Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes with it

[Catia]

Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes with it

Hi All,
I don't watch TV, and am rusty on so many of the new terms & schools of thought that are now around, that seem to come from various shows on cable.

Also haven't had a puppy in 15 years, & it seems most of the language/jargon with dog training has taken on a whole new life, & also many terms have been repackaged.

So is the new school of thought that there is no such thing as a 'pecking order'?
And what exactly occurs when dogs establish their heirarchy-or do some think there is no established heirarchy with dogs?

I'm trying to wrap my head around some of it.

Also, what is it called now when a dog owner establishes they are the boss if the term 'alpha' is a negative one now?
Recently I've learned that using the term 'alpha' now means a mean/negative training type of method, due to some guy who has a tv show & dominates his dogs to submission.
When I learned it, 'alpha' just meant leader of the pack.

I'm rusty with the language big time-feel so old--lol-
And I don't want to use words that incite people to think I treat my pooch poorly through some type of negative reinforcement because I used the wrong word that's out dated, or has new meaning & currently fashionable.

 

[angelbears]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

I wouldn't worry to much about it. Either way you go someone can take offense. I use the term alpha but I also use leader, boss, dominatrix, ect....Quite a few of us here use the term Alpha and no it doesn't mean we beat our dogs. Just that we set up a structure so they can understand what is expected from them.

 

[ruthcatrin]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

I usually say "in charge" instead of "alpha", its easier when talking to the purely positive folks.

The same purely positive folks (and not thats not a compliment) will tell you at there is no pecking order and that refering to you and your dogs as a pack is a bad thing. I mostly don't agree, but trying to argue with them is pointless. I also mostly don't discus training with the same purely positive folks, for much the same reason.

I wouldn't worry to much on here, we'll mostly ask how you mean X term if we think ttheres a problem.

 

[Robtouw]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

I use alpha for the pack leader when working with my dog's, horses and chickens. I see in their behaviors that there is a clear leader that is more respected. You'll find in my postings that I am not always PC and really don't care if people dislike or disagree with my answers, I offer what I have learned through experience.

Alpha to me is not a negative, rather it is a more dominate personality that directs behaviors and takes a clear leadership role. With my animals I am the alpha and establish myself at the start with each new baby animal. My coonhound is the alpha leader with my dogs, he is quick to challenge the other dogs, nips in correction, leads everywhere we go, sits first for treats, etc. My appaloosa is the alpha dominant horse, he herds the others constantly, and will clearly state his role with new additions by challenging them, taking them to the ground and holding them in a dominant stance before letting them go, usually they give in and follow his direction. With my chickens, it is my rhode island red that is clearly at the top of the pecking order.

Do not worry about your verbage. Also do not be impressed with anyone that uses an alpha-dominant role to force a dog to submit. I have never needed to use force nor disrespectful methods to properly train my pups, I've learned that positive, respectful methods produce better results with better bonding that leads to a wonderful relationship!

 

[Tiger12490]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

Thats that purely positive crap were you should probably only own a toy poodle. ..I use alpha and I make sure im the alpha from day one....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Catia]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

thank you all-i now can breath a sigh of relief, because I am the alpha bitch of this house lol, but please don't tell my cats!

 

[angelbears]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

LOL! We all have secrets like that.

 

[BradA1878]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

It really has nothing to do with jargon, schools of thought, TV shows, or positive training... It has EVERYTHING to with science. You can choose to ignore science, and follow old-hat methods with your dogs, or you can choose to follow the suggestion put out by the scientific community and the experts in the field of Ethology.

Put simply, domesticated canine and wild canine (including wolves) do not form dominance based rigid social structures. They just don't. That's been proven by science, and the scientific community that once published the alpha/dominance theories have come to roundly reject the notion of a rigid social structure in wild and domestic canine.

The other side of this, that I can never understand is - this is a MASTIFF FORUM... Mastiffs are butter soft with their handler. If you really feel the need to pressure your Mastiff into anything, then you are doing something very wrong. It takes little to no pressure from the family to get a Mastiff to do what is needed. Plus these aggressive alpha/dominance methods run a very high risk of breaking a soft dog like a Mastiff.

If you want to read the science behind pecking orders, scroll down past the quote below...

Thats that purely positive crap were you should probably only own a toy poodle. ..I use alpha and I make sure im the alpha from day one....

Funny, I do not follow these old-hat alpha/dominance concepts, and we use positive methods to train and manage our dogs, yet I do not own a "toy poodle".


