Coronation Street and Alpha Dog - yes there is a connection

Mince Pie

Just wondering was anyone else watching Coronation Street last night? Maria was talking about her dog Ozzie when Marcus interjected and started spouting that she needs to be pack leader and show him who's boss!! :mad::mad::mad:

Just goes to show that these archaic theories are still very much prevalent in our culture and we've a long way to go to dispel such myths.

I'm tempted to write a letter but don't reckon it will do much good cos they are hardly going to do a story on how to train a dog properly unless and this would be marvelous, the dog ripped Tracy Barlows face off and the whole training thing was made into a story.

cocker5

Mince Pie wrote: »

Just wondering was anyone else watching Coronation Street last night? Maria was talking about her dog Ozzie when Marcus interjected and started spouting that she needs to be pack leader and show him who's boss!! :mad::mad::mad:

Just goes to show that these archaic theories are still very much prevalent in our culture and we've a long way to go to dispel such myths.

I'm tempted to write a letter but don't reckon it will do much good cos they are hardly going to do a story on how to train a dog properly unless and this would be marvelous, the dog ripped Tracy Barlows face off and the whole training thing was made into a story.

I have to be honest and say Conornation street is complete drival and IMO the majority of people who watch that sh*te probably use the "alpha male theory" with their dogs they have locked in the garden 24/7.

Im sorry I just think CS is for narrow minded, uneducated idiots who are narrow minded in all areas of life and not just with regard to their animals...

But yeah i get your point, its further fuelling the stupidity of idiots who watch it.

Mince Pie

cocker5 wrote: »

I have to be honest and say Conornation street is complete drival and IMO the majority of people who watch that sh*te probably use the "alpha male theory" with their dogs they have locked in the garden 24/7.

Im sorry I just think CS is for narrow minded, uneducated idiots who are narrow minded in all areas of life and not just with regard to their animals...

But yeah i get your point, its further fuelling the stupidity of idiots who watch it.

I don't know, I lived in the UK for 11 years and to be honest they treat their dogs a hell of a lot better than us Irish.
I've rarely if ever come across dogs left in gardens in all weathers like a garden ornament. Better walks and footpaths and even the selection of pubs where you are allowed to bring them inside, even ones that serve food will have a particular section you can bring your pooch in. Always offered water for them and in a lot of places they will go so far as to give you a sausage for your furry pal.

I guess thats why it shocked me even more that people still cling to this old claptrap of alpha etc. It doesn't do much to get rid of it when its even being spouted on a much loved (yes, it may be drivel to some ) soap.

cocker5

Mince Pie wrote: »

I don't know, I lived in the UK for 11 years and to be honest they treat their dogs a hell of a lot better than us Irish.
I've rarely if ever come across dogs left in gardens in all weathers like a garden ornament. Better walks and footpaths and even the selection of pubs where you are allowed to bring them inside. Always offered water for them and in a lot of places they will go so far as to give you a sausage for your furry pal.

I guess thats why it shocked me even more that people still cling to this old claptrap of alpha etc. It doesn't do much to get rid of it when its even being spouted on a much loved (yes, it may be drivel to some ) soap.

Sorry mince pie... i was refering to some the idiots who watch that... I didnt intend to imply the english treat their dogs badly etc... I should have been clearer ... i was referring to more the mentality of some the viewers in general and not where they are from.

But i do agree with what your saying in terms of the alpha male crap...

Mince Pie

cocker5 wrote: »

Sorry mince pie... i was refering to the idiots who watch that... I didnt intend to imply the english treat their dogs badly etc... I should have been clearer ... i was referring to more the mentality of the viewer in general and not where they are from.

But i do agree with what your saying in terms of the alpha male crap...

But I love Corrie. As do a lot of people who aren't necessarily idiots and that's the point I was making.

cocker5

Mince Pie wrote: »

But I love Corrie. As do a lot of people who aren't necessarily idiots and that's the point I was making.

sorry OP, no offence intended

I just cannot undertstand how people can like shows like corrie TBH... the same story lines over and over again... affairs, punches, local pub, babies (whos the father?)... emerdale etc... it requires the least amount of brain power of all tv programmes, i dunno it just appears <snip>/ low lifes (at times) going about their daily lives :eek: i just cannot understand it TBH.

