talking to their moms just like they would their friend and you want to go over and smack them. Being superior to dogs or kids has nothing to do with being an alpha, It has to do with being in control and being SUPERIOR. If one acts like a dog or a kid, they are not superior, they have made themselves equal to. That is the problem. Hope this makes sense.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Don very nicely put. I am a teacher, I see parents doing just that, being a friend. Transfer that to the dog world and it simple means that leaders lead and followers FOLLOW. My dogs KNOW I'm in charge...if I raise my voice it means pop is pissed. If praise comes from me, then all is well. 

Nice job Don.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Here's a bit of my perception about raising my dominant dog at the time...



> Rook got me good a time or two. Some punctures that have taken weeks to heal. Always in fun though, I never tried to encourage his "true" civil side, only agressive play with the tug, all in a play/prey fashion. His civil agression is good enough without my help, so I just make sure his energy stays high, and his "will to win".
> 
> There were a couple times I really had to "force" my anger-charged dominance on him in "alpha-roll style" for total submission. All to do with cat agression, but no other reasons I recall. Now he might study the cat for a few seconds, but never long before looking on to something else, with at most a complaining whine.
> 
> ...


When he was perhaps 12 weeks old, I put a choke chain on him to quell his thirst for the cat. It was about a fifteen minute session of the cat sitting on the chair in front of him looking down (elevated). The whole time he was getting the crap choked out of him, and it only further escalated his determination to get that cat.

Same age, at a dog show it Fort Collins, he was incredibly charged with aggression toward the occasional dog (those who looked him in the eye the wrong way), including a pair of large bull mastiffs. I was a bit embarrassed by his behavior, and slightly astonished that it was never a fear reaction, but an all out challenge.

He learned to coexist well with several other dogs, but there was this one that he always despised. An confident female, who plainly ignored him, as he'd hang from her neck and we'd struggle to separate them, on a couple occasions. With so much else to work on, and his aggression unexplanatory toward this one dog, we for the most part just kept them always separated.

I was concerned with potentially squashing his prey drive, because this is what happened to his half brother (another dominant one). So, I might have caused later problems with (schutzhund) obedience, as I was less able to "cap" the drive when it finally revealed its presence around the 8 month mark. A late bloomer to fully impressive prey drive, ultimately.

In the incident with the horse, he was off leash and provoked the horse, who clobbered him on the head with its hoof. I saw a momentary dazed look in his eye, but he didn't back up even an inch from that horse, the standoff ending when I got hold of his collar.

I really enjoyed his persistence to dominate in exercises with the tug. He really wanted to rip the arm off me or whoever engaged him, while using his legs and weight to full advantage. If I could have another strong male with fight drive and true dominant behavior like that, I would. But only one, because it can really take a lot out of you.

Because of his status as unilateral cryptorchid, I had no purpose for him here, and he was placed in the home of a police officer who lived in the country and would keep him for personal protection.

Now, I have a few dogs that are very fearless, but not as independently strong willed as he was. And really, for much of what we do in sport, training is so much smoother with a dog that has eager willingness to work in all aspects of training, not just the ones that gets his cahones off and screw the rest.

I'm extremely happy (and fortunate) to have my current prospect, who lacks any weakness I found in Rook in other aspects of training. Also, to consider, the majority of pups I place go to pet homes, and can not have the sort of behavior that his bloodline would have been prone to produce.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Thank you Howard. Threads like this one get one to think of things that normally would not cross their mind. Mine included. The idea of being equal rather than superior has many factors. In the work place you have bosses. The most successful are maintain a superiority through actions and not force. They are friendly but, "maintain a critical distance or space" that elevates them above "equal". They don't go out and party with the workers and such. 
Simple things like dogs sleeping on the bed, for one, diminishes that elevated space needed for superiority. There are just a lot of things to consider. I don't allow any of my dogs in the house, yet, I can go up to any one of them and open their mouths while they are eating and take the food out of their mouth without ever having done it before. I have never been challenged over issues I see on message boards such has dogs challenging the owner over the food dish. Challenging me is totally non existent.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

The crypto thing explains some of the problems you had, as that condition produces extra testosterone.

If the dog was truely all that, I would have bred him regardless. There are not enough maniacs out there anymore to be dismissing them outright for this.

At least then, you could see what he produced. If you thought it was junk, then into the bucket they go. 

Wish I could get back some of the dogs I neutered before I said **** it, as the rest of the dog was everything that anyone could or would want, and then some.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Daryl, I will be in Colorado here in a couple of days for the trial, you coming down???????????????


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

I'm with you, Don. Well put.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Daryl, I will be in Colorado here in a couple of days for the trial, you coming down???????????????


Front Range, Summit, Ponderosa, Centenial, and Colorado Canine have all passed in the last few weeks, what trial is that?

I didn't know about the extra testosterone, thanks for mentioning it. Rook was unfortunately neutered, and his new owner was experiencing some aggression issues last I heard.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

> *Tough Love vs. Spanking - Good Argument*
> 
> _Most of the American population thinks it improper to spank children, so I have tried other methods to control my kids when they have one of ʽthose moments.'_
> 
> ...


Seriously, I don't feel the most productive method of dealing with poor behavior is physical correction, or does anything to strengthen the bond. I believe as said in my earlier post, _"that vocal tonality, power, and tempo express more to the dog on a deeper learning level that shapes behavior. The brain's stimulus to sound is closer connected to behavior processes than the reflexive learning in response to pain."_

Using physical pain as a "marker" for what the sounds are communicating, shouldn't be as effective, because _"When disinterested, scared or threatened, ability to learn is reduced."_ by approximately one third. Good use of your voice can convey a meaning and impress a sense of authority that is in a way, universal (across cultures and species boundary), and doesn't require direct visual contact as in the case of body language.

