# Are dogs dominant over humans?



## Guest (Jul 29, 2008)

I have never witnessed a dog be dominant over a human myself. I have however witnessed people saying their dogs are dominant over them when they are actually just poorly trained and/or under-socialised and as a result their actions can be interpreted as dominance when really their actions are just a result of not knowing what to do with themselves or being scared of things that do not really pose a threat.

In my honest opinion people diagnose too many problems as dominance and offer a quick fix pack theory / negative solution when the issue is not about dominance at all and could be solved in a positive way.

What's your opinion? Are dogs ever dominant over humans?


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2008)

My opinion is pretty much the same as yours,I don't believe dogs are dominant over humans and as you say some people interpret poor training and lack of socialisation and poorly behaved dogs as dominance.


----------



## Lambchop (Jul 27, 2008)

Dogs are never dominant over humans. They may have learned exactly how to mainpulate and get what they want from their humans, but as mentioned above, this is usually due to bad training or socialisation. I believe some individuals are naturally more assertive but this is not a problem and certainly does not mean they are going to take over the household!


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2008)

ive put im not sure its not something ive ever really seen so cant comment


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

Yes - all the time


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

I dont think a dog is dominant over humans ... but I do think that some people allow their dog to manipulate them , which could never be a good thing

IMHO a dog , like a child , needs guidance and firm but fair discipline so they know the rules , with plenty of love and hugs thrown in for good measure


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2008)

Well, looks like I'm going to be a bit controversial here! I agree to a certain extent that, in a lot of cases, dominance is used as an excuse for poor training and socialisation. However, I have witnessed at first hand a case of a dog who thought he was dominant over a human.

It was my male cocker spaniel, Capelli. He was well-trained and well-socialised, was very outgoing and friendly, and absolutely loved people. When he sired a litter from our cocker spaniel bitch, we always said we didn't have to sell the pups because he did it for us - five minutes with Capelli and any prospective new owners were totally smitten.

We never had a problem with him until we went on holiday and a friend - a woman who was used to dogs and who Capelli knew well because she had stayed with us many times - came to stay to look after the animals. Capelli very obviously thought he was in charge. He would jump on the settee so Mags couldn't sit down, and would growl at her when she tried to move him. He refused to go out when she tried to take him for a walk, and snapped at her when she tried to put his lead on. His bed was upstairs, but he flatly refused to go upstairs to bed at night. He tried to take food off her plate, and growled at her if she went near him when he was eating. All this was totally out of character for him - and he knew Mags well, had been on many a walk with her, had even slept in her bedroom, so it wasn't because he didn't like her, or didn't trust her. The only difference was that we weren't there, and he couldn't see why this person thought she was in charge over him. As soon as we came back home, he reverted to his normal self and happily went off for a walk with Mags while we unpacked.

So yes, I believe dogs can be dominant over humans.


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

I absolutely and wholeheartedly do not think dogs ar ever dominant over humans. 

Spellweaver, in the case you have just mentioned I would say that the dog was imply 'trying it on' with the friend, and the way she reacted to his behaviour re-inforced it, or he was unsettled because you weren't there, or a combination of both. (most likely, IMO)


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2008)

jackson said:


> I absolutely and wholeheartedly do not think dogs ar ever dominant over humans.
> 
> Spellweaver, in the case you have just mentioned I would say that the dog was imply 'trying it on' with the friend, and the way she reacted to his behaviour re-inforced it, or he was unsettled because you weren't there, or a combination of both. (most likely, IMO)


I agree with you, Jackson - he was probably unsettled because we weren't there and he was most definitely trying it on - but what he was "trying on" was being dominant!


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

spellweaver said:


> I agree with you, Jackson - he was probably unsettled because we weren't there and he was most definitely trying it on - but what he was "trying on" was being dominant!


It's not being dominant. It is being a dog. Dogs are wholey selfish and in it for themselves. That is why it is easy to use treats or toys to train them, as there is something in it for the dog. If a dog doesn't do something we ask, it is because the dog isn't motivated enough (assuming it understands the command) that isn't being dominant.