But hey to each their own

muddypaws

I watch it as well, as do most of my extended family, perhaps it is someone who refers to all of its viewers as narrow minded idiots that needs to think about how narrow minded and uneducated they are?

Yes, it did worry me last night Mince Pie.

cocker5

muddypaws wrote: »

I watch it as well, as do most of my extended family, perhaps it is someone who refers to all of its viewers as narrow minded idiots that needs to think about how narrow minded and uneducated they are?

Yes, it did worry me last night Mince Pie.

I never said all of of viewers muddypaws..
if you read my post again i wrote majority... theres a difference.

Mince Pie

Sorry, I really didn't want this to be a debate on who watches Corrie and whether they think its trivial dross or not.

Fact is a lot of people watch it and that's the point I'm making. That alpha theory is being knocked about on a programme that has millions of viewers which perpetuates the myth.

cocker5

Mince Pie wrote: »

Sorry, I really didn't want this to be a debate on who watches Corrie and whether they think its trivial dross or not.

Fact is a lot of people watch it and that's the point I'm making. That alpha theory is being knocked about on a programme that has millions of viewers which perpetuates the myth.

I do agree with your last point... but since when do these programmes ever care about who they hurt..

I saw another thread a few weeks ago in after hours about "haley" killing herself when she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer - same thing they didnt give a crap then of other "real" people diagnosed with PC and what they were feeling having seen what she did... so it wouldnt be any different when it comes to attitudes on dogs etc..

muddypaws

cocker5 wrote: »

Im sorry I just think CS is for narrow minded, uneducated idiots who are narrow minded in all areas of life and not just with regard to their animals...

But yeah i get your point, its further fuelling the stupidity of idiots who watch it.

cocker5 wrote: »

I never said all of of viewers muddypaws..
if you read my post again i wrote majority... theres a difference.

I know you didn't intend it to be about who watches the programme Mince Pie, and I logged out of API for ages because of the attitude of some of the posters in here, but this one just annoyed me so much I had to reply. And yes I know I should have just reported it. I have however reported the post which includes a term that a lot of people find offensive.

corsav6

I have to disagree, the master role is working great with our 3 dogs. I chose the Cesar Milan route with our pups and watched most of his shows and I can say it works, they see me as the pack leader and do as their told.
I assume most people here are using the reward system to train their furry friends.

muddypaws

corsav6 wrote: »

I have to disagree, the master role is working great with our 3 dogs. I chose the Cesar Milan route with our pups and watched most of his shows and I can say it works, they see me as the pack leader and do as their told.
I assume most people here are using the reward system to train their furry friends.

I'm afraid that even Cesar has now come out and said he is wrong about the alpha and dominance theory. The whole pack leader thing is based on a study of captive wolves, wild wolves and wild dogs (as lets be clear, our dogs are not wolves) do not have this alpha hierarchy.

andreac

corsav6 wrote: »

I have to disagree, the master role is working great with our 3 dogs. I chose the Cesar Milan route with our pups and watched most of his shows and I can say it works, they see me as the pack leader and do as their told.
I assume most people here are using the reward system to train their furry friends.

Oh dear, Cesar Milan. I think you will find he is not well liked and as Muddy Paws has posted, those methods have been proven wrong and outdated.

Of course most people reward their dogs for training, what else would you want to do to them??

anniehoo

cocker5 wrote: »

.Im sorry I just think CS is for narrow minded, uneducated idiots who are narrow minded in all areas of life and not just with regard to their animals....

Right cocker5 enough with the snide remarks we've had numerous reported posts about your attitude so quit it.

I for one am a Corrie fan and certainly am far from narrow minded or uneducated so quit it with your own narrow minded sweeping generalisations please.

Do not reply to this post.
Anniehoo

Tranceypoo

Along similar lines, I believe Eastenders are doing a storyline about the new family breeding from their dog to make some money out of the pups (sorry don't know the name of the family I don't watch Eastenders...I do watch Corrie and Fair City tho!!)

tk123

Tranceypoo wrote: »

Along similar lines, I believe Eastenders are doing a storyline about the new family breeding from their dog to make some money out of the pups (sorry don't know the name of the family I don't watch Eastenders...I do watch Corrie and Fair City tho!!)

