Current (Nov/Dec 2006) has an article by Werner Rapien, an SV Working Judge, that basically rejects the pack leader philosophy of dog training, except perhaps in the case of dominance aggression. The idea (or my interpretation of it) is a dog doesn't really regard himself as part of a human pack, and can be completely trained using only positive reinforcement (for desired behavior) and no reinforcement (for undesired behavior). "We don't need to be alpha or dominant or pack leaders, all we need to be are responsible dog owners, who guide the dog and teach him through training and good socialization a behavior that enables him to live in harmony with us."

I'm wondering if anyone else has read the article and what they make of it. Thanks!

my opinion only and from my experience........dogs who live with other dogs/kennel situation are not part of the household pack. dogs who live in the house with humans become part of that pack and earn their "place" just as they would in a dog only pack. very often bitches hold a higher "place" in a household pack, whereas it can go either way in dog only packs.

 Quote: patricia powers

very often bitches hold a higher "place" in a household pack.

Conversely, I have observed many times dogs who will obey the husband/male but not the wife/female. The difference? The man just assumes he will be obeyed, and acts and talks accordingly. The woman is herself submissive to the man, and doesn't have the same self-confidence. (Yes, I know that sounds sexist and there are plenty of exceptions, but in my experience women ARE usually lower ranked in a human pack.) Also, how do you explain a competent trainer who can instantly have a dog obey, yet the insecure owner cannot get the same performance? Sure dogs know we're different, but I believe their frame of reference is the pack structure, and so react instinctively to the handler's attitude and demeanor.

mmmm. i think we are talking about 2 different things here. i think what you are talking about is a single dog in the home and who it recognises as pack leader. what i was talking about is a number of dogs in the home and order beneath the pack leader.
i do agree with you about dogs recognising the leader based on attitude and demeanor, but i will add (as i always do) that dogs require the leader to be worthy of the position and that, i have found, has little to do with sex. i know as many if not more female(human) pack leaders as i do males.

You both have excellent points, but I agree with Patricia dogs
do not differentiate between sexes, if that was the case, I wouldn't have a problem currently with my male not listening to my husband, yet I just have to point my finger at him and say no
and he stops his Nonsense immediatley.

I'm not saying dogs respond better more often to men because they're men, but because men are more likely to have a "pack leader" mentality. But I don't want to turn this into a men vs women thing. What I'm interested in is, given the experience many of us have watching dogs respond differently to people with different demeanors, is the author totally off-base, or is there anything at all we can learn from the article? Pack theory is the basis for many of us when we train. Now along comes this guy who says we're completely wrong. We think what we do works. But advances are never made by closed minds. So, is there anything to learn here?

I am looking for the magazine and will read the article. But if Werner Rapien indeed wrote this is certainly lacks experience. This is just about the duumbest thing I have heard in a long long time.

Bottom line is Schutzhund judges are not behaviorists. In fact most are far from it. This article only confirms that fact.

Uh oh, Anita has started a thread that has given me the excuse I needed to try to organize some of my own thoughts on schools of dog training and pack behaviour. Let's see where this goes!

There are two separate related topics within Anita's post: 1) a method of dog training that allegedly doesn't involve "negative reinforcement"; and 2) a theory of dog behaviour.

The training method described in Anita's email is similar to the methods espoused in the Balabanov "Obedience without conflict" obedience dvd.

I'm not sure why this training method would be antithetical to pack leader philosophy of training. If Balabanov is not a superlative pack leader, then who is?

I note that Sheila Booth's "Purely Positive" obedience methods definitely involve a pack leader role for the trainer, perhaps even more so than for a compulsive trainer. It seems to me that the success of positive methods relies on more pervasive if "softer" types of reinforcement and control.

I am personally extremely skeptical of the "positive training" distinction between "absence of reward" and "negative reinforcement". I never know where the line is between using a line for control, vs. correction, for example. I also know that with novice trainers in particular, often a harsh tone of voice used with "NO" is not a signal of absence of reinforcement, but itself a negative reinforcer. I would even argue that body language can be a negative reinforcer. I personally believe that all training of dogs involves some measure of force or correction.

I for one do not accept Cesar Millan's theory that in nature dogs naturally revert to regimented pack behaviour, as he sets out in his book "Cesar's Way". His dog walking philosophy, in which he advocates consistent control: aka pack leadership, on lead and off, in my experience is completely antithetical to the natural desires of a dog to ramble and explore. His recollections described of dog behaviour on his Grandpa's farm in Mexico are vague and to me sound unrealistic as descriptions of "basic dog" behaviour. Even without lead or the ability to give a physical correction, I believe one of the most compulsive things I do in my own dog training is to FORCE my two dogs to walk behind me on a trail, without leash. In my view submission to a pack leader is a possibility but not a prime canine motivator. In that sense, Mr. Rapien may be right and reinforcers such as food and toys are needed. (surprise, surprise) I would go so far as to suggest that sometimes we also need negative reinforcers and need to be honest in recognizing this.

I note that Raymond and Laura Coppinger reject the pack theory of dog behaviour in their book "Dogs", arguing instead that "basic canine behaviour" studied in poor countries involves very autonomous actions on the part of each dog, with much less hierarchical pack behaviour than in wolves, and very small and strong territorial affiliations compared to wolves. These are often around neighbourhoods or households where they can get food or other resources.

To me this explains much of our success as a species in being able to meet the psychological needs of a single dog within a household. It is often not essential for a dog's well-being for it to have a great deal of contact with other dogs, or be part of a canine pack as its primary affiliation. This to me suggests a basis for understanding of human-dog pack behaviour, provided by authors who downplay this concept when based on a wolf pack analogy.

No earth shattering conclusions but food for thought. I'm sure these ideas can be clarified by others on the board! rgds, andrew may

I don't think it's that complicated. If your dogs don't look at you as the leader, they'll try and lead themselves and start acting like dogs, lol, i can't speak for the Sch guy, but pack behaviour is very real in my house,
AL