An example is my oldest girl. She will lay down every single time instantly on command. EXCEPT if I am laying on the sofa, and she sits in front of the TV next to me.  Then it takes a couple of asks and she doe sit reluctantly. I have had people trying to say that she is being dominant because I am laying down, so she feels above me. or that she is 'stubborn'. She is neither. But she does know that if she does a down any other time when asked, she has around a one in five chance of getting a treat, but if I am laying on the sofa, she has no chance. It would be eay to train he rout of it, but I always forget to have traets on me when watching TV and it doesn't really bother me, so I just leave it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2008)

I understand what you mean, and in the example you give I would agree that your girl is not being dominant. However, in Capelli's case, for all the things I mentioned he would not have behaved this way either with us, or with Mags if we were there. The only difference is that he obviously thought he could get away with this sort of behaviour if we were not there - ie he thought he could disregard his training and do what he wanted to do instead. When Mags tried to reinforce his training he refused to accept that she had any right to do this - ie he growled and snapped at her instead of doing what he had been trained to do. A well-trained dog refusing to accept that a human has a right to command him is a dog who, in his own mind, is dominant over a human.


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

I also voted no, I have never seen a dominant dog either in year of training and behavioural therapy, I have seen lots of poorly trained ones, lots of opportunists, lots of nervous and worried ones using aggression to get them out of situations they find threatening.


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

I see what you're saying too, but I still disagree that it was dominant behaviour. It was opportunistic behaviour that she allowed to continue. 

Dog likes being on sofa. You either don't allow dog on sofa or insist it has ot get off when you say. You go away, dog thinks it would like to get on sofa and not get off as you are not there. So, makes an effort to stay on sofa while your friend is pet sitting, and friend allows dog to remain on sofa. behaviour is re-inforced. 

We'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2008)

jackson said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree.


Agreed!!


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

I voted No I have never had a dog yet that has dominated Me


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

I think that some of the argument here is about semantics, not dominance. For me, Spellweaver's dog "trying it on" is very much about dominance.
One of the issues we face as the breed rescue for a very pack-oriented breed (Siberian Huskies) is that dogs can present a totally different face to humans depending upon the dogs' perception of them as "in charge" or not.
We have had 15 or 20 dogs through our home (almost always young males 1yr to 2yrs old) who have been perfectly well behaved with us - never the slightest indication of aggression, resistance etc. When we have moved them on to less experienced foster homes for assessment, they have shown all the signs of dominance aggression.
Why is this? I think two reasons - firstly, the dogs see our relationship with our pack (we have 8 sibes) and fall in with that relationship. Secondly, our dogs train them. Dogs that come in wanting to be top of the walk are very quickly (and non-violently) cold-shouldered (literally) until their desire to be accepted is stronger than their desire to be "on top"!

Not all breeds of dogs are the same. Sled dogs like Siberian Huskies have been bred over centuries not just to pull, but also to make independent decisions about situations and to lead when necessary. Husky history records numrous occasions where normally super-obedient lead dogs have deliberately ignored instructions because the dogs knew (as the drivers didn't) that to follow instructions on that occasion would result in disaster - a fall down a crevasse, over a cliff or into a river melt.

Pack leadership and dominance is therefore much more of an issue with such breeds than it might be for Labradors, for example. I think the "modern" schools of thought which "pooh-pooh" theories of dominance and pack leadership are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes pack leadership is nowhere near as crude and obvious as it is sometimes presented, but to ignore it completely is to lose an important tool for understanding the way dogs function. JMHO

Mick


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

Mick I agree with alot of what you are saying - BUT - surely it was the canine pack that organised the upstarts? Yes 100% we can learn from our dogs about hierarchy etc but I think as far as dogs and peeps go - we are 'leaders' for want of a better word - our decisions and life structures are the ones that the dogs must follow but I dont believe I am a member of a canine pack - I know I only have 2 dogs but they are the pack in this house. I think dogs resource guard - which often leads people to think they are showing human emotions i.e jealousy, dominance etc.
Fascinating topic tho


----------



## snowey (Apr 18, 2008)

My friend has this problem - and is spending a lot of time working with her dobberman trying to correct this issue. She has always had a dog, and goes to training and is now showing. But have major issues with his role in the family - following trainers advice, and also travel a great distance to a behaviour specialist every fortnight so they can work with him, rather than leave him there for a week.


----------



## fun4fido (Jul 22, 2008)

Hi,

I agree with the majority here (so far). In my experience I have never experienced a dog being dominant with a human. In fact I hate the whole labeling thing of dominant and submissive.

Yes some dogs are more strong willed, and some are more laid back, etc, but IMO this is simply down to selective breeding.

I do believe that the modern domesticated dog still lives by pack rules, modern pack rules, but this pack mentality is still with them.