Yes they did - the dog (an English Bulldog) tied with some other much bigger dog. Don't EB's need surgical intervention when they're having pups? I'm sure they'll come down to a basket of pups some morning and all live happily ever after.:rolleyes:

The Corrie line annoyed me too - one for the pack leader crap and two - Maria's family ran a boarding kennels in which she worked in for years - so she'd know how to raise a dog?

borderlinemeath

muddypaws wrote: »

I know you didn't intend it to be about who watches the programme Mince Pie, and I logged out of API for ages because of the attitude of some of the posters in here, but this one just annoyed me so much I had to reply. And yes I know I should have just reported it. I have however reported the post which includes a term that a lot of people find offensive.

Off topic, but missed you posting for the last while.

I have to disagree, the master role is working great with our 3 dogs. I chose the Cesar Milan route with our pups and watched most of his shows and I can say it works, they see me as the pack leader and do as their told.

It's the far easier route to take, watch a few entertainment programmes on tv, (because that's about the height of what they are, they aren't training programmes). You frighten your dogs into submission just like he does and think that it works because they do what they're told. They do what they're told because they're frightened and not because they want to do what they're told, they're aware there will be consequences and they are afraid of them. But you need to be aware that while you think you have got the right behaviour - your dog is only supressing the behaviour he wants to do, and eventually you might just go too far and your dog will turn, perhaps bite and maim you, because that's how they defend themselves when they're frightened.

You must have noticed if you've watched most of the shows that there's a disclaimer saying "do not try this at home" on screen? Because what that 'entertainer' does is downright dangerous. He's covered in scars from bites because of how he operates.

I assume most people here are using the reward system to train their furry friends.

I find out what motivates my dogs to reward them, for one it's food, for the other it's usually praise is all that's needed. If I did what CM did, they'd be terrified, one is a rescue who had a lot of issues, if I tried to frighten him into submission he would probably shut down completely and I would undo over two years of good training.

Tranceypoo

I must say I watched the Dog Whisperer (or the Dog Botherer as DBB calls him!) when it was first on and even then it used to make me uncomfortable when he would put the dog on the floor and hold its neck till it submitted, it just seemed wrong and then I knew next to nothing about dog training (it was before I joined Boards ), to be honest we always had dogs but never really trained them, apart from 'sit' and 'bed' and always just rewarded them when they did it and didn't do anything if they didn't 'sit' or 'go to bed' except maybe keep repeating 'sit sit'! That was the extent of my dog training experience and knowledge, I'd never thought about it any more than that, but he really made me think about doing stuff like that and how wrong it seemed. The clincher for me was when he had a dog who didn't want to go upstairs, but the family wanted the dog to go upstairs and he literally dragged this panting terrified dog up a big flight of stairs, how can that be the right thing to do? One of my dogs won't/can't go up the stairs, so he doesn't, why would I force him just because I want him to.

corsav6

andreac wrote: »

Oh dear, Cesar Milan. I think you will find he is not well liked and as Muddy Paws has posted, those methods have been proven wrong and outdated.

Of course most people reward their dogs for training, what else would you want to do to them??

Its the way I chose to train our dogs and it worked for all 3. I never pinned them to the ground or anything like that but I made sure they knew I was boss at all times. Simple things like me entering the house before them, no food until they make eye contact with me.
Also as someone pointed out his methods are for wild dogs and wolves, all dogs are descendant from wolves, so some of his theory's will still be applicable to the domestic dog.
Can I ask why Cesar is not liked around here?

Rommie

corsav6 wrote: »

Its the way I chose to train our dogs and it worked for all 3. I never pinned them to the ground or anything like that but I made sure they knew I was boss at all times. Simple things like me entering the house before them, no food until they make eye contact with me.
Also as someone pointed out his methods are for wild dogs and wolves, all dogs are descendant from wolves, so some of his theory's will still be applicable to the domestic dog.
Can I ask why Cesar is not liked around here?

