# Leader of the pack



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

With all the anti Cesar Milan attitude, people seem to think that everything that he does is wrong. Animals do have a leader, the new thinking on animal behaviour questions dominance theory, not there should not be a leader.

I guess both dominance and reward theories have been around for many years.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

No offense but are you trying to troll? Have you bothered to read any of the links / books / papers? What is the point of this thread except yet another debate about dominance vs actual science?



> Animals do have a leader, the new thinking on animal behaviour questions dominance theory, not there should not be a leader.


1) ANIMALS is a big group.

Different species behave in different ways.

Some species do indeed have a strict linear hierarchy i.e. A is dominant over B who is dominant over C etc....

Others have a system whereby there is one "dominant" aka leader but all others are equal (no hierarchy except the leader) i.e. A is dominant over B,C,D etc.

Some have more complex systems, where dominance relationships exist between individuals but are not linear e.g. A is dominant over B. B is dominant over C. But C is dominant over A.

Some animals do not appear to have any form of hierarchy at all; it simply doesn't occur.

To claim that "animals have a leader" is seriously inaccurate, showing a total lack of understanding of animal behaviour; or even the realisation that behaviours are species specific. not every social species is the same. A group of dogs is not the same as a pack of wolves, or a flock of chickens, or a group of bonobos. 
(Actually for some really fascinating stuff look into the differences between bonobos and chimps!)

2) The majority of research into domestic dogs shows that there is not usually a hierarchy in place. One or two studies have found evidence of hierarchies between male dogs in specific conditions, but most studies of both pet / lab and feral populations have found that linear hierarchies generally fon't exist and there is NO leader as such. Relationships and "dominance" between individuals are fluid.

3) Last but not least; does it affect us and does it matter? IMO the answer to both is a resounding NO!

Whether or not a given species (in this case dogs) demonstrate a hierarchy in their intraspecific relationships or not is largely irrelevent. Human beings are NOT dogs - and they know it! We can not hope to replicate canine communication in any reliable way; we do not compete for the same resources; we don't have the same priorities etc. There is ZERO evidence of any form of hierarchy existing between any 2 different species.

By the same token, why should we care either way? There is more than enough evidence that dogs can be raised, trained, rehabilitated etc without any form of rank reduction / pack leader rules / violence etc. Trying to be domainant / alpha / the leader etc etc is totally unnecessary - so why bother?


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Colette said:


> By the same token, why should we care either way? There is more than enough evidence that dogs can be raised, trained, rehabilitated etc without any form of rank reduction / pack leader rules / violence etc. Trying to be domainant / alpha / the leader etc etc is totally unnecessary - so why bother?


Why are you mentioning "violence etc" dominance, I clearly stated that this thread was not about dominance?


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Are you CM?


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

You are saying animals have a leader. I am saying that some species do, some do not, and that it doesn't matter anyway.

You do realise that if one individual is a leader then that individual is the "dominant" one by definition don't you? If there is a leader, then there is a hierarchy of sorts. You can't just separate the two and make up your own definitions as you go along!


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2015)

When my kids were barely able to talk and walk they could hand signal a sit and get compliance out of the dogs. As toddlers they were not leaders to the dogs, but because the dogs and kids shared a language (hand signals) there was communication, and cooperation.

Dogs are social creatures with a vast array of complex signals and communication, with capabilities of comprehension and feeling that we're just now scratching the surface of understanding.

To dumb dogs down in to a linear hierarchy of leader/follower is far too simplistic to convey the complexity that dogs are capable of. 

When my dog wakes me in the middle of the night, and manages to communicate to my sleepy brain that one of the kids has a nose bleed, he's figuring out a problem, taking initiative about it, and telling me to fix it. That's not me being a leader, that's him being a leader. 

I don't want a relationship with my dog where they defer to me constantly without any questioning or thinking on their own part. 
I want a relationship of mutual respect, trust, and a solid system of communication that supports that respect and trust.

Obviously not everyone wants the same thing from their relationship with their dog. And that's fine too


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

> Animals do have a leader, the new thinking on animal behaviour questions dominance theory, not there should not be a leader.





> Why are you mentioning "violence etc" dominance, I clearly stated that this thread was not about dominance?


Please re-read....



> By the same token, why should we care either way? There is more than enough evidence that dogs can be raised, trained, rehabilitated etc without any form of rank reduction / pack leader rules / violence etc. Trying to be domainant / alpha / the leader etc etc is totally unnecessary - so why bother?


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Colette said:


> You do realise that if one individual is a leader then that individual is the "dominant" one by definition don't you? If there is a leader, then there is a hierarchy of sorts. You can't just separate the two and make up your own definitions as you go along!


Many groups have leaders, but they do not operate a policy of dominance.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2015)

El Cid said:


> Many groups have leaders, but they do not operate a policy of dominance.


Okay, we are in the training and behavior part of the forum, so I'm going to get technical with terminology.