A dog understands that for a pack to survive there has to be a leader, if a dog doesn't think he/she has a leader, then it's natural for the dog to take on the leader role.

For more on this go here


----------



## Lambchop (Jul 27, 2008)

Hee hee, these are great debates! 
I personally dont think dogs do need to live by a set of pack rules. Wild village dogs (canis familiaris-like our domestic dogs) wont even form packs if resources are plentiful. They are social and come together to feed and breed but they certainly dont seem to live in a a group that has the strict structure that a "pack" is defined as. The dogs tend to just repect each others presence and give each other space so conflict and a need for strict social hierarchy is less important. 
lambchop


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2008)

Lambchop said:


> Hee hee, these are great debates!
> I personally dont think dogs do need to live by a set of pack rules. Wild village dogs (canis familiaris-like our domestic dogs) wont even form packs if resources are plentiful. They are social and come together to feed and breed but they certainly dont seem to live in a a group that has the strict structure that a "pack" is defined as. The dogs tend to just repect each others presence and give each other space so conflict and a need for strict social hierarchy is less important.
> lambchop


I could just eat you lamb chop with some new pots, peas and mint sauce,,, come over here i am hungry lol


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2008)

raindog said:


> Husky history records numrous occasions where normally super-obedient lead dogs have deliberately ignored instructions because the dogs knew (as the drivers didn't) that to follow instructions on that occasion would result in disaster - a fall down a crevasse, over a cliff or into a river melt.


I presume you have a job and so you have a boss? You do as your boss tells you? But would you walk out into the street when a bus was coming if he told you to? Not that different really, doesn't mean we want our bosses job though does it! 

We've had numerous dogs come here that plonk themselves on the sofa and will not move, if you go near them they growl or snap or if you lure them with a treat or try to encourage them down they outright refuse. They are well trained, well socialised dogs but this is nothing to do with domiance, it's fear aggression. Many well socialised dogs are only socialised with their owners present and so when they are without their owners (safety net as such) are far more wary and frightened. This can even happen with people that the dog knows.

A sofa is a very comfortable place and must seem safer to a dog when it is scared as it gives better opportunity to defend themselves if the need arises. At home it's probably somewhere they are left alone or fussed and cuddled more reasons why they find it comforting to be there. Nothing to do with dominance in my opinion.

As I've said before dominant dogs are not aggressive, they do not jump about like lunatics and disobey commands; they are calm and collected in almost any situation. Dominant dogs are usually the ones happy to lay on the floor in the middle of the room rather than being on the sofa and quite happy to be the last out the door. What use would a lunatic pack leader be in the wild? Dogs that scamper about and cause havoc and refuse to do as they are asked are not dominant they are either poorly behaved, poorly trained or scared/nervous.


----------



## cassie01 (Jul 11, 2008)

I voted no. I hate dominance, wolf and pack stuff. As lambchop said, wild dogs do not live in packs but they are social. Kind of the same as people (or me at least), we are social but we dont live together all our lives, our familys change and occasionally we live alone. 

I have failed to see a truly dominant dog (if one even exists). However people have told me that mine are. One of which wouldnt hurt a fly and I know I shouldnt say this but I would leave him alone with a baby quite happily. I trust him alone with my small furries and he is perfect, the only problem is he refuses to get of the settee occasionally, therefore he is dominant. What a load of twaddle. I think its just an easy answer for some people. They fail to realise that dogs have personalities the same as we do, some are quiet and shy and dont like conflict (submisive) and others like to be the centre of attention and to get thier own way (dominant). why do dogs get only two labels when there are so many for people. Sorry. I just realised im on the verge of a rant. I just get angry so easily on such matters.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

raindog said:


> I think that some of the argument here is about semantics, not dominance.
> 
> I think the "modern" schools of thought which "pooh-pooh" theories of dominance and pack leadership are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes pack leadership is nowhere near as crude and obvious as it is sometimes presented, but to ignore it completely is to lose an important tool for understanding the way dogs function. JMHO
> 
> Mick


I agree wholeheartedly with these two statements, Mick. At the moment it is not fashionable to agree with the "pack leadership" theory, but when people speak of a dog "trying it on" or "being opportunistic", what they are really saying is that the dog is trying to be the dominant one - whether the underlying reason is fear, aggression or just plain "I-want-to-be-in-charge" personality.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

Jo P said:


> Mick I agree with alot of what you are saying - BUT - surely it was the canine pack that organised the upstarts? Yes 100% we can learn from our dogs about hierarchy etc but I think as far as dogs and peeps go - we are 'leaders' for want of a better word - our decisions and life structures are the ones that the dogs must follow but I dont believe I am a member of a canine pack - I know I only have 2 dogs but they are the pack in this house. I think dogs resource guard - which often leads people to think they are showing human emotions i.e jealousy, dominance etc.
> Fascinating topic tho


I agree Jo - it is a fascinating topic. I like threads where there are lots of different opinons without anyone getting into a trantrum and taking their ball home! 