Actually there was a recent study done, can't remember where but I think Sweden, if anyone has the link much appreciated, that proved that dogs and wolves may have come from a common ancestor the way us and apes do, but dogs have not actually come from wolves. Feral dogs don't live in packs, neither do domestic dogs unless we force them too.
Cesar Milan is not liked because he does not train dogs, and he knows nothing about dog behaviour. He suppresses and oppresses them, basically making the dog a ticking time bomb. He also cannot read a dog's body language whatsoever, otherwise he would not get bitten.
Also, making eye contact can be considered threatening to dogs, so making them make eye contact before you feed them might not be as great an idea as you think

Mince Pie

corsav6 wrote: »

Its the way I chose to train our dogs and it worked for all 3. I never pinned them to the ground or anything like that but I made sure they knew I was boss at all times. Simple things like me entering the house before them, no food until they make eye contact with me.
Also as someone pointed out his methods are for wild dogs and wolves, all dogs are descendant from wolves, so some of his theory's will still be applicable to the domestic dog.
Can I ask why Cesar is not liked around here?

Dogs are descendant from wolves yes, but have been domesticated for about 10,000 years so bear little resemblance to them now in their actions of even how they look.
The research is a load of bullcrap as well as it was done on wolves in captivity.
Hence why Cesar is disliked, he has NO formal qualifications and also a lot of what he did to dogs wasn't shown on TV such as the electric shock treatment etc etc.
I could go on and on and have deleted a lot cos I'm not in a position to link at the moment. The information is all out there if you really want to see how to treat your dogs with dignity and respect.

ETA: Rommie I wasn't aware of the new research from Sweden but would also be very interested to read more.

Rommie

You should also watch some of his episodes in slow motion, the stuff he does is crazy, and the camera starts to swing away so you don't see it, but you can catch it in slow motion, like the amount of times he kicks or hits a dog

corsav6

Rommie wrote: »

Actually there was a recent study done, can't remember where but I think Sweden, if anyone has the link much appreciated, that proved that dogs and wolves may have come from a common ancestor the way us and apes do, but dogs have not actually come from wolves. Feral dogs don't live in packs, neither do domestic dogs unless we force them too.
Cesar Milan is not liked because he does not train dogs, and he knows nothing about dog behaviour. He suppresses and oppresses them, basically making the dog a ticking time bomb. He also cannot read a dog's body language whatsoever, otherwise he would not get bitten.
Also, making eye contact can be considered threatening to dogs, so making them make eye contact before you feed them might not be as great an idea as you think

Thanks for the quick reply.
To be honest I thought the 1 thing Cesar got right was the body language, although its not that difficult. I don't copy everything Cesar would do, I chose what I though was best for our dogs and so far its worked. We have 3 happy and healthy dogs who seem to respect me and not fear me, they don't fight with other dogs and I can trust them wherever I take them.
I don't agree with all Cesar's methods but I think some of what he teaches does work.

cocker5

corsav6 wrote: »

Thanks for the quick reply.
To be honest I thought the 1 thing Cesar got right was the body language, although its not that difficult. I don't copy everything Cesar would do, I chose what I though was best for our dogs and so far its worked. We have 3 happy and healthy dogs who seem to respect me and not fear me, they don't fight with other dogs and I can trust them wherever I take them.
I don't agree with all Cesar's methods but I think some of what he teaches does work.

there was a previous post with an excellent book which dispells the whole alpha male thing:

Ive just finished reading a really interesting book by John Bradshaw called "In defence of Dogs: why dogs need our understanding"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/In-Defence-Dogs-Need-Understanding/dp/014104649X

i found it excellent

corsav6

cocker5 wrote: »

there was a previous post with an excellent book which dispells the whole alpha male thing:

Ive just finished reading a really interesting book by John Bradshaw called "In defence of Dogs: why dogs need our understanding"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/In-Defence-Dogs-Need-Understanding/dp/014104649X

i found it excellent

Thanks for the link. I have a huge interest in dogs and would Iove to understand them better.
As i said before I chose certain aspects of Cesar's training methods and applied them, I don't copy everything he does or do I support any training that involves cruelty.

dogluver

I actually like the principles that Cesar carries out. I actually don't think he is cruel and just because he doesn't have qualifications to say what he is able to do why does that make him a bad person. He has said he has grown up with dogs all his life and knows what makes them what they are. Doesn't that count for anything? There are qualified dog trainers everywhere who have done lots of qualified training but when it comes to practical work know nothing.:rolleyes:

cocker5

corsav6 wrote: »

Thanks for the link. I have a huge interest in dogs and would Iove to understand them better.
As i said before I chose certain aspects of Cesar's training methods and applied them, I don't copy everything he does or do I support any training that involves cruelty.