In terms of behavioral science, dominance is not a "policy".
Dominance simply describes the *relationship* between two animals in the face of resources. Therefore an animal cannot be "dominant". An animal can have a dominant relationship, but it's not something an animal *is*. Does that make sense?

Leadership also has to do with relationships, but it's a lot fuzzier to describe. 
In both human and dog relationships I guess there are situations where there would be a clear leader, but there are many other situations where there is no clear leader, or the leadership is fluid and ever changing.

But none of this has a whole lot to do with training dogs to sit, stay, come and live harmoniously in a human world. 
That you achieve by clear communication, consistency, understanding motivators, teaching coping skills and addressing potential stressors....


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I think I see where El Cid is coming from.

Certainly I have had dominant dogs in my groups of dogs. Not nasty dogs, not assertive dogs but just dogs the others automatically bow down to.
I found it very sad when one of my shelties got older. Nothing apparently changed in her demeanour but suddenly the others would go to her food bowl etc.

Also had it with an old cow. She had been the leader of the herd all her life and when she got old she dropped to the back.

Horses constantly battle for dominance or leadership. It is fascinating to watch when a new horse is introduced and gradually the hierarchy changes.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2015)

Dominance has gotten to be a dirty word, which is too bad, because there is a place for using that word when it comes to dog/dog interactions. 

For example, if two intact males are fighting over rights to a bitch in heat, that is a dominance issue between those two dogs. 

However, a dog who pulls on a leash is not having a dominance issue. He's having an oppositional reflex issue and lack of training issue.

The point is, unless you're arguing with your dog over mating rights or who gets the knuckle bone to chew on, dominance has nothing to do with our relationship with our dogs or how we interact with them.

It would be like trying to teach someone to drive a car, and they're not interested in the steering wheel or brake and gas pedals, but are making a huge issue out of the arm-rest on the passenger side. It's a total non-issue. 
I suppose if you keep reaching for the arm rest on the passenger side, you may wind up turning the wheel and by default steering the car, but that's an accidental result, and there are much more effective ways to steer. And besides, who wants to drive in circles all the time anyway?


----------



## Ownedbymany (Nov 16, 2014)

I don't know how to say this without coming across wrongly but frankly I don't think it matters if people think dogs need a leader. I need my dogs to follow me on walks, does that make me a leader? I need my dogs to sit and stay and come when called, does that make me not a leader but my dogs just well trained and obedient? 

I don't care whether you want to call it leadership or not, what I do care about it downright cruelty from shouting, poking, prodding, shocking, pinning etc. Basically your whole "dominance theory" because it's not necessary. I also agree with ouesi about the difference between dominance and other instincts, behaviours and reflexes.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Well, considering we do everything for our dogs and expect certain behaviours from them, while guiding them to behave appropriately, I guess you could describe yourself as a 'leader'. However, I don't consider my parent's leaders despite them very much being the 'dominant' presence in the house when growing up. So why do we define ourselves in that manner with dogs?

I prefer to refer to myself and my relationship with my dogs as that of a teacher, a team-mate, a best buddy. It is a mutually appreciative relationship of which I don't 'lead' my dog as such, but allow them to have a say in the relationship. They're not expected to do as I say when I say or they get a good shouting at. They can screw up as I often do myself  

I don't see leader as a necessarily 'bad' description, but it depends on what that word means to you and what actions are behind it. If it's a term to describe yourself as being in charge, and the 'alpha' etc then I think it's being used wrongly.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

the problem with dominance is it breeds resentment...certainly does with horses, you either break their spirit or they bide their time. Don't really know about dogs.


----------



## CANOLOGY (Feb 10, 2015)

Colette said:


> You do realise that if one individual is a leader then that individual is the "dominant" one by definition don't you? !


On the contrary, thel leader can be theq quietly confident one with strong natural presence
There could be another that tries tod dominate proceeding, or shout louder and/ or make provocative statements, yet is not the leader


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid perhaps we will understand your point better if you explain what you mean by a leader and how you think that translates into your relationship with your dog.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

CANOLOGY said:


> On the contrary, thel leader can be theq quietly confident one with strong natural presence
> There could be another that tries tod dominate proceeding, or shout louder and/ or make provocative statements, yet is not the leader


ah but the quietly confident one is then the dominant one in the group. Why should shouting louder make someone dominant. Watch your animals and see if you can pick out anything the dominant one does to put it in that position. 9 times out of 10 it is just their presence within the group, not biting or kicking or whatever.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Blitz said:


> ah but the quietly confident one is then the dominant one in the group. Why should shouting louder make someone dominant. Watch your animals and see if you can pick out anything the dominant one does to put it in that position. 9 times out of 10 it is just their presence within the group, not biting or kicking or whatever.


My Thoroughbred Gelding has always grazed with a large group of other geldings and sometimes, one leaves and a new one comes in.

Paddy has always been the dominant one on the field. When they collect at the gate for bringing in time, he is always at the gate, with the others standing behind him at a short distance. Not one of them will pass Paddy to try and come out before him.