I totally agree that humans have to be "leaders" and dogs must follow our decisions and life structures. I also agree that the dogs in a household form the pack, and that the humans leaders are not part of the pack - a good example is that Gabby, our oldest female bergie, wants to be second in command  - she will accept one dog over her but no more. However, she doesn't care how many humans are here, and will accept that any human is in charge.

However, I disagree with you that assigning emotions to dogs is anthropomorphism - dogs, along with many other animals, show all kinds of emotions, including dominance, jealousy etc.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

dogpositivetraining said:


> Hi,
> 
> I agree with the majority here (so far). In my experience I have never experienced a dog being dominant with a human. In fact I hate the whole labeling thing of dominant and submissive.
> 
> ...


Hi DPT
Aren't these two statements contradictory?  The second one seems to be saying that a dog will naturally take on a dominant role over a human if he/she thinks that the human in question is not a good leader.

I agree with you about the labels of "dominance" and "submission" - I think that to many people they have become to mean something other (perhaps even more sinister in the case of "dominant") than what they actually do mean - ie purely personality traits.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

ajshep1984 said:


> As I've said before [*B]dominant* dogs[/B] are not aggressive, they do not jump about like lunatics and disobey commands; they are calm and collected in almost any situation. *Dominant dogs* are usually the ones happy to lay on the floor in the middle of the room rather than being on the sofa and quite happy to be the last out the door. What use would a lunatic pack leader be in the wild? Dogs that scamper about and cause havoc and refuse to do as they are asked are not dominant they are either poorly behaved, poorly trained or scared/nervous.


Totally agree with this statement - dominant dogs believe they are in charge and do not have to do anything other than what they want to. However, given that you accept that a dog can be dominant, do you accept that such a dog may sometimes try to be dominant over humans? I'm not saying that he/she would succeed, or that he/she would even put up much of a battle, before they recognise that the human is in charge - but it can and does happen!


----------



## LittleFluff (Jun 5, 2008)

Just for interest and reference and to add some fact to this debate 
Here is a definition from the Oxford dictionary of animal behaviour (p55 by David McFarland) on dominance, bear with me, but you will understand why i've done this as i think a few statements in this thread have been a bit contradictory:

"Dominance; a feature of social organisation in which some individuals acquire a high status, usually as a result of aggression, while other individuals retain a low status. Dominance relationships were first noticed in flocks of domestic fowl, in which dominant individuals tend to peck subordinate individuals when they come within range. In a stable flock, individuals learn to recognise each other and a 'peck-order', or dominance heirarchy, becomes established.
Dominance relationships are widespread in the animal kingdom, and have certain features in common in many species. Dominant individuals tend to use their status to gain priorority in access to resources, such as food, roosting sites etc. Subordinate individuals show typical appeasement behaviour, sometimes without any sign of fear. The dominant animal may simply supplant the subordinate at a feeding site, as a matter of routine. In many species, dominant males have priority in access to females and perform most matings. "

I agree that dominance doesn't necessarily mean aggression and is unfair to say straight out that an aggressive dog is dominant as it may rightly so be fear aggression, but I don't think you can just say dominance doesn't exist as it clearly does, i just think a few people may have misinterpreted the exact definition of dominance.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

spellweaver said:


> do you accept that such a dog may sometimes try to be dominant over humans?


Nope dogs are only dominant over their own kind in my opinion. As dogs don't see humans as part of the pack, which you accept? Then surely they can't be dominant over us as that is part of pack mentality. 

You don't see dogs rolling humans onto the floor and nuzzling their necks do you? The classic way of showing dominance. 

