Hello,

Long time since I posted here but this thread just caught my eye.

The "dominance theory" is valid and workable but you must interpret the theory correctly in order to understand it.

Pet dogs, as a pose to wolves, have been bred to be biddable, puppy like and submissive. To ignore the fact that the pet dog has an evolutionary path and cannot help but to react within those boundaries is, in my opinion, very short sighted.

It is VERY, VERY unlikely for you to come across a truly dominant pet dog - I have stated this many times in the past. BUT many pet dogs are forced into situations where they have no option but to try and take the alpha role. This does not mean that the dog is "dominant" or displaying "dominant behaviour". It means that a dog is not feeling safe with the leadership it is getting, basic survival instinct kicks in and the dog is forced to try and make decisions that it is simply not equipped to make in an effort to protect itself. Behaviour issues surface, agression included, because the dog is NOT dominant enough to fulfill the role that has been forced onto it.

The very word "dominance" is much misunderstood. It does not describe overt, agressive or protective behaviour. It is the subtle day to day bonding that happens between members of the household. Pet dogs are wired to be happy as pack members, they do not aspire to be pack leaders. A natural pack leader, a truly dominant animal, will show very little agression, be very calm and relaxed and seem to spend a great deal of time simply being superior and ignoring the minor squabbles and interactions of the rest of it's family group. The dog forced into trying to take a leading role within the family group when it is not equipped for the role or up to the job (and how can it be!?) is the dog that has behaviour issues. An under-confident, unwilling leader is the one who will use agression to try and get others to comply, a "dominant", alpha animal does not need to be agressive - it just is!

The struggling animal, forced into the role of leader will very quickly learn that using agressive behaviour towards people is the quickest way to get them to back off and do things the way it wants. In that respect agression is a learned behaviour for that individual.

It is also an interesting observation that even within a wolf pack the alpha pair will often defer to other pack members in certain situations such as tracking prey or on the actual kill. By understanding this manageable sharing of "dominance" (if you like) we have been able to train guide dogs, for example, to ignore an instruction to go forward if the path is not safe.

Sorry, just had to try and explain that the terminology used by behaviourists is, as it always has been, very easy to misinterpret - we don't do ourselves any favours! We use everyday language to mean very specific things in very specific environments. Dominance in an everday context is a powerful and somewhat threatening word. It has a whole different meaning and set of behaviours attached to it for us geeky people.