Anyone see that special on cable the other night about body language? They mentioned the pioneering work of Paul Ekman, who established a classification system of 7 universal facial expressions that is being integrated in computer software systems that analyze video documentation for identifying congruent authenticity of the message the speaker relays. I propose that there are universal sounds that carry common meaning, and sounds convey emotion, which for a very hard dog, would bypass the unnecessary step of inflicting pain to impart learning. When you raise your dog, part of the bonding process is in establishing a verbal rapport with them, and figuring out what they best respond to.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Daryl, simple question, how do you suppose using an absolute tone of authority will affect the vast majority of women(wives). 
I agree that pain and fear are not the answer. Being superior to a dog has nothing to do with pain and fear. It has to do with boundaries. Example: A worker in a posh office has a boss that has the invisible boundaries that sets him apart from the workers. He is fair and impartial and never mistreats the people below him and he is well liked and "repected" by his employees. He is out of the office and one of the workers goes in to leave a note on his desk. While there, he makes sure that no one is looking and gets behind that big desk and sits in the bosses chair. It gives him a thrill....a feeling of momentary superiority. Why does he do it. Because he wants to see what superiority really feels like. People, dogs, kids all have boundaries in which they are comfortable. If the boss was there, the worker would not even consider getting behind his desk and sitting in that spot because it is "out of bounds". 
Being in a position of superiority means one sets the boundaires over the others be it kids, dogs, or workers. When there are no boundaries that set you apart....you are perceived as more equal. Being more equal, what you want means less to all. When the boss wants something, the worker jumps to, some because of repect, some because of fear of losing his job....but they jump none the less.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Don said
"Being in a position of superiority means one sets the boundaires over the others be it kids, dogs, or workers. When there are no boundaries that set you apart....you are perceived as more equal. Being more equal, what you want means less to all. When the boss wants something, the worker jumps to, some because of repect, some because of fear of losing his job....but they jump none the less."

Well said Don! 
Do we want to take bets on which one is more likely to bite the boss? The one who respects the boss or the one who fears the boss? :grin:


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Don, I don't have an answer to your question. But, if you're assuming I've ever implied that you should treat your dog as an "equal", I have never said that and never would. You can still have a strong relationship with your dog without lowering your status toward them, using both respect and fear, but not relying overly much on one without the other. I'm not at all adverse to employing a physical correction for expedience, either.

With the boundaries I had set for my dog, our relationship worked out pretty well overall. He was very responsive to my voice, which I believe I somewhat imprinted him with as a puppy, when he proved to be such a handful. And my wife could handle him equally as well, and consistently, though her approach was more body language and physical correction.

What's interesting to me, is the behaviors he had reverted to after my ownership and he was placed in his new home. He tested his new boundaries and pushed the envelope to achieve his will.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Daryl, I prefer putting the kids on the rear of the car. 
It's bad enough to listen to a whiney kid much less having them stare at you while they do it. Makes it hard to concentrate on the road.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

But then they can watch the TV from the rear of the car .


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Bob, the one that gets fired is the one that may bite.....that's why a good boss has someone else do the firing.

Daryl, I don't mean to imply you think equal is right or wrong. I thought being superior was being taken as a hard line....which it isn't. Your reference to voice is a fact and actually 99% of everything is conveyed through particular inflections of voice once the boundaries are set.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Well, I'm certain there's much to it, and I wasn't the first to think of it. But while facial gestures may be fairly universal, other gestures and vocal emotion patterns have not proven to be supported in the same way.



> *3.2 Vocal Emotion Recognition*
> Derived from facial expressions as stated above, the Eckman Six are also
> widely used in recent vocal emotion recognition studies, although in the
> past many other categories for emotion classification were defined. As
> ...


In fact, I'd say that some of the sounds I make are contrary to the table's outline above. Anger I convey is more resonant, narrow ranged, and baritone pitched.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Identifying "anger" as an emotion is somewhat flawed, so that accounts for why it's attributes may vary from what you normally display when angry.

Anger, techinically, is a _secondary_ emotion, that human beings employ to mask/cope with other emotions. An angry person is experiencing an underlying emotion that has triggered anger- i.e., they are frustrated, or scared, or embarassed, or hurt/sad, etc.

From what you describe as your "tone" when angry, I'd say you are probably most likely to become angry due to being hurt/sad.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

OK, aside from how I may or may not feel, what I'm conveying to the dog is what I really meant as "anger". Having any authentic personal emotion is counterproductive to training, IMO. When I express to him that I'm displeased with his behavior, I use a more monotone resonating boom. When I'm very pleased with him, I use a quiet, variable toned sing-song sound, with drawn out words (slower rate) of higher pitch. Many of us use the same sounds in training and might not realize it.

My commands are fairly even toned, but short fast words, as distinct from other commands as possible. Some people have questioned the wisdom of using the word "stand" for stand in motion, because of its similarity to the word "sit", so instead using a word like "freeze", "wait" or "hold" might work better. I've seen others use the word "back", but I already use that one at home, to convey that a dog shouldn't cross the threshold of the doorway. I let many of my dogs outside together, so if I want some to come in or go out while others stay where they are, I find it useful.


----------