I've never seen him kick or bite another horse, he tends to walk to them very slowly, lower his head and stare at them. All of them, even the youngsters, show him a lot of respect.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Watching my own dogs I would say one of them can be dominant or the leader in one situation then not in another as one of the others steps forward. For instance Indie (although very people friendly) likes to patrol the house and garden and will display and do her full on warning bark if she senses danger and the boys tend to hang back behind her. However she is quite nervous of other dogs so if we come across a full on bouncy dog out on a walk she will hang back or hide behind us whilst Colt will barge forward and check it out. Whereas if it comes to a scenting/flushing situation Arthur is the leader and the others follow his cues. Colt also resource guards so the others wouldn't try to steal food/chews from him but Indie loves her sofa so much she will override his protests and sit on him if he trys to stop her coming up. Arthur likes a quiet life and prefers to do his own thing - does that make him a leader? he certainly isn't a follower, and is pretty independent of his humans too.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Watching my own dogs I would say one of them can be dominant or the leader in one situation then not in another as one of the others steps forward. For instance Indie (although very people friendly) likes to patrol the house and garden and will display and do her full on warning bark if she senses danger and the boys tend to hang back behind her. However she is quite nervous of other dogs so if we come across a full on bouncy dog out on a walk she will hang back or hide behind us whilst Colt will barge forward and check it out. Whereas if it comes to a scenting/flushing situation Arthur is the leader and the others follow his cues. Colt also resource guards so the others wouldn't try to steal food/chews from him but Indie loves her sofa so much she will override his protests and sit on him if he trys to stop her coming up. Arthur likes a quiet life and prefers to do his own thing - does that make him a leader? he certainly isn't a follower, and is pretty independent of his humans too.


Jack will get off the sofa, have a stretch and shake then come back and sit in front of it, giving me a certain look. I then straighten his fleece and he jumps back on - whose the dominant one there? 

I think our relationship is one of mutual cooperation


----------



## CANOLOGY (Feb 10, 2015)

Blitz said:


> ah but the quietly confident one is then the dominant one in the group. Why should shouting louder make someone dominant. Watch your animals and see if you can pick out anything the dominant one does to put it in that position. 9 times out of 10 it is just their presence within the group, not biting or kicking or whatever.


I agree,thr quietly confident leader isn't thr one trying to dominate proceedings


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

I think El Cid is overthinking this dog ownership thing & it's this


> I think our relationship is one of mutual cooperation


 that he/she needs to understand.

It's not a battle for supremacy!


----------



## speug (Nov 1, 2011)

It also depends a lot on external factors too though - thinking specifically of two bitches I knew - the daxie was very much in charge indoors, would sit on the other, would eat first and make sure every other dog around stayed where she wanted them etc. - out on a walk it was totally different, she was happy to let the bigger dog (s when my dog was there too) make all the decisions about where to go what to do, she just tagged along behind and hid behind if anything spooked her.
With dogs its not fixed in stone who the leader is, it depends on the situation.


----------



## speug (Nov 1, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> It's not a battle for supremacy!


you haven't met my little dictator (6 month pup with more attitude than he can handle)

Funnily enough though I've never met any experienced owner whose dog is out to get them and take over - The people who get most out of their dogs whether work, sport or just companionship seem to me to be the people who go in for the co-operative partnership model rather than the more combative "keep the dog in its place so it can't take over the world" model


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

speug said:


> you haven't met my little dictator (6 month pup with more attitude than he can handle)


To my mind pups are like kids, they push the limits until they find where those limits are. Generally both tend to calm down as they get older.

I've trained both types over the years using the same approach & they've all turned out ok 



speug said:


> Funnily enough though I've never met any experienced owner whose dog is out to get them and take over - The people who get most out of their dogs whether work, sport or just companionship seem to me to be the people who go in for the co-operative partnership model rather than the more combative "keep the dog in its place so it can't take over the world" model


Exactly right. I have three DDBs, two aged 8 & a pup nearly one.. none of them are lying there as I sleep plotting how to get one over on me.

Work with them & there's great rewards to be had.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> El Cid perhaps we will understand your point better if you explain what you mean by a leader and how you think that translates into your relationship with your dog.


As others have said, leadership is a different thing, for different dogs. Myself and my dog have a very good relationship, I am the trainer, everything is my responsibility.
Perhaps other dogs are different, but my dog is very friendly and loving. Some TV dog shows seem to show people that allow their dogs to be unruly. Quite often the fault of poor leadership.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

El Cid said:


> As others have said, leadership is a different thing, for different dogs. Myself and my dog have a very good relationship, I am the trainer, everything is my responsibility.
> Perhaps other dogs are different, but my dog is very friendly and loving. Some TV dog shows seem to show people that allow their dogs to be unruly. Quite often the fault of poor leadership.


I think it's your use of the word "leadership" that's the issue.

Dogs can be unruly because they haven't been shown any other way to act. For me that not about who's the "leader" it's about lack of training. Period.