---

The current, and most accepted, idea in the behavioral community is that domestic dogs do not form a rigid dominance-based social hierarchy.


Also, the most recent studies of wild wolves have lead most wolf researches to stop using the terms "alpha" and "dominance" when referring to the wolves social structure and behavior - this is primarily because they have found that a wolf "pack" is actually made up of a "mom & dad" (a "nuclear family unit") and their progeny (aka a family). Only the "mom & dad" breed, the offspring stay around until they are old enough to look for a mate - then they leave the current pack to join another pack or create their own pack. Some adults never leave - just like some people never find a spouse.


So, the issue with using the terms "alpha" and "dominance", or imply domestic dogs live in a "pack", when referring to dog behavior and canine social interaction is that it implies dogs adhere to a rigid social structure - which, per the latest ideas (by latest I mean since the 1980s), is incorrect and misleading.


Here is a study on domestic canine social structure: The Social Organizatin of the Domestic Dog


There are some really good articles out there on this subject too...
http://www.apdt.com/petowners/articles/docs/DominanceArticle.pdf
Dominance and Dog Training
Veterinary Medicine - September 2008
Animal Behavior Resources Institute
Animal Behavior Resources Institute
Cesar Millan and Merial TheOtherEndoftheLeash


David Mech, who was one of the main contributors to the early alpha/dominance concepts, which were born in the 1940s, now admits that the use of "Alpha" and "Dominance", when describing how wild wolves fight within a pack to gain "dominance" is "outmoded" (to use his exact term)...


"Schenkel’s Classic Wolf Behavior Study Available in English


Below you can download a pdf version of Schenkel’s 1947 “Expressions Studies on Wolves.†This is the study that gave rise to the now outmoded notion of alpha wolves. That concept was based on the old idea that wolves fight within a pack to gain dominance and that the winner is the “alpha†wolf. Today we understand that most wolf packs consist of a pair of adults called “parents†or “breeders,†(not “alphasâ€), and their offspring."
source: Graduate Student/Post-doctoral Fellows Openings - L. David Mech


Here is Mech's recent ideas on "Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs"...


"Labeling a high-ranking wolf alpha emphasizes its rank in a dominance hierarchy. However, in natural wolf packs, the alpha male or female are merely the breeding animals, the parents of the pack, and dominance contests with other wolves are rare, if they exist at all. During my 13 summers observing the Ellesmere Island pack, I saw none.


Thus, calling a wolf an alpha is usually no more appropriate than referring to a human parent or a doe deer as an alpha. Any parent is dominant to its young offspring, so "alpha" adds no information. Why not refer to an alpha female as the female parent, the breeding female, the matriarch, or simply the mother? Such a designation emphasizes not the animal's dominant status, which is trivial information, but its role as pack progenitor, which is critical information."
source: Wolf Status and Dominance in Packs -Alpha Status


But Mech is talking about wolves, we are talking about domestic canine (which are very different from each other) and in domestic canine, and their interaction with each other (and humans), the idea of a dominance hierarchy has been debunked by most of the modern day behaviorist (see links above).


So, in summary, the use of the term "dominance" when applied (or referring) to any part of domestic canine interaction is incorrect - no matter how it is used (as a descriptor or to imply social structure).


For more information on the this topic you can always turn to the APDT, which is an organization that was started with one of its primary focuses to combat the use of the dominance/alpha concepts.

 

[BradA1878]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

"Let's Just Be Humans Training Dogs" -by Dr. Ian Dunbar
source: Lets Just Be Humans Training Dogs | Dog Star Daily


"Dogs are not wolves and dog behavior is not the same as wolf behavior. In fact, the most striking difference between dog and wolf behavior is their interaction with people. Wolves have been naturally selected to grow up to be wary of people, whereas dogs have been artificially selected for their ease of socialization towards people. Consequently, it is hardly sound to use wolf behavior as a template for dog training."


"To cavalierly and simplistically summarize considerably complicated canid social behavior as “a dominance hierarchy with an alpha dog dictatorâ€, is an insult to both dogs and wolves, and, advertises a complete misunderstanding of their most sophisticated social structure. Whereas misunderstandings are understandable and excusable, we have to stop at people imposing the weirdness of their misunderstandings upon others. To extrapolate a misunderstanding of wolf and dog behavior to dog training by citing slippery, phantom concepts of “dominance†and “alpha†as excuses to physically bully dogs is both unfounded and quite distasteful."