We have a constantly changing pack structure here apart from Milo who is always alpha male but I can honestly say I never have and never expect a dog to try and be dominant over me. Some dogs are a lot more concerned about their position than others, some want to be top dog and Milo has to put them in their place but the majority are more concerned about just being accepted, some don't even want to be accepted, some are just happy to be bottom of the pack, some want to be above the pups but below Milo but none have ever shown any concern about their position with regards myself or Hannah. It's just something that doesn't happen.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

LittleFluff said:


> I agree that dominance doesn't necessarily mean aggression and is unfair to say straight out that an aggressive dog is dominant as it may rightly so be fear aggression, but I don't think you can just say dominance doesn't exist as it clearly does, i just think a few people may have misinterpreted the exact definition of dominance.


Dominant dogs will only show aggression as a last resort in my opinion.

No ones claimed dominance doesn't exist just that dogs are not dominant over humans.


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

Putting human emotions on dogs IMHO is a bit of a grey area, one that we'll never be able to have a definative answer to. Is it true that humans resource guard - 'he's mine and he meets my needs so I'll kill that tart if she flirts with him' - or is that jealousy???? Do dogs feel jealous - 'he's sat with my hooooman and I loves her best so I'm gonna bite him on the ass' - or is that resource guarding????
It's all in terminology and how one person wants to digest and process the info given - one person doesnt have to necessarily be right and the other wrong


----------



## Lambchop (Jul 27, 2008)

mrsdusty said:


> I could just eat you lamb chop with some new pots, peas and mint sauce,,, come over here i am hungry lol


Lol, I have an unfortunate nickname!


----------



## Lambchop (Jul 27, 2008)

Just as far as putting human emotions on dogs, I thought I'd throw this into the discussion; I think one of the reasons people are so keen on ruling dogs in a dominance hierarchy is that human being live in such a society. When we watch two dogs interaction we may therefore see their behaviour in human terms, as is our nature.


----------



## LittleFluff (Jun 5, 2008)

ajshep1984 said:


> Dominant dogs will only show aggression as a last resort in my opinion.
> 
> No ones claimed dominance doesn't exist just that dogs are not dominant over humans.


Is there any proof of this though? As said before it is so easy to give human qualities to animals without concrete proof that it is true, so how can we agree that dominance exists amongst dogs yet doesn't cross the boundaries to humans as well? We cross those boundaries all the time with other species (humanisation is a start) and dogs being brought up around us must mean that some of their 'culture' and instincts as it were must cross towards us.
If a dog is trying to lead their owner such as retaining the best seats in the house and not giving them up whether ill trained or not is still showing dominant behaviour. What I don't understand is saying that dogs are only untrained/badly trained and not dominant, the behaviour they are displaying is still one of dominance as they are trying to gain the upper hand that in itself is dominance therefore surely does happen, just maybe not through instinct.
I personally don't feel my dog dominates me but that doesn't mean just because i haven't experienced it that it doesn't exist or happen.
Give me proof that if definitely does not occur (by means of a legitimate experiment) and then I would re-consider, otherwise I think an open mind should be kept!


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

ajshep1984 said:


> Nope dogs are only dominant over their own kind in my opinion. As dogs don't see humans as part of the pack, which you accept? Then surely they can't be dominant over us as that is part of pack mentality.
> 
> You don't see dogs rolling humans onto the floor and nuzzling their necks do you? The classic way of showing dominance.
> 
> We have a constantly changing pack structure here apart from Milo who is always alpha male but I can honestly say I never have and never expect a dog to try and be dominant over me. Some dogs are a lot more concerned about their position than others, some want to be top dog and Milo has to put them in their place but the majority are more concerned about just being accepted, some don't even want to be accepted, some are just happy to be bottom of the pack, some want to be above the pups but below Milo but none have ever shown any concern about their position with regards myself or Hannah. It's just something that doesn't happen.


I think a dominant animal is a dominant animal, and will not be dominant just with his/her own pack, but with any other being he/she feels the need to dominate over - that's why some dogs square up to each other when they meet for the first time.

Lol - dogs rolling humans on the floor - what a picture that conjures up!  That is certainly one sign of dominance, but it's one that most dogs are not large enough and strong enough to do. You do (not you personally, suppose I should have said "one does" ) see other signs of dogs trying dominance over humans though - such as wanting and expecting to have the best position in the house (ie the settee) and refusing to move.

As for dogs never being concerned about their position with you and Hannah, that could well be because from the minute an animal walks into your home they are under no doubt that you and Hannah are in charge - ie although you are not pack members, your natural behaviour (as viewed by a dog) is exactly as you wrote in your earlier post about a dominant animal - ie calm, authoratative, no need to make a fuss - and they probably accept that you are so completely in charge that even a dominant dog would not think of challenging you.