----------



## Ownedbymany (Nov 16, 2014)

Old Shep said:


> I think it's your use of the word "leadership" that's the issue.
> 
> Dogs can be unruly because they haven't been shown any other way to act. For me that not about who's the "leader" it's about lack of training. Period.


That is what I wanted to say but I couldn't for the life of me think how to say it.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> As others have said, leadership is a different thing, for different dogs. Myself and my dog have a very good relationship, I am the trainer, everything is my responsibility.
> Perhaps other dogs are different, but my dog is very friendly and loving. Some TV dog shows seem to show people that allow their dogs to be unruly. Quite often the fault of poor leadership.


So you train your dog, you have a good relationship, she is friendly and loving but what has all of that got to do with leadership?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

My dance teacher taught me to tap dance with panache.

My husband taught me to play cribbage, rather badly.

My online friends taught me how to make soap

Doesn't make any of them my leader, though.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

El Cid said:


> As others have said, leadership is a different thing, for different dogs. Myself and my dog have a very good relationship, I am the trainer, everything is my responsibility.
> Perhaps other dogs are different, but my dog is very friendly and loving. Some TV dog shows seem to show people that allow their dogs to be unruly. Quite often the fault of poor leadership.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. All your posts are rather cryptic to me. Are you saying you do use the same methods as CM and believe in all this dominance malarkey, hence you having a well trained dog and the rest of us soft folk being to namby pamby, or are you agreeing that the word 'leader' does not equate to 'dominance' or have any actual meaning to our relationships with our dogs?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Colette said:


> Are you being *deliberately obtuse*?


:lol: i love it - i literally only read the OP, & deducted rep - telling him that he WAS being "deliberately obtuse"!

Obviously, there's a definite gravitational attraction to this particular label, re this member. :w00t:
Gee... i (don't) wonder why...


Colette said:


> You [said] animals have a leader. I [say] some species do, some do not, and that it doesn't matter anyway.
> 
> You do realise that if one individual is a leader, that individual is the "dominant" one by definition, don't you?
> If there's a leader, there's a hierarchy of sorts. *You can't just separate the two & make up your own
> definitions, as you go along!*


oh, yes, he can.  He's done it many times, previously - or tried to, in any case.
Poor dear - he always gets caught out by some sharp-eyed raptor. :laugh:
.
.


----------



## shinra (Aug 9, 2013)

what i'd like to know is why are humans so obsessed with control ( or the fear of losing it) and suppressing animals, because must be something that keeps this line of thinking so popular.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sweety said:


> My Thoroughbred Gelding has always grazed with a large group of other geldings and sometimes, one leaves
> and a new one comes in.
> 
> Paddy has always been the dominant one on the field. When they collect at the gate for bringing in time,
> ...


Yes - those are HORSES. Horses in a stable herd ['stable' meaning established, not a barn] have a set
hierarchy. Dogs do not.

Dairy cows will similarly line up to enter a milking parlor - dogs don't. they mill.

When i open a door, whichever dog is nearest will exit [or enter] via that door. They don't line up
according to some sort of 'rank', & exit or enter in that order! 

DOMINANCE in dogs is:
- between conspecifics [dogs].
- between 2 individuals.
- an event; it's neither a lifestyle nor a personality trait.
NO "dominant dog" exists; that would mean s/he is 'dominant' to every dog on the planet - which is ludicrous.

Hierarchy in a horse herd is an utterly different, linear ranking. No similar concept exists in dogs.
'Dominance' in dogs is such a rare & not very useful thing, that we can largely ignore it with impunity.

I can solve problem behaviors, even IF dominance has been a recurrent issue, without addressing or even
acknowledging it at all. That it was 'there' doesn't mean i need to even note its existence. It's irrelevant.
.
.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

What's the big deal with bossing a dog around anyway...pack leader my ar5e....I have well behave pooches and they do as they're told because obviously I don't want pee in the house etc but I have no interest in asserting dominance over them...why? Just because I can or what? what would any of us possibly get out of it? .....Now I just need for the new one to realise she doesn't need to lord it over everyone...which very slowly she is learning an we'll be just fine.....even though they do sleep with me and take over my bed


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

shinra said:


> what i'd like to know is why are humans so obsessed with control ( or the fear of losing it) and suppressing animals, because must be something that keeps this line of thinking so popular.


Because humans are agressive little blighters that have forced our way to the top of the food chain...the thing is, because we forced our way to the top we have to continue to prove our worth.
We do that by "dominating" everything we see below us...

As for the OP...well, round and round we go, when he will actually engage in the conversasion instead of making statement after statement...nobody knows :w00t:


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Io wants me to be her leader... to lead HER to the fridge ( or treaty cupboard ) more like


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

I often wonder what dominance enthusiasts would make of my relationship with my dog. He wakes me at 6:30am every day for breakfast. He comes to tell me he needs a treat when he's not barked along with other dogs barking. Or when we've seen deer. We play a game where he pushes me over and pins me and then I have to do the same to him. 