OP, take some of his positive training methods and use whats suit your family and dogs... personally i dont believe the feed the dog after you feed yourself.. or walking through the door before your dog etc BUT i did see one of his eposodes and there was a cocker who was a dreadful shredder (as was my cocker at the time) he suggested they get the dog a light toy for the dog to carry around in its mouth (while inside the house) as cockers are used to hunting and carry birds etc... and it worked.

I tried it with my guy, he has a chatterbox dog toy (a donkey) and he wanders around the house endlessly trying to hide his catch, he even brings the teddy to bed etc... hes not posessive over the toy. it actually comforts him at times.

when he fretts or gets really excited he goes and finds his donkey and struts around the hosue - so his methods worked here for us on thsi one occasion.

but i do have to agree with the other posters he uses prong collars and choke chains :eek: he body slams down dogs etc... he does bully them into submission IMO..

But take his positives and ignore his negative methids, go with whats best for you and best for your dogs.

The book is excellent trust me, it will change your opinion on the alpha male isssue

ShaShaBear

I watched only one episode out of sheer curiousity one day. He had what I think was a rough collie who was terrified to the point of aggression of the lawn mower. CM's solution? Tie him to the lawnmower and force him to walk beside it - drag him if necessary.
He got one hell of a nasty bite (not nasty enough if you ask me) and he retaliated by hurting the dog back. Yep, because we all know how sensible it is to lay a kick into something (with teeth) in defence mode. :rolleyes:

Feeding a dog last has no effect. You might think it does, but it doesn't. Your dog doesn't really care when you feed him, as long as you do - and regularly. My fella gets food in the morning and the evening. Both times before we eat - because when I get up in the morning I consider making sure he doesn't starve slightly more important than making sure I get a bowl of Frosties before the college bus comes. But then, that's just me - I know Shadow would have a rough time using the measuring cup to fill his own bowl if he got really hungry.

Entering a house before a dog has no effect. You might think it does, but it doesn't. Your dog doesn't care who gets to go inside first, as long as he does get to go inside (if that is what he is accustomed to) at some point. Shadow usually gets to go in first when we have been out for a walk or drive, because 9/10 times he is parched with thirst, and I think it's a bit self-obsessed to make him stand outside so I can get in and have him go thirsty that little bit longer because I think he will respect me more for it. He won't. He'll be thirsty, but not more respectful.

I would never, ever, EVER force an animal, no matter how domesticated, to make eye contact with me. Next time you have a friend visiting, force them to look you square in the eye before you give them a cuppa tea. Like seriously, don't give it to them until they are forced to give eye contact. I would safely say if you don't get punched in the face for being a loon, your guest will not be too long leaving.

And lastly, just because you are "raised" with dogs, does not mean you know what makes them tick. In order to learn how something works, you need to study it. Do you know how exactly your PC works? Yeah? Is that because you studied it? No? Is that because you didn't study it?
Point in case: Being is not knowing. I've been raised with humans my whole life and I still don't know how the human brain works. Because I've never studied it. I know when a human needs the toilet and when they're feeling hungry alright. I also know when they are getting aggressive or are frightened.
But I don't know why dogs are suddenly terrified of fireworks, why they attack other dogs on the street for no reason or why they poop on the floor after years of completed toilet training. In order for me to know this, I would consult someone who has studied it, not someone who has had dogs in their lives for as long as they have lived!

Mince Pie

dogluver wrote: »

I actually like the principles that Cesar carries out. I actually don't think he is cruel and just because he doesn't have qualifications to say what he is able to do why does that make him a bad person. He has said he has grown up with dogs all his life and knows what makes them what they are. Doesn't that count for anything? There are qualified dog trainers everywhere who have done lots of qualified training but when it comes to practical work know nothing.:rolleyes:

How exactly do you think they get their qualifications? I personally would assume it would involve some level of practical training.

Basically the methods Cesar uses are lazy but they get immediate results to the detriment of the dogs welfare. I personally would prefer my dogs to be happy and healthy and not terrified of me.

borderlinemeath

corsav6 wrote: »

Its the way I chose to train our dogs and it worked for all 3. I never pinned them to the ground or anything like that but I made sure they knew I was boss at all times. Simple things like me entering the house before them, no food until they make eye contact with me.
Also as someone pointed out his methods are for wild dogs and wolves, all dogs are descendant from wolves, so some of his theory's will still be applicable to the domestic dog.
Can I ask why Cesar is not liked around here?