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

Why is the sofa always used as an example in these sorts of discussions???? Could it not just be that the sofa is the most comfy place to be I know my hubby likes it best and he deffo knows his place in this household


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

Jo P said:


> Why is the sofa always used as an example in these sorts of discussions???? Could it not just be that the sofa is the most comfy place to be I know my hubby likes it best and he deffo knows his place in this household


LOL - I use it because we have two sofas and no chairs - so I automatically think sofa when I think of a comfy seat!


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

LittleFluff said:


> Is there any proof of this though?


I see the proof each and every day that dogs show dominance between each other but have never seen those behaviours towards a human. I think people confuse bad behaviour with dominance, some people are quick to label things as dominance that aren't, that is my opinion. I don't believe I ever claimed to have proof. This is about opinions.



LittleFluff said:


> how can we agree that dominance exists amongst dogs yet doesn't cross the boundaries to humans as well?


Because the things often referred to as dominance are simply training issues and nothing to with dominance. I have never heard a story that someone claims to be dominance related that cannot be explained by something such as fear or poor training and resolved without resorting to pack theory methods.



LittleFluff said:


> If a dog is trying to lead their owner such as retaining the best seats in the house and not giving them up whether ill trained or not is still showing dominant behaviour.


In my experience it is not that they want to give up the best seat but that they fear something from getting down. If a dog doesn't want to give up a good position on the sofa and refuses to do as the owner asks it is a training issue in my opinion, these are the dogs that will get down for a treat or a push without showing aggression. Because they refuse to follow a command doesn't mean they are dominant. The only dogs I have seen show aggression when refusing to get off the sofa are ones showing fear or nervousness.



LittleFluff said:


> What I don't understand is saying that dogs are only untrained/badly trained and not dominant, the behaviour they are displaying is still one of dominance as they are trying to gain the upper hand that in itself is dominance therefore surely does happen, just maybe not through instinct.


Not sure I understand what you are saying here. I've never seen a dog trying to gain the upper hand over a human. There are numerous reasons why a dog will not follow a command that are nothing to do with dominance. Is a dog refusing to recall trying to be dominant when he runs off towards another dog or is it that he has not been given a good enough reason to follow the command and return to his owner?



LittleFluff said:


> Give me proof that if definitely does not occur (by means of a legitimate experiment) and then I would re-consider, otherwise I think an open mind should be kept!


I don't see why I need to keep an open mind on the subject? Every situation I've ever heard of dogs being dominant over a human can be explained as something completely irrelevant to dominance.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

Alan - going totally off subject - how did you do part quotes of little fluff's post and then put answers? I tried to do that with my answer to your post and got in a right mess .......


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

spellweaver said:


> As for dogs never being concerned about their position with you and Hannah, that could well be because from the minute an animal walks into your home they are under no doubt that you and Hannah are in charge - ie although you are not pack members, your natural behaviour (as viewed by a dog) is exactly as you wrote in your earlier post about a dominant animal - ie calm, authoratative, no need to make a fuss - and they probably accept that you are so completely in charge that even a dominant dog would not think of challenging you.


Ah but we do get behaviour problems with many dogs, problems similar to ones on here on other threads that have been diagnosed by many as dominance but can be simply explained. I could easily claim the dog is trying to be dominant and ignore them, eat first and all that jazz but it is far more beneficial to look deeper and find the real cause of the problem and work on it in a positive way.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

spellweaver said:


> Alan - going totally off subject - how did you do part quotes of little fluff's post and then put answers? I tried to do that with my answer to your post and got in a right mess .......


You have to copy the first part (quote=spellweaver;224144) and paste it to the begining of each part then put (/quote) at the end of each part, putting your answers inbetween! 

Obviously ( and ) would be [ and ] for an actual quote!


----------



## LittleFluff (Jun 5, 2008)

ajshep1984 said:


> I see the proof each and every day that dogs show dominance between each other but have never seen those behaviours towards a human. I think people confuse bad behaviour with dominance, some people are quick to label things as dominance that aren't, that is my opinion. I don't believe I ever claimed to have proof. This is about opinions.
> 
> Because the things often referred to as dominance are simply training issues and nothing to with dominance. I have never heard a story that someone claims to be dominance related that cannot be explained by something such as fear or poor training and resolved without resorting to pack theory methods.
> 
> ...