I choose not to waste time worrying about who's "alpha" or "leader" or whatever else you want to call it. I teach my dog what I want of him, reward him for doing the things I want and I have a mostly well behaved, friendly dog who can be taken wherever I choose to take him without any major problems. I'm not convinced anything else is necessary.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Hanwombat said:


> Io wants me to "be her leader"...
> to lead HER to the fridge ( or treat cupboard ) more like.


:lol: Dogs are Earth-native species, but aliens in our homes. They are ambassadors, of sorts -
_'I come in peace - Lead me to the goodies...'_

Dogs will do almost anything for a treat or a scratch; teaming up with them is the best decision our species
ever made yet, & i can't imagine what decision might equal it, in prescient good so many millennia later -
unless, on a serious note, we made a collective decision to stop fouling our only planet.
.
.
.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

leashedForLife said:


> :lol: Dogs are Earth-native species, but aliens in our homes. They are ambassadors, of sorts -
> _'I come in peace - Lead me to the goodies...'_
> 
> Dogs will do almost anything for a treat or a scratch; teaming up with them is the best decision our species
> ...


Infact, Io is more my leader :lol:. When I ask her if she would like a 'treaty from the treaty box' she dashs to the kitchen in excitement and touches the cupboard with her nose... just incase I forget where to look  :lol:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Hanwombat said:


> In fact, Io is more my leader. :lol:
> When I ask her if she'd like a 'treaty from the treaty box', she dashes to the kitchen in excitement & touches
> the [correct] cupboard with her nose... just in case I forget where to look.  :lol:


Hey, dogs aren't dummies.  They've all seen us tear the house apart, hunting madly for a mobile phone,
car-keys, a misplaced wallet, that form that came in the mail last week... she's just playing it safe. 

If U suddenly develop amnesia, no worries - *she* knows where the food is, U just have to keep
remembering how to work a can-opener, or undo package seals. :thumbup1: With her about, U're good. 

It's very reassuring that *some*body knows what matters, & is keeping a weather eye on it.
.
.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

leashedForLife said:


> Hey, dogs aren't dummies.  They've all seen us tear the house apart, hunting madly for a mobile phone,
> car-keys, a misplaced wallet, that form that came in the mail last week... she's just playing it safe.
> 
> If U suddenly develop amnesia, no worries - *she* knows where the food is, U just have to keep
> ...


These poor dogs having to keep us hoomans in check :lol:

Yep! Least no matter what happens I'll always remember where the sooper dooper yummy treaty box is


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Dogloverlou said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. All your posts are rather cryptic to me. Are you saying you do use the same methods as CM and believe in all this dominance malarkey, hence you having a well trained dog and the rest of us soft folk being to namby pamby, or are you agreeing that the word 'leader' does not equate to 'dominance' or have any actual meaning to our relationships with our dogs?


I dont use CMs dominance training methods, but since his dominance method has been rubbished, perhaps the reason he is able train some dogs well, is because he is a good confident leader.
I/we still have more to learn, some people can be way too "namby pamby", I get accused of being too soft myself, by my 14 yr old daughter.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

El Cid said:


> I dont use CMs dominance training methods, but since his dominance method has been rubbished, perhaps the reason he is able train some dogs well, is because he is a good confident leader.
> I/we still have more to learn, some people can be way too "namby pamby", I get accused of being too soft myself, by my 14 yr old daughter.


But you're still not defining what you mean by "leader".

I'm not being pedantic here, it's the crux of the discussion.

I used to hate when dog owners referred to themselves as "mum" and "dad" to their dogs, but the more I have read, the more I think this is actually quite appropriate.

They are part of my family and while dogs are categorically NOT wolves, less "domesticated" dogs (such as feral dogs) do form family groups (then disperse as the pups become independant). 
So, I like to think of them as furry members of the family, where I'm the mum. I set the "rules" - for me that means no sleeping on furniture, no jumping on visitors....etc. I then show them what I want and reward them when they get it right.
But, at the same time, I deeply respect my dogs in many ways- I respect their right to sleep and eat disturbed, their right to express their natural behaviour....etc.

I wouldn't call that "leading".

Maybe if you could tell us what you mean by "leadership" as we are possibly talking about the same thing!


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

El Cid said:


> I dont use CMs dominance training methods, but since his dominance method has been rubbished, perhaps the reason he is able train some dogs well, is because he is a good confident leader.
> I/we still have more to learn, some people can be way too "namby pamby", *I get accused of being too soft myself, by my 14 yr old daughter*.


By whom and what is their experience?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> I dont use CMs dominance training methods, but since his dominance method has been rubbished, perhaps the reason he is able train some dogs well, is because he is a good confident leader.
> I/we still have more to learn, some people can be way too "namby pamby", I get accused of being too soft myself, by my 14 yr old daughter.


But if you go back to your other thread about CM and read some of the links and watch some of the videos posted I don't understand how you can still think he is able to train some dogs well and is a good leader. He is a bully, just because a dog complies with what he asks for on occasion doesn't mean he has solved the problems, many of the dogs are shut down and terrified and that is not being a good leader  El Cid please can you confirm whether you have actually looked at any of the videos and read any of the links on your other thread? Also what do you mean by "namby pamby" exactly?