----


"The Macho Myth" -Dr. Ian Dunbar
source: The Macho Myth | Dog Star Daily


"The social structure of domestic dogs is often simplistically described in terms of a linear dominance hierarchy, in which the topdog, or “alpha animalâ€, is dominant over all lower ranking animals, the second ranking dog is subordinate to the topdog but dominant over all others, and so on down to the lowest dog on the totem pole. Moreover, it is popularly believed that rank is established and maintained by physical strength and dominant behavior, that the more dominant (i.e., higher ranking) dogs are more aggressive and that the most dominant dog is the most aggressive. Hence, dogs that frequently threaten, growl, fight and bite are often assumed to be “alpha†animals. The majority of the above assumptions are quite awry. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Such a simplistic view of a most sophisticated social structure is an utter insult to dogs but more disturbing, when cavalierly extrapolated to dog training and the dog-human relationship, such bizarre notions are ineffective, counterproductive, potentially dangerous and quite inhumane."

----

This is a good read: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201007/canine-dominance-is-the-concept-the-alpha-dog-valid
- by Stanley Coren, Ph.D.


Of course wolves are not dogs, so let's look at a recent (2010) piece of research by Roberto Bonanni of the University of Parma and his associates. They looked at free-ranging packs of dogs in Italy and found that leadership was a very fluid thing. For example, in one pack, which had 27 members, there were 6 dogs that habitually took turns leading the pack, but at least half of the adult dogs were leaders, at least some of the time. The dogs that were usually found leading the pack tended to be the older, more experienced dogs, but not necessarily the most dominant. The pack seems to allow leadership to dogs, who at particular times seem to be most likely to contribute to the welfare of the pack through knowledge that can access the resources they require.
-Stanley Coren, Ph.D.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201007/canine-dominance-is-the-concept-the-alpha-dog-valid


Perhaps it is time to revise our dog training and obedience concepts to something along the ideas proposed by advocates of Positive Training. In that view, controlling the dog's behavior is more a matter of controlling the things that a dog needs and wants, such as food and social interaction, rather than applying force to achieve what the science suggests is an unnatural dominance over the dog. If you manage and dispense important resources, the dog will respond to you out of self interest. So this approach to behavior modification has the same effect as forcefully imposed dominance in controlling the dog's behavior. However, instead of dominance based on physical power and threats it is more similar to establishing status. One can agree to respond to controls imposed by someone of higher status, but this is done, not out of fear, but out of respect and in anticipation of the rewards that one can expect by doing so.
-Stanley Coren, Ph.D.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201007/canine-dominance-is-the-concept-the-alpha-dog-valid

 

[BradA1878]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

"Purely Positive?" "Balanced?" Another Perspective by Nicole Wilde


"It keeps cropping up on training discussion boards. I’ve heard the term used proudly, and I’ve also heard it slung at other trainers as a slur. I’ve even seen it associated with my own name on blogs—and not ones that were written by me. Who knew I was a “purely positive†trainer? I sure didn’t. Besides, what exactly does “purely positive†mean in the real world?


Any trainer who cares about dogs and has a modicum of compassion and intelligence doesn’t want to hurt dogs in the name of training. A choice of training tools exists, and a wide range of philosophies encompassing the use of those tools expands the arena even further. One person’s definition of purely positive might be: “No corrections are ever used.†Okay, but so we’re on the same page, what constitutes a correction? Is a verbal “no†a correction? How about saying, “eh-ehâ€â€”or is that somehow different? What about a stern look? Walking away as though disgusted? If so, call the training police and lock me away, because I’ve certainly done all of those things. My guess is that most trainers have, and the ones who haven’t are few and far between. I also believe that the trainers who never punish a dog by any definition of the term (including consequences such as a dog not getting to go for a walk if he doesn’t sit for the door to open, etc.), are more of a caricature painted by those who don’t care for what they perceive to be permissive training methods, than reality.


Then we have the “balanced†training camp. To my understanding, this term is meant to denote a trainer who uses both rewards and fair corrections. Of course, the actual interpretation of what constitutes a “reward†or a “fair correction†varies depending on the trainer. But whether the training philosophy is “positive†or “balanced,†in a way it’s like religion—you’ve got those followers who fall in the middle of the spectrum, and then the extremists, who are typically not a very good representation of the group as a whole. Someone who is helicoptering a dog, for example, is not a typical representative of the balanced trainer group, any more so than someone who just “slings cookies†at a dog in the hopes that behavior will improve is a good example of a positive trainer.