Ok I see where you are coming from but have you ever considered it may be a little of both, that some things may be caused by bad training but, by the very definition of dominance, is a dog who may use aggression or generally be defiant to get the best resources. A dog that refuses to get down from the sofa (I know it's a tired example) but why would they be scared, not every dog you meet that refuses to get down must be scared, what happens if they stare you in the eye unwavering, ears slightly back and ignore you that is not a scared dog? Implementing an appropriate training programme may well reduce the behaviour but the behaviour displayed is still dominant no matter what causes it. ( I was trying to put this across last post but not very well)

on another note your own personal experience no matter how extensive does not constitute as proof i am talking scientifically here not just a 'cos i say so' all i'm saying is that's your opinion but if you read on the subject in behaviour and psychology it is widely cited, you cannot say that i'm wrong when you can only cite your own experience as proof, I do not deny that you may not have seen it but please do not discount it from such little background research.
As I said unless you can cite an actual scientific study that proves this then i'm afraid you cannot say that you are correct - that is why I think one should always keep an open mind on subjects like this as things cannot be said just from one opinon. Another thing is surely if all these things you have ever read can be based on something other than dominance do you not think this would have been picked up upon by the top dog behaviourists and trainers in the country by now?


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

ajshep1984 said:


> Ah but we do get behaviour problems with many dogs, problems similar to ones on here on other threads that have been diagnosed by many as dominance but can be simply explained. I could easily claim the dog is trying to be dominant and ignore them, eat first and all that jazz but it is far more beneficial to look deeper and find the real cause of the problem and work on it in a positive way.


Oh, agreed - I think that some behaviourists (both professional and the kinds that know it all because they've read an article on the net heh heh ) are far too quick to diagnose dominance - but good behaviourists and good owners such as yourself and Hannah are able to tell the difference.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

LittleFluff said:


> you cannot say that i'm wrong when you can only cite your own experience as proof, I do not deny that you may not have seen it but please do not discount it from such little background research.


Have I said you are wrong? Or have I just given my opinion. God knows I try to put "I think" and "in my opinion" enough times. 



LittleFluff said:


> As I said unless you can cite an actual scientific study that proves this then i'm afraid you cannot say that you are correct - that is why I think one should always keep an open mind on subjects like this as things cannot be said just from one opinon.


So I'm not allowed an opinion because there is no scientifc evidence? 



LittleFluff said:


> Another thing is surely if all these things you have ever read can be based on something other than dominance do you not think this would have been picked up upon by the top dog behaviourists and trainers in the country by now?


I believe it has.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

ajshep1984 said:


> You have to copy the first part (quote=spellweaver;224144) and paste it to the begining of each part then put (/quote) at the end of each part, putting your answers inbetween!
> 
> Obviously ( and ) would be [ and ] for an actual quote!


Ta! Easy when you know how!


----------



## LittleFluff (Jun 5, 2008)

ajshep1984 said:


> Have I said you are wrong? Or have I just given my opinion. God knows I try to put "I think" and "in my opinion" enough times.
> 
> So I'm not allowed an opinion because there is no scientifc evidence?
> 
> I believe it has.


Who by 
I'm not trying to cause an argument, you wanted a debate 
I just think that the thread didn't have another side of the coin and there were some conflicting statements. Yes i have a different opinion and was just trying to introduce some factual stuff so please don't make me out to be the bad guy here! 
You are trying to say you don't need to keep an open mind so why am I the one that is not allowing an opinion? See where i'm coming from here?
I do agree with you wholly though that some behaviour probs are misdiagnosed and things are all too easily blamed on dominance but the openings of this thread were reading as if dominance played no part in the human-canine relationship at all, it seems there is a bit of a shift.
I'm really not trying to upset anyone though so please don't take it the wrong way!!!!


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

LittleFluff said:


> You are trying to say you don't need to keep an open mind so why am I the one that is not allowing an opinion? See where i'm coming from here?


Not in the slightest!


----------



## LittleFluff (Jun 5, 2008)

Lol ok i'll give up now then - has tired me out all this debating 
Nice to get some of your ideas A J is what keeps this forum interesting!
I just hope i've maybe provided some alternative stuff for you as well 
Will let some other people have some say now, feel like i've written far too much in one thread


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

ajshep1984 said:


> Not in the slightest!


That wasn't being funny, I really don't understand what you mean.


----------



## LittleFluff (Jun 5, 2008)

ajshep1984 said:


> That wasn't being funny, I really don't understand what you mean.