----------



## mylesaminute (Jan 11, 2015)

Maybe if the official definition of leadership and dominance was adopted into this thread it would be easier to understand for everyone. "By "leader", I mean..." and "by "dominant", I mean..." shouldn't exist, the definitions are the meanings.

The actual definition of dominance is having *power* and *influence* over others. All dog owners are dominant over their dogs whether they want to be or not, you can't have a dog without having power and influence over it. The way you show your dominance is what makes the difference.

The actual definition of leadership is the action of leading a group or an organization. We're all leading our dogs, aren't we.

Dominance and leadership became dirty words because people saw trainers like Cesar using those words while he corrects with the lead and rolls the dog on it's back so people associated dominance and leadership with that. There are other ways to show leadership and dominance that aren't detrimental.

There are eight different leadership styles to choose from though, and some involve using dominance and some don't. The style you use depends entirely on the owner and the dog. Regardless of what style of leadership you choose you still have dominance over your dog because you're the owner.

There's nothing wrong with having dominance over your dog and being the leader of your dog, it's the way you show your dominance and the way you lead that should be considered.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

El Cid said:


> I don't use CM's dominance-training methods, but... perhaps the reason *he's able [to] train some dogs well*,
> is because he is a good confident leader.
> ...


Can U *name one dog* that, in Ur opinion, Mr Millan "trained well"?

I'm very familiar with every episode from #1 of the 1st season, thru August of 2009 [when i moved] -
& i can't think of a single dog that was improved by his handling, suggestions, or intervention. Not one.
Most were either unchanged, in that while the presenting issue might have been suppressed, the root cause
was not addressed at all - or in fact, the dog's behavior became distinctly worse post-CM.

U would think that timid dogs would be the group most-helped by a "good, confident leader", but apparently
either that's not true for dogs, or Mr Millan isn't the gifted, reassuring figure U portray him to be, because IMO
the dogs he did 'worst' with, in terms of pre-CM & post-CM behavior, were the spooks: NuNu the street-Chi,
Ruby the RG Viszla, Kane the Dane afraid of shiny floors, JonBee the Jindo he pinned till he pee'd, & so on.

The only dog i can think of who was distinctly BETTER at the end of the episode was the Dal puppy,
& that wasn't due to Mr Millan's intervention, but the film-trainer he brought in to teach the puppy - who gave
the firehouse crew some genuine tips to continue the pup's training.

Quite a few of Mr Millan's "problem dogs" were either given up for rehoming after, or were euthanized -
or suffered other awful outcomes, like poor Cotton, the mini-Eskimo, whose teeth were ground to stumps
to help prevent injuries in future bites. :nonod:

The Jindo was re-homed via a shelter; Patti Labelle's Boerbel was rehomed after he mauled her severely
when she tried to do what CM told her to, after he departed; the Mal-mix, Shadow, was rehomed via a Mal
rescue - he now lives with another Malemute & is a popular playmate at a local dog-park; the Lab-cross who re-
directed bites to his owner but never caused more than a bruise, suddenly delivered bites needing stitches,
& hospitalized his female owner for surgical repair of her forearm & thigh.

I wouldn't call any of those a 'success'. :huh:


El Cid said:


> ...some people can be way-too 'namby-pamby', I'm accused of being too soft... by my 14-YO daughter.


There's a considerable difference between humane, effective training & 'namby-pamby'; the latter allows
the dog - or horse, child, employee, whomever - to do as they please, indifferent to results. The former teaches
good habits & desired behavior, or specific tasks to a specific criterion of excellence.

Also, as a general rule, pre-teen & adolescence are periods when children are at their most judgmental -
if U want to read or hear some truly horrifying, narrow-minded, often violently punitive opinions,
ask a group of 12-YO kids for their thoughts on death-penalty sentences for criminals.
But i'd suggest U ask before noon, so the effect wears off before bedtime - U don't want nightmares.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

mylesaminute said:


> Maybe if the official definition of leadership and dominance was adopted into this thread it would be easier
> to understand for everyone. "By "leader", I mean..." and "by "dominant", I mean..." shouldn't exist,
> the definitions are the meanings.
> 
> The actual *definition of dominance* is having *power* & *influence* over others.


Sorry, Minnie, but this essay gets an "F" as a grade. :nonod:

Dominance DOES have a precise definition in behavior; it's got sod-all to do with 'influence' or 'power',
it's about RESOURCES & access to them - food, water, breeding territory, grazing ground, a mate,
& so on - the stuff one needs to survive or reproduce.

One animal *dominates* another when s/he contests over a particular resource, & gets it - the other
animal, who failed to get it, was in this instance dominated - IOW, s/he lost the resource.

