I don't agree nor disagree with the mans statements, nor am I qualified to since I have never done any amount of research on wolves, nor their relation to dogs. However, I have never liked the terms "pack structure" or "pack leader." In fact, I don't even care for the term "pack" when used in relation to dogs. Semantics perhaps, or maybe just the over usage of those terms, but to me the dominance that one should have over a dog, and the respect the dog should have for its handler, is the same as the dominance a parent should have over a child and the respect a child should have for their parents. People have just gone soft -- just look at the way kids behave these days, and how they address their elders. Equally so with dogs with some dominant tendencies (read: I did not say "dominant dogs," since most dogs are not dominant), if they are not shown proper leadership then they will end up on shows like The Dog Whisperer :p

That said, I never liked the "alpha roll," and I always thought the (numerous) people that told me "my 12 week old puppy is from really dominant lines so I alpha roll him every morning before breakfast" are completely retarded. I also don't believe that dominance over a dog has all that much to do with corrections or force. In this world we have natural leaders and followers. A leader will follow a stronger leader, it's the hierarchy of everything in the world. If you present yourself in a leadership capacity to a dog, a child, or people, then they will follow.

How this equates to what people believe about pack structure and wolf theory I do not know, it is simply my personal philosophy on life. Lots of people seem to be developing different theories and philosophies these past years, placing too much importance and giving choices, power and responsibility to those that are not mentally equipped to handle it or choose appropriately.

I would agree that most people aren't qualified to alpha roll, or weither it should be used at all, but I think to not see dogs as pack animals is just diluting yourself but as you stated for you the term is just semantical.

I think the pack structure is critical, But I'm willing to be proven wrong...

anyone else???

Oh I agree they are pack animals, I just dislike the terminology because of what it has come to mean to many people. It is mostly a generalization referred to as "pack structure." The individual issues creating a certain behavior aren't specifically addressed. Half the posts on this forum seem to get answered with a "it's a pack structure issue, be a better pack leader" type answers.

I think of dogs in the very simplest of terms, too much thinking creates overly complex theories that are mostly unnecessary, or addressing the issues too broadly. Every other issue a dog has these days is put down to "pack structure." While perhaps this is correct for many issues and many people, it is similar to the word "dominant," in that every issue someone has gets lumped into those categories. It's become an excuse rather than a statement.

For some reason of late I've noted a kind of trend toward trying to discount the concept of the pack structure of wolves and or wild dogs. I find it all very strange.
Given that the social structure of wolves are much more complex than we generally understand them to be, the whole idea that there is no leader within the pack goes well beyond what even casual observation shows to be false. Why some people have seemingly a vested interest in disproving the alpha's place or the heirarchy within the pack structure competely, is a mystery for me.
Now as we humans try to relate and use the canine pack structure model toward training is another issue altogether. I think you're right on that front Mike. We all to often generalize, simpify, and perhaps even look down on perceived lesser of our equal. So we do just throw various actions into 'general' catagories and call it this or that. But that doesn't mean that the social complexities of dogs as we know them is wrong.

If my dog isn't learning, I'm doing something wrong.
Randy

funny, on our way back from the ironman 70.3 today, i convinced the bf to go the haliburton wolf centre http://www.haliburtonforest.com/wolf.html (i'll post pics later probably, we got to see 3 wolves).

the wolves live in a 15-acre enclosure, are fed by the centre (raw, obviously, and i believe mostly if not entirely what studies of the scat of wild wolf packs which live in the area eat. the wolves are not socialized to people, there is no deliberate breedings/interventions if sick/fighting/injured.

anyways, i was reading the observations of staff members over a 5-year period (they can see parts of the enclosure, but not all). it was obvious to me from reading the descriptions that the pack order and behaviour is quite strong. i didn't get to read every entry, but the one thing that struck me was that fights were not uncommon, and fights over alpha most definitely occurred - as the alpha male or female aged, or as some of the younger wolves matured. talking to the staff member that was there today, they definitely observe dominant/submissive pack (or social group) behaviour.

anyways, i'm hardly an expert on this topic, but it's funny, b/c i started wondering about something i've read - that truly dominant dogs are rare, b/c it wouldn't be useful in a pack if every dog HAD to be alpha.

but i was wondering about wolf packs in this respect - i didn't get to make a close enough inspection of the observation books to say, and they only are recording what pack behaviour they can see - but it struck me that there were wolves in probably each generation (eta or every few generations anyways) that were dominant or wanted the alpha position and were willing to fight to get it. wolf packs are apparently fairly small - mostly family units with wolves related to varying degrees - but that rate of dominant wolf didn't seem that rare to me but actually fairly common. which makes sense - someone has lead the packs, and between life expectancy of wild wolves and other social pressures, i would imagine changes in alpha wouldn't be uncommon.

so is it in DOGS that truly dominant dogs are rare, b/c we would have bred for less dominant dogs for our on ease of working with them? or am i completely off? hopefully this is within the original topic/question (if not, sorry!), it just got me thinking of the relation of dogs and wolves with respect to dominance and pack behaviour.

....but as far as i know, pack behaviour is strong in wolves, and in dogs (who are, after all, just a sub-species of wolv, if i have my science correct). eta: and the descriptions of the fights where there was a challenge for dominance/alpha were that they could get pretty nasty with some bad injuries. so i'm not sure i'd relate that to a family/parent type of relationship like the wikipedia quote says.

Jennifer,
My first guess on the wolf structures being observed in the instance you offered; is that it is a competely artificial environment to be studying wolves. The small space availiable will alter competely the interactions of the pack when too many individuals are added from month to month. Just think about it, even a nominally small pack of wolves and 15 acres. Heck, I'm not sure 15 acres would be enough for my one tame dog, much less a pack of wild wolves.
In the wild I think the real knock down drag out fights are far less common than in any sized confined area.

If I'm not learning, I'm not paying attention.
Randy

randy, i would imagine the size of the enclosure would have an impact. the centre's website says the wild packs in the area use 30,000-50,000 acres to support packs of 4-10 wolves.

but still....the wild wolves have far shorter life expectancies. so wouldn't the alpha/dominant position change fairly frequently under those circumstances? i'm no expert, at all....it just made me wonder, particularly keeping dog pack behaviour in mind.

Well yes Jennifer, you're right!
Note the rank driven little girl you happen to be lucky enough to own. Any perceived weakness is a vacuum to be filled. After all someone has to lead!
In the wild though, I think any real rank threatening injuries are probably incured during the hunt except for rare instantances. But I'm no expert either. Where is Jennifer Marshall?

If I'm not learning, I'm not paying attention.
Randy

Has anyone seen the Discovery Channel documentary called "Wolves at our door" by Jim and Jamie Dutcher? It focusses on the Sawtooth pack of wolves, created by the Dutchers to be observed in as natural environment as possible.

The 'dominant' or alpha wolf is an inspiration.

The aggression shown is only to keep the pack in line - black and white guidelines. No grudges held, no excessive aggression, just enough to maintain control. He is also benevolent, playful and caring for the pack too - but always consistant.

One of the pack gets injured on a hunt -and the rest of the pack cares for them until they are better. The pack is less efficient without one member, so they ensure he gets back to strength to incraese the chances of the packs' survival.

There are rank scuffles between the lower members, but always presided over by the Alpha.

Honestly, it's one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. I'd recommend it to everyone if you haven't seen it. I know wolves and dogs are different creatures, but his really shows you what a 'pack' is all about. (The book is excellent too.)

I wish I could be half as good a pack leader as Kamotz was - a real calm, consistant, fair and loving Alpha.

Truely amazing.