I’ve always liked the “LIMA†philosophy—least invasive, minimally aversive. Of course, what something even “minimally aversive†consists of and how it’s applied depends on a trainer’s skill and ethics. We each have a place we draw the line as to tools and techniques we’re willing to use. But I have more respect for the trainer—regardless of training philosophy, tools or techniques—who can have a civil conversation with another trainer regardless of their differences, than anyone on either side of the fence with a holier than thou or condemning attitude. I’ve never made a secret of that fact that I prefer not to use e-collars or certain types of equipment, and yet I know people who train with them, who use them with precision and skill, and only in very specific situations. I don’t consider these people fiends—in fact, some are friends. I like to think we’ve learned a lot from each other by listening instead of judging.


Of all the tools in a dog trainer’s toolbox, an open mind is one of the most valuable. Just because you’ve used a particular piece of equipment or technique for years doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be open to reconsidering its use. For example, early in my career I used citronella collars as a means to stop nuisance barking (behavior modification and enrichment was used as well). But after listening to others argue that the lingering unpleasant scent continues to punish the dog after the fact, instead of dismissing them as “those people who just don’t get it,†I reconsidered, and decided to discontinue its use. (And please let’s not have a long, heated discussion about citronella collars—this is just an example.) Or maybe you’ll decide to use a tool you wouldn’t have considered before. Maybe there’s an online discussion of a new type of body harness, and instead of dismissing it as some new-fangled useless piece of equipment, you process the information objectively and make an appropriate decision. Letting go of the knee jerk emotion that accompanies so many discussions of training equipment allows for civil discourse and growth.


I only wish both sides would take the time to engage in dialogue and ask questions instead of standing on the sidelines slinging mud and assigning labels to those who aren’t firmly in their camp, especially when they’ve never had a single conversation with the target of their vitriol. It’s fine to disagree with another trainer’s methodology, and certainly we should all have standards and beliefs that govern our training practices. But if you spend all your time deriding others instead of doing something productive, guess who it really reflects on? The political bs gets just as tiring in the training arena as it does in the political one. Enough already! We may not be able to come to a consensus on a training philosophy, but surely we all care about dogs and the future of our profession. Extending each other a bit of professional courtesy and engaging in open-minded conversation would be a purely positive move in the right direction."

 

[Catia]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

Brad--thank you for the links, I was looking for some more science/research based info on the non-pecking order/non pack type of philosophy, I will check out the links with an open mind.


I also have to look up e-collar-have no idea what that even is, but sounds like something I'd probably not use.
I've never used a collar for training purposes on any dog, due to my own personal preference of not wanting someone training me by holding my own throat.
My pooches have always had collars, I refer to them as their necklace-it holds their id & license, some dogs get lead by it, some not. My current girl HATES her collar, & tolerates her harnness. My hope is that she learns to accept it, & in my own human mind, I will equate this to her understanding it is for her own safety lol.
I do however understand that sometimes people have to employ methods I'd not prefer to use, & hope I don't ever have to.

In my old school dinosaur verbage, I just use the term 'alpha' like boss/leader/similar.
At least I *like* to think I am the queen of my domain...
But lets face it--I'm the one slaving away at work every day so my pets can lounge, eat better food than I, & I am the one who jumps when one of them needs something...whether I want to or not. LOL, so the reality is that I probably just need to be in denial LOL

 

[ruthcatrin]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

Personally I don't care what terms you use, I care what you do and if its working.

My problems with the "purely positive" folks is their complete lack of willingness to accept any other form of training method. Not even in discussion. I know other types of trainers do it too, but the purely positive folks are exceptionally vocal and difficult to work with.

 

[ruthcatrin]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

Personally I don't care what terms you use, I care what you do and if its working.

For example a trainer who inists they're a positive trainer who does't use adversives, but who does see nothing wrong with withholding food from a dog for several days to stimulate food drive to be used for basic training, isn't a positive trainer no matter what words they use and I don't really care if it worked to stimulate the food drive, its still abuse. (yes I'm still pissed about that and no I won't drop it)

 

[Robtouw]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

Sweet Ruth! I am with you on the I don't care about terminology as long as it works! And each person develops his or her own methods individually by using what they see and research as a beginning so there really isn't one set way to train a pup.

Catia, my cat, Badin, also is exempt from my "alpha" status. She is a creature all her own and each time I think I've figured her out, she goes and does something completely mindblowing! She is one tough hunter!

