Dog Trick Academy Library

Article written by Bipa.

I am always upset when I hear or read stories about perfectly good puppies being ruined by over-aggressive training techniques aimed at making a pup submit to the owner. There is absolutely no basis for most of this bullying. In nature, it is actually quite the opposite! Puppies have a so-called “puppy license” for the first 4 or 5 months. During this time, older dogs will let them get away with all sorts of puppy behaviour without retaliation. If the older dog doesn’t feel like playing with the pup, then he will often just get up and move away, or else give a quick verbal signal that he isn’t interested. Only once this “puppy license” has expired do the pups start getting real lessons in manners from the other dogs.

During her seminars, Patricia McConnell often shows two videos of Bailey, a beautiful golden retriever pup. In the first video, Bailey is perhaps 4 months old, and is chewing on a child’s stuffed toy. The woman owner tries to get the toy away from the dog by using outdated “dominance” techniques such as grabbing the puppy by the scruff of the neck and trying to make it submit to her. Errr…guys…. This is a retriever! They are mouthy dogs and by their nature love to chew on stuff. So can anyone guess what happens after a month or two of such “training”?

In the second video, Bailey is around 6 months old. Again the dog is chewing on a toy, except that now he’s quite a bit larger. He snarls as the owner tries to get the toy away, and snaps at her hand. The owner is still faithfully following her trainer’s orders and trying to get the dog to submit to her authority. So what happens next?

Bailey was put down before he reached one year of age.

It didn’t have to happen! The dog wasn’t aggressive by nature, but simply ruined by bad training and horrible conditioning.

Unfortunately, many trainers today still rely on outdated and now proven false research going back to the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s.

In his lecture at the International Dog Symposium in Germany, held in November 2007, Anders Hallgren spoke about what he calls “The Alpha Syndrome”. He began his presentation by relating how in 1922, Norwegian sociologist professor Thorlief Schjelderip-Ebbe published a study on chickens at feeding time. He found there was a strict and linear rank order among the chickens when they were competing for food. The biggest and the strongest would peck away the second biggest, which would turn on the third strongest, and so on down the line until the smallest and weakest had nobody to peck. Now you know how we got the phrase “pecking order”.

From this study came the idea that rank in all animals is a strictly linear hierarchical structure based on strength and power. Since then, countless studies have proven that the majority of animals have different ways of sorting out their rank order, but the old idea of the most aggressive and strongest animal being the alpha leader has somehow prevailed.

As early as 1944 we started seeing the first evidence that this “alpha dominance theory” was wrong. Adolph Murie, an American biologist, published a study on his observations of a wild pack of wolves in Mount McKinley National Park. He did not find any pack behaviour based on power and aggression, other than occasional fights for food when it got scarce.

His study was pretty much buried and forgotten until the 1960’s when Thelma Rowell did a study on primates.

“Rowell’s studies of African baboons (1967) in captivity and in the wild is particularly revealing: “the rates at which certain behaviors occurred differed dramatically. Specifically, she found that rates of all social interactions were four times higher in captivity than in the wild, and that rates of aggression were eight times higher in captivity.” We often crowd animals in limited synthetic environments and then wonder why they show signs of aggression and violence. The answer is simple – you cannot crowd socially cooperative animals. All natural order breaks down in such situations, and outbreaks of violence are usually inevitable. Humans were the first beings to crowd themselves into cities, and it is readily apparent how violent our society has become.”

So it was finally shown that conclusions based on the observation of captive zoo animals (or penned-up chickens) did not reflect actual inter-relationships in the wild. She was also the first to show that it wasn’t actually a dominance order, but in reality a submission order. The distinction here is very important! It means that leaders in the animal group didn’t fight their way to the top rank, but instead were respected and admired by the other group members and placed into the position of group leader. Weaker members submitted to the leader of their own free will, and the leader seldom displayed any real aggressive behaviour. There was much ritualistic posturing and psychological intimidation, but little true physical fighting. Bullies in the group were not tolerated, and advancement through real aggression just didn’t happen. Fighting and disputes were mainly only among middle level animals who were unsure of their position. The strongest and weakest had no need for aggressive displays because they had no doubts about their position in the group. The strongest knew it could win, the weakest knew it had no hope of beating a stronger animal. So when we get into a physical confrontation with our dogs, we are clearly stating in doggie language that we aren’t sure of our position, that we’re one of the uncertain middle-rank rather than a confident leader.

Over the years, these early ideas and theories of the alpha leader being the biggest bully on the block have somehow stuck around and become embedded in old-fashioned dog training methods. Regardless that the theories bear no relationship to reality, folks seem to like the idea of showing their dog just who’s exactly the Boss. You can’t beat your kids anymore, but beating up on your dog is still acceptable (within limits)

In his article “The Macho Myth“, Ian Dunbar starts off by stating the three most common misconceptions of dominance theory:

“Dogs need to feel secure to be truly happy; that means they need to feel secure that you will be the leader, and that they can count on you to take charge. But being the “leader” is often misunderstood. It doesn’t mean that you forcibly dominate your dog. Rather, leadership is more of a mental quality, in which you set boundaries without intimidation.”

The leader isn’t always the strongest. Many of you have perhaps seen and wondered how in a multi-dog household, sometimes the bigger dogs will acknowledge a smaller and physically weaker dog as the leader? Surely that alone is enough to debunk the old-fashioned myths about the biggest bully always becoming the leader?

So, how do we dog owners become the leaders? Well, it isn’t so much a matter of forcing ourselves into the position as getting our dogs to accept us as such. Sounds much tougher than just pinning a dog to the floor in an alpha roll, doesn’t it? Well, yes, it requires a bit more work, and a bit more thought, and a bit more effort.

During his presentation, Anders Hallgren put up a slide with common training advice that soon had us all nodding our heads in recognition. I’m sure you’ve heard them all, too. Perhaps you’ve even been faithfully following them as an integral part of your training routine

Beyond the “Dominance” Paradigm -by Patricia B. McConnell, PhD

Is Your Dog Dominant, or Just Feeling Anxious? -by Lee Charles Kelley

The History and Misconceptions of Dominance Theory -by Melissa Alexander

Being the Alpha: The Truth About Dominance -by Anne Hendrickson

Dominance Theory – Convoluted & Confusing -by Shannon McKay

Reconsidering the Dominance Model in Dog Training -by San Francisco SPCA

The Evolution of Modern Dog Training -by Adam Corey Stone

The Dog Whisperer Controversy -by Lisa Mullinax

The Dog Whisperer: Answering the Fans -by Lisa Mullinax

Debunking the Dominance Myth -by Carmen Buitrago

Assessing the Alpha Roll -by Terry Ryan

Alpha Rolling Your Dog -by Krista Mifflin

Divine or Disaster for Dog Owners? A Wolf in Dog’s Clothing? -by Leigh Siegfried, CPDT

Alpha Schmalpha -by Gary Wilkes

Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs -by L. David Mech