What benefit is your dog entering the house before you? Do you actually think your dog has the mental ability to understand that 'my human needs me to be hierarchically inferior to him so by doing that I am acknowledging him as the alpha?' Dogs just don't have that cognative reasoning. Same for food, there is no benefit to feeding the dogs after you, and as for staring them down before giving food, that's just insane, eye contact will make the dog go on the defensive, it's something that is absolutely the wrong thing to do when feeding. One serious behavioural issue that dogs can suffer from is resource guarding, food can be a very possessive thing to a dog, and you are basically challenging the dog, as another dog would when you are giving him something that it is very easy for him to get defensive about. Madness. Your wrecking the dogs heads.

Dogs are not actually directly descended from wolves either. Their immediate predecessor was the 'village dog' which was descended from the wolf. They share similar dna but they are not wolves, nor do they live in the same environment so have dissimilar needs.

www.k9dna.org/learn-about-dog-genetics/evolution-domestic-dog/life-village-dog

borderlinemeath

dogluver wrote: »

I actually like the principles that Cesar carries out. I actually don't think he is cruel and just because he doesn't have qualifications to say what he is able to do why does that make him a bad person. He has said he has grown up with dogs all his life and knows what makes them what they are. Doesn't that count for anything? There are qualified dog trainers everywhere who have done lots of qualified training but when it comes to practical work know nothing.:rolleyes:

Would you bring your dog to a vet with no qualifications? Somebody that just sets up a practice and says "hey I'm a vet, look at my youtube clips of me performing surgery or administering drugs to your dog! I've grown up with dogs all my life, I KNOW how to do it!!"

Sometimes practical experience counts for nothing, particularly when that experience is completely at odds with what every ethically qualified trainer and behaviourist practices. His methods are outdated, cruel and no good for the mental welfare of the animal. But seemingly it makes good tv and sells some books, particularly when you include his rags to riches story as well.:rolleyes:

corsav6

borderlinemeath wrote: »

What benefit is your dog entering the house before you? Do you actually think your dog has the mental ability to understand that 'my human needs me to be hierarchically inferior to him so by doing that I am acknowledging him as the alpha?' Dogs just don't have that cognative reasoning. Same for food, there is no benefit to feeding the dogs after you, and as for staring them down before giving food, that's just insane, eye contact will make the dog go on the defensive, it's something that is absolutely the wrong thing to do when feeding. One serious behavioural issue that dogs can suffer from is resource guarding, food can be a very possessive thing to a dog, and you are basically challenging the dog, as another dog would when you are giving him something that it is very easy for him to get defensive about. Madness. Your wrecking the dogs heads.

Dogs are not actually directly descended from wolves either. Their immediate predecessor was the 'village dog' which was descended from the wolf. They share similar dna but they are not wolves, nor do they live in the same environment so have dissimilar needs.

www.k9dna.org/learn-about-dog-genetics/evolution-domestic-dog/life-village-dog

I enter before the dogs because I'm the master so i lead the pack. I never once said I eat before our dogs, I said they must look me in the eye before their allowed to eat. Dogs certainly are aware who is the alpha male. We have 3 dogs, 1 of those is the master when I don't intervene. He leads the way when their off leads and always meets other dogs 1st. He will take his toy before the other 2 are allowed. I'm sorry but I don't believe that dogs don't see an alpha male.

ShaShaBear

corsav6 wrote: »

I enter before the dogs because I'm the master so i lead the pack. I never once said I eat before our dogs, I said they must look me in the eye before their allowed to eat. Dogs certainly are aware who is the alpha male. We have 3 dogs, 1 of those is the master when I don't intervene. He leads the way when their off leads and always meets other dogs 1st. He will take his toy before the other 2 are allowed. I'm sorry but I don't believe that dogs don't see an alpha male.

How do you suppose they know who is the alpha male if there is no such thing?

I do what my mother tells me, but that doesn't make her an alpha anything. And I'll still go against her wishes if I believe I know better.

corsav6

ShaShaBear wrote: »

How do you suppose they know who is the alpha male if there is no such thing?

I do what my mother tells me, but that doesn't make her an alpha anything. And I'll still go against her wishes if I believe I know better.

What? I said I believe there is an alpha male, did you read what I posted correctly?