*Dominance* & *submission* as consistent roles for 2 animals who live together are rare in dogs -
so rare as to be virtually non-existent. Instead, dogs swap who's in charge at any one moment, depending upon
which particular resource is in play, & what context they are in. IOW, if it's a ball, one dog will DEFER to the other;
if it's a stuffed-toy, the dog who doesn't care about a ball might argue to get the stuffy, & the ball-crazed dog
will DEFER, in this instance.

One distinguishing feature of dominant / submissive PAIRS is that the submissive animal offers appeasing
or active-submission behaviors, EVERY TIME s/he encounters the dominant animal. These would include such
obvious displays as rolling belly-up [as pups do when meeting an adult dog], licking the other dog's mouth while
cringing appeasingly, bending one's legs with ears, tail, & croup down, & so on. I've yet to see any adult dogs
behave in this fashion toward one another, even dogs in the same home. [It's been 40-years; i'm not gonna
hold my breath, :lol: - even tho clients may *insist* that one dog or the other is 'dominant' in their household,
so far it's been blarney, every time.]

Every dog has SOMETHING s/he holds dear - it's our job as humans to suss out these values, & use them to
our advantage by offering low-value rewards for easy work, & potent high-value rewards for difficult challenges.
When a dog is under multiple distractions & still being proofed, we need to be able to bring out the big guns.


mylesaminute said:


> All dog owners are dominant over their dogs whether they want to be or not, you can't have a dog without
> having *power* & *influence* over [her or him]. How you show your dominance... makes the difference.
> 
> *The actual definition of leadership is the action of leading a group or an organization.* We're all leading
> ...


U're still defining it conversationally, or as it's viewed by a Masters in Business degree candidate. 
This isn't "How to Win Friends & Influence People", nor is it Business-Mgmt 101.

That's got nothing to do with 'dominance' & resources, as it's defined & used in behavior science.
.
.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

I have a great example of leader for you and it happened today...in fact it happens a lot round here if I'm too dumb ass to hide things properly. Take 3 dogs....add one bag of their fave treats not very well hidden...a blind dog who doesn't need sight, just that amazingly fantastic nose of hers....oldest of the 3 and obviously the wisest takes matters into her own paws....takes the bag of treats...tears it open...shakes he head until said treats are all over the floor...everyone gets a treat...now if that isn't Momma the leader I don't know what is haha...my 3 work amazing as part of a team


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

El Cid said:


> I dont use CMs dominance training methods, but since his dominance method has been rubbished, perhaps the reason he is able train some dogs well, is because he is a good confident leader.
> I/we still have more to learn, some people can be way too "namby pamby", I get accused of being too soft myself, by my 14 yr old daughter.


He's a 'good' leader that gets bitten  Not what I would consider good myself. He might talk the talk, but he has a limited understanding of dogs individual traits/temperament IMO and that's vitally important when training dogs.

Like I said I think the term leader is all well and good if that's how you wish to refer to yourself as, but dominance doesn't come into it. You don't have to be a dominant leader to be an effective trainer and owner.


----------



## mylesaminute (Jan 11, 2015)

No actual relation to this thread but for future reference if anyone sees me using the words "dominance" or "leader" in regards to Sam, I'm using those words going by the dictionary definition of them.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2015)

There is a behavioral science definition of dominance. This is the training and *behavior* section, so it really facilitates conversations if we are all using the same terms.

On another thread someone was talking about a sponge - they meant a cake, I was thinking something else (sponge has many definitions after all), it made for a very funny double entendre  
However it's a good example of how no constructive discussion can come without a certain agreement on what terms mean.

There is an agreed upon definition of dominance when it comes to animals.

Dr. Sophia Yin has a good article on what dominance is (and what it is not) that I believe was linked either on this thread or the other.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2015)

El Cid said:


> I dont use CMs dominance training methods, but since his dominance method has been rubbished, perhaps the reason he is able train some dogs well, is because he is a good confident leader.
> I/we still have more to learn, some people can be way too "namby pamby", I get accused of being too soft myself, by my 14 yr old daughter.


I'm with L4L here, *what* dog has CM ever trained??!
His own dog Junior didn't know how to sit at over a year old when he went to visit Ian Dunbar. How is anyone who's dog doesn't even have a cue for sit a "good trainer"??


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Dr. Sophia Yin has a good article on what dominance is (and what it is not) that I believe was linked either on this thread or the other.


Just because it is a great article here it is 
The Dominance Controversy | Philosophy | Dr. Sophia Yin, DVM, MS


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Old Shep said:


> But you're still not defining what you mean by "leader".
> 
> I'm not being pedantic here, it's the crux of the discussion.
> 
> ...


My husband says I treat him as an equal member of the family and I shouldn't. Although he agrees he IS a member of the family, he doesn't agree he is equal. (we agree to dissagree here)
Well I treat him with the respect I do everyone else in my family. His needs to be walked and have attention etc are put as high a priority as anything else.
If he does something I don't like, I tell him not too, the same I would my child or my husband!
He is rewarded for doing something good, same as my child.
I don't see myself as a leader, but more of a guide/friend/carer for him. 
He looks to me for protection/food/love/guidance.

