# Dr. Mech on "alpha", 1970 and now



## Chad Byerly (Jun 24, 2008)

"The term alpha isn't really accurate when describing most of the leaders of wolf packs..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNtFgdwTsbU


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Hey - I know that guy! I had the pleasure one day of driving Dave (and Durwood Allen!!) around campus to give presentations when I was a student at Purdue - two very cool guys with loads of knowledge.


----------



## Chad Byerly (Jun 24, 2008)

*related, also from Mech*

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/iwmag/2008/winter/alphawolf.pdf

*​​​​​
*


----------



## Jason Clarke (Feb 13, 2009)

I've read about his clarification regarding alpha wolves in the past, but I have never seen this video.

What I found interesting was that while in a natural wolf pack, the breeding pair are the natural leaders of the pack, as the pack is comprised of their offspring. But, he also described a "synthetic pack" where animals are unrelated and would then go about establishing a pecking order on their own. Much like when humans own more than one dog? 

Based on what he said in the video, we humans and our dog(s) form a synthetic pack (because we are hopefully not related to our dogs, and often our dogs are often unrelated to each other) - thereby, the term Alpha would be appropriate because the pack leadership position was ritualistically established in one fashion or another.

Am I wrong in drawing these conclusions? 8-[

Just $0.02 from a non-wolf biologist and newbie to this forum. 

Jason


----------



## Chad Byerly (Jun 24, 2008)

Before starting this thread, I posted the AVSAB's *Dominance Position Statement* elsewhere on this forum (_Re: What's your dominant?_). 
​​


----------



## Butch Cappel (Aug 12, 2007)

Chad,

Thank you for taking the time to find and post this info. I have tried to read everything Mech, writes since the seventies, and was not aware of this video. And your 'Dominance behavior' article should be required for every police handler and puppy owner.
Thank you!

Jason I agree, the term Alpha, seems accurately applied in this context for a leader of a 'synthetic' pack. Of course Mech also says this rarely, if ever, happens in the wild. Should a new term be applied for 'synthetic' packs. Packs created by humans? I'm leaning that way, because I believe 'Alpha' and it's connotations have become a nonproductive phrase.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Jason Clarke said:


> I've read about his clarification regarding alpha wolves in the past, but I have never seen this video.
> 
> What I found interesting was that while in a natural wolf pack, the breeding pair are the natural leaders of the pack, as the pack is comprised of their offspring. But, he also described a "synthetic pack" where animals are unrelated and would then go about establishing a pecking order on their own. Much like when humans own more than one dog?
> 
> ...


 
I am going to go a step further....And say that I have not seen this to be true with puppies that are introduced to an already established pack. I think what Dr. Mech was getting at was not that the dogs were related but that the puppies just grew up and seamlessly were incorporated to the pack. I think that has more to do with the stages of socialzation in maturing and not so much to do with relation. 

The breeder I got my dog from has a large pack of Malinois 10+. My dog grew up in that pack till the age of 8 weeks. every so often we would get together and put the dogs together her mother, and siblings all showed signs of establishing order through power and mine submistted due to being outnumbered. 

But yet my dog was introduced to my pack of 3 other dogs...seamlessly like Dr. Mech describes. 

I think what I took away from this is that the "Dominace" factor plays a part... But our obsession over it is a little silly. That it should be considered but we have blown the whole thing out of proportion stating that every little behavior is a move for rank. 

My dad was and is in my eyes superior to me...I do not try and move in for the top spot when I ever I can. It's actually very honorable to respect your father and such. I think dogs may have very similar styles of relationships...and of course there are no hard and fast rules. But there are norms.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

So then, in the "unnatural" grouping situation, once the "pecking order" is established, Dr. Mech states that everyone pretty much accepts their place from then on. Yet we often hear of "dominant" dogs perpetually testing their handlers.........._Does a "dominant" dog really periodically test its owner for pack leadership status....? Not in my experience._


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> So then, in the "unnatural" grouping situation, once the "pecking order" is established, Dr. Mech states that everyone pretty much accepts their place from then on. Yet we often hear of "dominant" dogs perpetually testing their handlers.........._Does a "dominant" dog really periodically test its owner for pack leadership status....? Not in my experience._


I think there are dogs out there like this...But I think they make up a very small portion of the population. I also have seen very rank orientated dogs...that are always plotting and schemeing thier way to gain more rank. 

Also the availability to resources I think plays a part in how much dogs start looking to gain rank. A friend of mine noticed that as space increased his pack started to disassemble and become a bunch of little packs. also he noticed if he made food scarce it caused most of the dogs to become adhered to the pack...and some would try more than ever to gain rank.

but Daryl I think your right. I think over evolution the relationship of dog to man is the same as dog to dog. There are different rules and different pre-wired evolutionary biological twists.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Then perhaps in cases where this occurs, it would be due to failure on the handler's part to maintain consistent behavior toward the dog?


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Then perhaps in cases where this occurs, it would be due to failure on the handler's part to maintain consistent behavior toward the dog?


 
Sometimes...and some dogs are just assholes. I think amount of variable into the "why" is infinite. Could be the handler, could be the dog...or a combo of.


----------