Mince Pie

corsav6 wrote: »

What? I said I believe there is an alpha male, did you read what I posted correctly?

You can believe what you want, I would imagine the dogs are just scratching their heads wondering why you are staring at them and making them feel uncomfortable when all they want is some grub.

borderlinemeath

corsav6 wrote: »

What? I said I believe there is an alpha male, did you read what I posted correctly?

So you believe what a tv 'personality' tells you rather than what experts in the field of canine behaviour and training have been saying for years? That's there's no such thing as 'dominance' or 'alpha male' concerning dogs or wolves?

Seriously, you may as well believe what goes on in Coronation St is real as to believe the rubbish CM spouts. You said in your previous posts that you were interested in dogs and would like to understand them better - but honestly, you're heading the complete wrong way about it by thinking of your human/dog relationship as an 'alpha/pack leader' scenario. Have a read of some of the links below. Even google yourself about how the whole theory has been scientifically disproven. The original scientists, all ethical trainers and behaviourists, even CM himself has rolled back and said he was wrong.


http://www.apdt.com/about/ps/dominance.aspx

http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/14_12/features/Alpha-Dogs_20416-1.html

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2012/06/06/dogs-dominance-aggression.aspx

muddypaws

corsav6 wrote: »

I enter before the dogs because I'm the master so i lead the pack. I never once said I eat before our dogs, I said they must look me in the eye before their allowed to eat. Dogs certainly are aware who is the alpha male. We have 3 dogs, 1 of those is the master when I don't intervene. He leads the way when their off leads and always meets other dogs 1st. He will take his toy before the other 2 are allowed. I'm sorry but I don't believe that dogs don't see an alpha male.

Think about what you've typed logically. Lets just suppose there is a pack of dogs, who live in a cave for shelter and protection, and they go outside, to go hunting. There is an alpha male and female, the only two that are allowed to breed. Why would the alpha go out first, and put himself in danger? Surely as it is all about survival, another one of the 'pack' would go out first, in case there is a predator out there, and so the alpha would stay safe, and could ensure the continuation of the pack? In true pack situations, different members have different roles, and the alphas don't lead from the front.

Wolves and wild dogs don't live in packs with alphas, they live in family groups with parents and older and younger siblings. Dogs have no concept whatsoever of alphas, there may well be stronger and weaker members of a family, there are within my own dog family, and there is a male that some would consider the alpha male. But he isn't, he is the male that has been with me for the longest, and he is the one with the most attitude with other dogs. But, in certain situations, he has 'submitted' to another dog, i.e., let them take something that he had. He is very obedient, so even though he may boss the other dogs around, he listens to me, not because he thinks I'm the alpha, he knows I'm not a dog, but because he knows good things happen when he does.

corsav6

borderlinemeath wrote: »

So you believe what a tv 'personality' tells you rather than what experts in the field of canine behaviour and training have been saying for years? That's there's no such thing as 'dominance' or 'alpha male' concerning dogs or wolves?

Seriously, you may as well believe what goes on in Coronation St is real as to believe the rubbish CM spouts. You said in your previous posts that you were interested in dogs and would like to understand them better - but honestly, you're heading the complete wrong way about it by thinking of your human/dog relationship as an 'alpha/pack leader' scenario. Have a read of some of the links below. Even google yourself about how the whole theory has been scientifically disproven. The original scientists, all ethical trainers and behaviourists, even CM himself has rolled back and said he was wrong.


http://www.apdt.com/about/ps/dominance.aspx

http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/14_12/features/Alpha-Dogs_20416-1.html

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2012/06/06/dogs-dominance-aggression.aspx

No, I believe what I see, which is an alpha male amongst 2 other dogs.

DBB

corsav6 wrote: »

Its the way I chose to train our dogs and it worked for all 3. I never pinned them to the ground or anything like that but I made sure they knew I was boss at all times.

How do you do that though? Not letting them rush through the door is just good manners. Asking them to sit before they have their lead put on is just good manners. Getting down off your chair when asked is just good manners.
I would do any of these things if my parents asked me to. Are they dominant to me? Are they my pack leaders? No. They're my parents, and they taught me to be polite.
Can you see the difference? Dogs and wolves don't have doors in the wild. They do not have a system whereby one always goes out ahead (although they do have a system in hunting, not based on a dominance hierarchy, but based on who's good at what parts of the hunt). Asking them to do stuff for us is just good manners, they do it because they're taught to in order to get access to something they want, not because they would do it naturally. And they certainly don't do it out of being motivated to observe a hierarchy.

