Quote: tracey holden

So do you think it is mostly handler ignorance?? the dog simply sees a 'weakness' and exploits it??

And if a truly dominant dog is born, it is going to be a fait accompli, that the relationship will always dictated by the dog, and therefore, in reality a relationship the handler kids themselves they are in control of?

If you look at the general "common" behavior in dogs, dogs will attempt to "train" their humans so that they get what they want. It's very evident that according to how "dominant" they are, the more they attempt to ellicit behaviors from their human so that their needs/wants/desires are met. For example, dog whines to go outside so human lets him out, dog whines again, human lets him out, ... dog understands if he whines he goes out, then pees inside. Dog barks to get a treat, human thinks its cute and dog gets a treat. Dog does it again, and gets a treat, dog continues to bark when he doesn't get one. Dog noses human for affection, he gets a pat on the head, dog noses human again, dog gets pat on the head, dog gets pushy until he gets affection. Dog brings human the toy while human is watching TV, toy gets thrown, dog brings toy to human, toy gets thrown. Dog is training human.

I once read that dogs are very self centered and full of themselves. They want to make themselves feel good, get affection, get a treat, take a walk, play with their friend, sleep, eat , and poop to their hearts content, when they want and how they want. What limits this is their human, and rules that are enforced by their leader.

If they do something and they don't get what they want, then the behavior is changed until they do get what they want. Over time, and enough times doing it the same way every time, it becomes a learned response to get what they want (praise, treat, tug).

The other way is by the dog learning what doesn't make them uncomfortable. But we don't use this method anymore. An example would be to correct a dog for not heeling properly without training what a proper heel is first. Then not correcting while the dog is in the proper heel position. It's not fair, it's damaging, theres a 101 reasons why not to use it.

I know I shouldn't do this, but I'm going to anyway. Alot of similarities can be seen in humans as well. You have leaders, and followers. Which again comes down to ability and desire to lead, different personalities, etc.

To answer your last paragraph, it would depend on the leadership ability of the human. If your on a level playing field with the dog then a relationship of mutual trust and respect can form and the dog can use his/her confidence and leadership in other areas. If your not, then you have to either learn to raise the level of your own leadership, or bring the dogs down (which is not reccomended). Or you can have "disaggreements" with your dog about who is in charge. Remember that your dog can love you, and not respect you. But then respect goes both ways.

 Quote: Duane Hull

Is it possible that a pup who was at the top of the pecking order in it's litter is inherently dominant? If that behavior is then conditioned by allowing the dog a higher rank than the children and other dogs in the home, might it become a behavioral issue, compounded by the fact that it is inherent?

 Quote: tracey holden

And if a truly dominant dog is born, it is going to be a fait accompli, that the relationship will always dictated by the dog, and therefore, in reality a relationship the handler kids themselves they are in control of?

From what Bob and Steve told me, it would seem that even a dog that is naturally dominant can be properly handled by a good leader (handler/trainer).

Yes absolutely, as long as the leader is on the same level (or higher) as the dog. A level 4 "dominant" pup in a litter of level 3's is going to be the submissive one in a litter where the "dominant" pup is a 5 or a 6.

Just for example, watch the interaction between these pups, see if you can figure out which is the highest rank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjV_OsjaWrI&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL7ACEC59EDAE43CD6

I wish I could find the Leerburg video of the litter of pups with bones, one part is without the "alpha" , and the second part is with the "alpha" pup. You can really see the difference in how they behave with the highest ranking member. I think it might be in the 8 weeks to 8 months DVD.

And once again, this is all imo!

ROTFLMFAO!!!
I want the one who was smart enough to slink away to the corner with a bone BEFORE all the ruckus started! Proactive problem solver, aware of enviro, etc etc.
Seriously, I see several things going on here. Orange and pink are pushy, but noone yielded to them (good dogs for most experienced handlers). Green yielded at one point but asserted itself later. Gold may be the one, as it's assertiveness went unchallenged, but green could be, also.
Without more exposure, I would guess that gold would be the dog for the experienced strong leader and green would be the dog for a fanatic (public safety concerns aside). I want the smart one in the corner.

http://leerburg.com/flix/videodesc.php?id=20
Here ya go, Ben.

 Quote:

I know I shouldn't do this, but I'm going to anyway. Alot of similarities can be seen in humans as well. You have leaders, and followers. Which again comes down to ability and desire to lead, different personalities, etc.

Absolutely right! You see it on here as well out in the non cyber world aaalll the time lol!

If this was a nurture/nature debate, and a human conditioning debate, we could have a blast dissecting and analyzing personality traits, including dominance and submission, but as it isn't, better not go there

Great question Tracey! Hurt my brain thinking about this one but I very much agree with this.

 Quote: Duane Hull

I want the one who was smart.... Proactive problem solver, aware of enviro, etc etc.

To me it's about who's the important one, not necessarily the most powerful. Like a mother protecting her pups. It's not just about control and ruling, it's about preventing those under you from getting hurt. Exercising control for the common good.

Dogs that have a confident maturity and are able to exercise that influence over their environment. And you gotta admit, there's a lot of human family dynamics that need that leadership, coming from a dog or otherwise.

When times are quiet and there's not much at stake, they're happy to relinquish control to whoever is jockeying to get it. It's that quiet calm that knows which battles need fighting to protect that greater good. And to me, it's really nothing to do with elevating themselves. In their mind, they already occupy that highest position.

And just by their desirable qualities alone, their virtue of being, they're able to influence others around them. They have a confidence in and knowledge about themselves, and others, that make them true leaders.

The rise up naturally and take control, using that dominance to protect the greater good and preserve what they feel is important – which, in my experience, is usually a natural balance.

An example for me would be like when two humans get into an altercation and an untrained dog goes for his owner instead of the attacking human, trying to stop him from engaging in, what he veiws as a dangerous situation and trying to pull him away to safety.

Actually, that's a bad example but one I've heard owners say many times, citing that their dog is useless. And while that certainly appears to be the case, I believe the dog feels otherwise. Not a truly dominant dog though, just one trying to preserve balance.

To me, truly dominant dogs are the most important and influential energy in their environment. And while they're happy allowing a less significant leader to assume the position, they know that if the shit hits the fan, they're the ones that will take the true control.

Edited by CJ Barrett (02/18/2012 10:13 AM)
Edit reason: add bad example

Like it has been pointed out, dominance is relative and on a scale like soft vs hard or sharp vs stable. Then throw in independence. I had a chow mix who was super submissive, but very independent like a hound. She was also a spoiled brat...but awesome in agility trials.

Just like an independent dog can be trained to be a reliable lead dog...a dominant dog can be lead.

When I think of a balanced dog, the one that always comes to mind is Cesar's old Pit Daddy, was there ever an example of the polar opposite of the usual myth of what a breed is?

The amount of times that darling dog was goaded and pushed by foul and obnoxious canines, and always remained calm and balanced?

So I am wondering now, if that was an example of the potential 'wrong' dog with the 'right' owner, or was he a calm and confident pup to begin with, who in the wrong hands could have fitted the stereotype?

It's a bit chicken and egg.... isn't it??

Dominance and fight drive. Kinda like twin black holes of dog training.

free video

If you have trouble with the link above, here's another link (same video):

free video


"In it Michael talks about some of the myths of dominant dogs and how many times people think their dog is dominant when in fact it is far from it."



QUOTE: "Most of the time, dogs are just kinda finding their place, finding their way --- and they're opportunists."