No I know, i just know when i'm never going to win and this this is one of them times  I don't want to get into an argument about it and it just seems this is where it was heading so i'm stopping now. I like this forum and don't want to get involved in one of these slanging matches is all. I just wanted to put my opinion across but sadly i dont think i've done it very well, as you think i'm being mean - honestly i'm not!


----------



## Sitmus (May 11, 2008)

I'm going to say yes.


----------



## heathfield (Jul 27, 2008)

ajshep1984 said:


> I have never witnessed a dog be dominant over a human myself. I have however witnessed people saying their dogs are dominant over them when they are actually just poorly trained and/or under-socialised and as a result their actions can be interpreted as dominance when really their actions are just a result of not knowing what to do with themselves or being scared of things that do not really pose a threat.
> 
> In my honest opinion people diagnose too many problems as dominance and offer a quick fix pack theory / negative solution when the issue is not about dominance at all and could be solved in a positive way.
> 
> *What's your opinion? Are dogs ever dominant over humans?*


---------

In my view, only if you let them be.And if you do you will regret it.

Heathfield


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

heathfield said:


> ---------
> 
> In my view, only if you let them be.And if you do you will regret it.
> 
> Heathfield


I think this is the real point. We see "dominant" dogs coming into our rescue every week and invariably the cause is the owners' inability to establish themselves as the leader in the relationship. We very rarely have any problem with these dogs as they seem to be able to intuitively recognise who they can dominate and who they cannot.
I would also repeat that I think certain breeds are more pack-oriented than others - in particular some of the northern breeds - huskies, malamutes etc.

Mick


----------



## LittleFluff (Jun 5, 2008)

raindog said:


> I think this is the real point. We see "dominant" dogs coming into our rescue every week and invariably the cause is the owners' inability to establish themselves as the leader in the relationship. We very rarely have any problem with these dogs as they seem to be able to intuitively recognise who they can dominate and who they cannot.
> I would also repeat that I think certain breeds are more pack-oriented than others - in particular some of the northern breeds - huskies, malamutes etc.
> 
> Mick


In a big round about way that's what I was trying to put across - glad someone else could word it better  I was just trying to really explain why I see it the way I do as I always think opinions should be created around research and fact rather than just one's own experience.


----------



## mr.stitches (Aug 1, 2008)

I think they could be if you let them - just like children do!


A well trained and happy dog should understand that their owner is the leader/more dominant and that they are the submissive.


Thats how I think it should be anyway!


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2008)

raindog said:


> I think this is the real point. We see "dominant" dogs coming into our rescue every week and invariably the cause is the owners' inability to establish themselves as the leader in the relationship. *We very rarely have any problem with these dogs as they seem to be able to intuitively recognise who they can dominate and who they cannot.*Mick


This is the point I was trying to make to Alan earlier - he and Hannah are excellent, experienced owners who know and understand how the canine mind works, and give off an aura (for want of a better word!) of definitely being in charge. Hence their animals and the ones they look after would not challenge them even if they did have a tendency to be dominant elsewhere. This means that dominance is never an issue for them, and they can see past that and are able to analyse and get to the bottom of other behavioural problems. However, this does not mean that there is no such thing as an animal who would, given the opportunity, dominate a human. Owners who are not so experienced or knowledgeable, not so "in control", can and do experience problems with dogs who try to dominate them.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2008)

spellweaver said:


> This is the point I was trying to make to Alan earlier - he and Hannah are excellent, experienced owners who know and understand how the canine mind works, and give off an aura (for want of a better word!) of definitely being in charge. Hence their animals and the ones they look after would not challenge them even if they did have a tendency to be dominant elsewhere. This means that dominance is never an issue for them, and they can see past that and are able to analyse and get to the bottom of other behavioural problems. However, this does not mean that there is no such thing as an animal who would, given the opportunity, dominate a human. Owners who are not so experienced or knowledgeable, not so "in control", can and do experience problems with dogs who try to dominate them.


I think it's emerging that people view the same behaviours in different light. I can see where you are coming from but to me these behaviours aren't dominance.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2008)

ajshep1984 said:


> I think it's emerging that people view the same behaviours in different light. I can see where you are coming from but to me these behaviours aren't dominance.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this one! 

Good thread though - it's sparked up some good debate. I'll give you some rep for it as soon as the system lets me ........


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2008)

spellweaver said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on this one!


Suppose so!


----------

