I don't think a dominate dog is necessary.

I don't know exactly where I stand on the necessity of dominance or rank for working ability though. There have been some heated discussions about the subject. It seems that a lot of tough dogs are also rank dogs, but is that breeding or a connection with confidence and fight drive. I don't know, but I believe the answer, that has been posted by Kevin Sheldahl, is that the two don't have to be seen in the same dog. You can have a high fight dog, without rank problems.

I also think rank problems have a helluva lot to do with how a dog was raised and the handler's experience level.

There are a lot of factors, but I think the simple answer is that NO you don't need a rank dog (dominance directed at handler or family) to compete.

I do have to say that there are a lot of strong dogs out there that also have rank problems. If I had to pose a guess as to why, I would say: 1) Breeding for high level of dominance, 2) Poor handling when young, 3) Dogs with extreme confidence and fight are also confident that they can beat a new handler, at first. And if the problem isn't taken care of immediately then it will continue, 4)Some people flat out like the challenge of working a rank/dominate dog.

I don't think I answered your question. Maybe Richard and Mike can fight it out again for anybody that missed the last one. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

VanCamp
I like your ideas on the whys and reasons for a rank dog. Another possible reason? Bringing over tough, mature, trained dogs and having to reestablish new leadership as opposed to establishing that with a puppy and maby not having as much trouble later on? Just a thought/question.

Hey Van...it was my big mouth who said you can have fight without rank...givin Kevin my credit..LOL <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Although he might have said it somewhere else.. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I still believe you can have one without the other. Yes there are numerous dogs who are rank and hard. But I have met WAY too many dogs who are PLENTY hard without ever being handler hard(rank). I'm speaking from a PSD area not from Sch so I'm not sure what folks are seeing there.

My bad, my bad next time I'll quote you for sure. . . <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I feel you though, I just don't understand why? Not really a big deal, kinda a why ask why thing.

To the question: Does a dog have to be dominant to do well in the Sport. This is a simple question with a one word answer - NO.

In fact a lot of the better scoring sport dogs are not dominant at all. When a handler can pick his dog up by the scruff of the neck in training and toss him on the ground for taking a cheap shot on the B&H - you can bet this is not a dominant dog.

As someone who has had their share of dominant dogs, I will say that it is nice to not have a dominant dog. It gets REAL OLD REAL FAST. Maybe I am getting old and tired of fighting with my own dog.

I will guarantee you that you can have a very solid tough dog that is also not dominant. Kevin Sheldahls dog CJ is the perfect example (in addition to the two young males I have here) CJ has bit a bunch of bad guys, he has a ton of fight drive. He is not dominant at all.

So if you have a nice dog who doesn't feel like challenging you for whatever reason - train this dog and be happy about it.

Remember - most non-dominant dogs want to please you.

There is no

I agree. My personal preference is for a dog w/handler sensitivity, I like a lighter touch. IMO, some of the dogs who are less rank driven toward humans get a real kick out of sch when the light goes on for them and they figure out that there is this one human (the helper) that they are allowed to really boss around and pick on.

I had the same question, and I glad that someone already posted it. I always thought that in order for dog to be successful in schutzhund it has to be very dominant. I have a puppy and she tries to be dominant sometimes but most of the time very obedient. She challenges me once a while, but not as often as a true dominant dog would do. I am glad that dominance is not the number 1 factor in sch.

Thanks for the replies, folks. I've just got my computer back on-line so didn't get to see the follow-ups to my question till now.
Ultimately, I suppose the proof will be in the pudding, so to speak, whether a non-dominant dog can compete. We'll just have to see.

Right now I am VERY happy with this dog just as she is: she is calm in the house, not dog aggressive, and has plenty of drive that's totally channeled into working FOR me instead of against me...and "that's a Good thing" (as Martha Stewart would say <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> )