I'm not sure by these definitions in the thread what that classes as?

I have always thought of the 'dominant one' to be someone to be a little feared. You do as they say or else type of thing.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

I call Io my daughter  Shes my lovely little furbaby!


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Well, I've read most of the Cesar Millan thread, and at least half of this one ... and I must say, I think both of my dogs (especially Milly), dominate me perfectly :yesnod: . ... She tells me when it's walkies or feeding time, they decide when it's play time (during which they might allow me to do my own thing, or might make such a racket with the squeaky basket ball that my primal instincts react and I HAVE TO help kill or flush the ball too. :w00t, they HAVE to be beside me on the rare times I sit on the settee - and if one (usually Max) can't fit on the settee with me, he HAS to take up position in front of me, because I simply HAVE TO be dominated and stay exactly where and when they tell me.  

Or .... maybe they just keep better track of the time than I do regarding meals and walking .... and perhaps they couldn't care less if I choose not to join in their games, but are delighted when I do, and maybe they just both look forward to cuddling-on-the-sofa/bed-time with me a\nd just generally want to be with me 

Must go. My Masters have already told me once that it's close to Walkies time... I'd hate to make them wait .... They might alpha roll me, and I hate that .  :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

Blitz said:


> ah but the quietly confident one is then the dominant one in the group. Why should shouting louder make someone dominant. Watch your animals and see if you can pick out anything the dominant one does to put it in that position. 9 times out of 10 it is just their presence within the group, not biting or kicking or whatever.


Charlies like that - when he's with Dottie, Brenin and Esme they know he's the boss. He'll be lying by the heater and all he has to do is give them a glance, a split second glance if that and they give him a wide berth. Doesnt even raise his head up.

Sarah Whitehead explained about different kinds of dog behaviours on the course I attended, she said -

you get dogs who react in different ways to telling other dogs to leave them alone, 1 dog will be like the crazy police officer from Police Academy, lots of noise and a loud display (Dottie!) the other is like Clint Eastwood, all they have to do is stare and give a quick flash of the gun (dogs teeth) and other dogs know not to mess with them (Charlie).

He has a presence about him that all the dogs in the family know that hes "the boss" for want of a better word.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2015)

Leadership versus Dominance | Dog Star Daily

An oldie but goodie on what it means to be a leader to your dog (or anyone).

And I very much agree that leadership skills seem to be sorely lacking these days.

Leadership is not so much about taking control, but being the one others choose to turn to.

Leadership is proactive, not reactive. How many times on here do we talk about not setting a dog up to fail? About purposefully training and proofing something instead of testing it out and winging it if it doesn't work - testing vs. purposefully training?


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

ouesi said:


> *Leadership is not so much about taking control, but being the one others choose to turn to. *
> 
> Leadership is proactive, not reactive. How many times on here do we talk about not setting a dog up to fail? About purposefully training and proofing something instead of testing it out and winging it if it doesn't work - testing vs. purposefully training?




Interesting. That got me thinking.....


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Leadership versus Dominance | Dog Star Daily
> 
> An oldie but goodie on what it means to be a leader to your dog (or anyone).
> 
> ...


The bit in bold is where many people go wrong IMO..They view leadership as a domineering/submissive role. One that needs to be tested all the time...

This is an interesting article.. Ok it is about humans, but I think it is relevant for this discussion Why Introverts Can Make The Best Leaders - Forbes


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2015)

OP, I wonder why this is such an important issue to you?

You've started several threads on the same sort of thing, and I'm wondering if there is something you're not getting an answer to? Or you're not understanding the answers so keep asking basically the same thing?

Or maybe you're trying to make a point and your point is not being heard?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> *OP,* I wonder *why is this such an important issue to you?*
> 
> You've started several threads on the same sort of thing, and I'm wondering if there is something you're not
> getting an answer to? Or you're not understanding the answers, so keep asking basically the same thing?
> ...


:huh: Or maybe he's just bored, & opens the same canned-snake every once in a while.
Just for giggles. 
.
.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2015)

leashedForLife said:


> :huh: Or maybe he's just bored, & opens the same canned-snake every once in a while.
> Just for giggles.
> .
> .


Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt, though, I think it can be confusing sometimes to hear on the one hand, "control your dog, control your dog, control your dog" (which is pretty much what gets preached all over this forum), and then on the other hand to hear "no pack leader". If you're inexperienced with dogs, and you hear pack leader all over main stream media, I imagine that might sound like mixed messages.

In any case, assuming OP isn't just trolling, I though it might be worth asking where this whole concern with leadership/dominance/pack leader is coming from.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

See to me i do not believe in the pack leader rubbish. I see myself as a Guider / Parent to my dog and it is my duty to teach him right from wrong but in a positive way. Yes i may tell him off but i do not hurt him, i simply tell him off for his own safety. You do not need to dominate your dog to teach them right from wrong.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Mines just my best mate.......why would I want to do anything to jeopardize that?


----------