 

[BradA1878]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

Personally I don't care what terms you use, I care what you do and if its working.

My problems with the "purely positive" folks is their complete lack of willingness to accept any other form of training method. Not even in discussion. I know other types of trainers do it too, but the purely positive folks are exceptionally vocal and difficult to work with.

The same exact thing can be said for the non-positive trainers. Especially the Cesar Milan followers and the "balanced dog" followers.

I really don't see it as an issue of terminology.

All dog training is based on Learning Theory. You can choose to use punishment, or you can choose to use reward. A good trainer will use the technique that gets the job done the quickest and has the best lasting effect and does not cause harm or stress to the dog.

There are trainers out there who just simply do not understand Learning Theory, Cesar Milan is an example of this.

Whichever method you use you are using Learning Theory to train the dog - social order and status has NOTHING to do with Learning Theory andtraining a dog. It just doesn't.

For example a trainer who inists they're a positive trainer who does't use adversives, but who does see nothing wrong with withholding food from a dog for several days to stimulate food drive to be used for basic training, isn't a positive trainer no matter what words they use and I don't really care if it worked to stimulate the food drive, its still abuse. (yes I'm still pissed about that and no I won't drop it)

I've never heard of someone doing this, but, you know, there are shitty trainers out there - positive or non-positive. You have to find a good trainer.

 

[BradA1878]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

In my old school dinosaur verbage, I just use the term 'alpha' like boss/leader/similar.
At least I *like* to think I am the queen of my domain...
But lets face it--I'm the one slaving away at work every day so my pets can lounge, eat better food than I, & I am the one who jumps when one of them needs something...whether I want to or not. LOL, so the reality is that I probably just need to be in denial LOL

This is something I've never understood with dog owners. Why does their need to be a word for our leadership and why does it need to be stated over and over again? Isn't it implied anyway?

Why not be a team and collaborate with your dog to live a happy life with one another?

In your employment, does your boss constantly remind everyone "I am the leader"? The best bosses lead without the employees even realizing they are being led.

Also, why is the concept of leadership even brought up w/ our dogs? Isn't it implied without us having to force it?

We are smarter than our dogs, we do provide them everything they need to live (excluding air)... It would be insane to allow our dogs to make decisions for us... Seems silly people feel the need to constantly talk about and exclaim "i'm the leader" or "i'm alpha" or to go to forceful measures to "prove" this to their dogs...

It's always come off to me as a person who is barely in control of their dogs, and so has to build their own confidence by exclaiming the obvious.

 

[Kujo]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

I wouldn't worry to much about it. Either way you go someone can take offense. I use the term alpha but I also use leader, boss, dominatrix, ect....Quite a few of us here use the term Alpha and no it doesn't mean we beat our dogs. Just that we set up a structure so they can understand what is expected from them.

:lolbangtable: so is Hurricane your sub :razzberry:

 

[kbuchanan66]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

In your employment, does your boss constantly remind everyone "I am the leader"? The best bosses lead without the employees even realizing they are being led.

.

LOL. My boss uses the "ALPHA" method. We are not aloud to close our doors all the way or refuse being sent out to camp without being Screamed at. I can almost put myelf in a dogs shoes when he has one of his fits. I just cock my head and think.... "Man this guy is unstable and I have no idea why he is screaming loudly and wagging a finger in my face... maybe I'll just not listen to him until he CALMS DOWn"... Than he tries to punish us for things we don't understand.

Any who I am done Hijackiing the thread.

 

[thelady_v2010]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

Sweet Ruth! I am with you on the I don't care about terminology as long as it works! And each person develops his or her own methods individually by using what they see and research as a beginning so there really isn't one set way to train a pup.

Catia, my cat, Badin, also is exempt from my "alpha" status. She is a creature all her own and each time I think I've figured her out, she goes and does something completely mindblowing! She is one tough hunter!

I am with you, my cat will look right at me, drink from my water glass and run away laughing, knowing I can't catch him.

 

[Duetsche_Doggen]

Re: Questions about Pecking Order & new schools of thought & the jargon that goes wit

I'm a simple person...I try not to make it more complicated than it needs to be. Rule #1 with my dogs I call the shots. I'm firm but fair. I can give treats and be "posisitve" but I not afriad to give a correction.

Ha Brad, that sounds like my current boss. Been driving me bat**** We call him our "daddy" he tells us when, where, how, why perform on our jobs. I feel like I'm in preschool.