Simple things like me entering the house before them, no food until they make eye contact with me.

As above, these have nothing to do with dogs seeing their place in a pack, or in a hierarchy. They're doing it because you taught them they don't get to go out the door, or have their dinner before they carry out a certain behaviour. It's simple learning theory, completely unrelated to anything to do with social status. Methinks you're confusing the two, but then again, that's what Cesar does too, due to having no formal training in it all. By the way, he was offered to be taught all this stuff by those at the very top of their game in the recognised, qualified industry, but he turned them down.

Also as someone pointed out his methods are for wild dogs and wolves, all dogs are descendant from wolves, so some of his theory's will still be applicable to the domestic dog.

Emmm, I don't get this statement. If Cesar's methods are for wild dogs and wolves, why's he using them on domesticated dogs?
Allow me to dispel the myth. Wolves don't do dominance hierarchies either. As I have explained here many times before, the original theory of wolves obeying a dominance hierarchy was developed by David Mech, an American scientist. He studied captive wolves in a zoo, which were unrelated to one another. Years later, having had the opportunity to study wolves in the wild, he realised what a mistake he had made. HE could see that wolves in this natural setting did not, and do not observe a dominance hierarchy. They actually observe a social structure very, very similar to a human family. It is a benevolent, kindly, educational structure in which aggression is rarely used. He realised that using unrelated wolves in captivity as a model for explaining wolf society in general was akin to studying humans in prison, and applying everything learned about them as a general model for all human beings. He recanted everything he had said about dominance hierarchies as they apply to wolves and dogs. But too much time had gone by, and dog trainers had seized this seemingly neat explanation for why dogs misbehave, and run with it... and many still have not let go despite overwhelming evidence that it does not exist.... and THAT'S the difference between a qualified behaviourist and Cesar Milan's ilk.... qualified people read the research and evidence, and base their advice and methods on it. Cesar and his ilk don't. They blindly stumble on with a hocus-pocus model which often appears to work because their methods rely on suppressing emotional issues, rather than addressing emotional issues at their core, as qualified behaviourists do.
David Mech also realised that wolves never, ever, ever perform alpha rolls on one another. These are utterly a human construct. As is the belief that going through doors first, feeding the dog first etc as a way to maintain a (non-existent) hierarchy are completely human constructs.

dogluver wrote: »

I actually like the principles that Cesar carries out. I actually don't think he is cruel and just because he doesn't have qualifications to say what he is able to do why does that make him a bad person.

I'm not terribly concerned whether he's a nice person. I'm ore concerned about his adherence to a disproven theory despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and no evidence at all to support what he bases his approaches on.

He has said he has grown up with dogs all his life and knows what makes them what they are. Doesn't that count for anything?

I've had a fanny all my life. It doesn't make me a gynaecologist

There are qualified dog trainers everywhere who have done lots of qualified training but when it comes to practical work know nothing.:rolleyes:

Can't argue with you there. It is vital for dog trainers to get a LOT of experience once they're qualified. Therefore, whilst qualifications are great because at least you know they've got the theory right, professional accreditation, where their actual experience and application of the theory are assessed, is an important element in making a qualified dog trainer a good dog trainer.

corsav6 wrote: »

I enter before the dogs because I'm the master so i lead the pack. I never once said I eat before our dogs, I said they must look me in the eye before their allowed to eat. Dogs certainly are aware who is the alpha male. We have 3 dogs, 1 of those is the master when I don't intervene. He leads the way when their off leads and always meets other dogs 1st. He will take his toy before the other 2 are allowed. I'm sorry but I don't believe that dogs don't see an alpha male.

That dog of yours is not an alpha male. He's simply a confident dog. And he has probably learned that going ahead gets him what he wants faster, whilst the other dogs are not the type that could be arsed caring... they're very like us that way... some people want to get there first, others just don't care. Or, they've learned that the confident dog is so determined to get what he wants that he's prepared to bully them to get it, so they don't challenge him because they're just not arsed enough to bother. But that is certainly not the same thing as observing a dominance hierarchy, no more than when kids argue over a toy in the playground. It's just that simple. Why complicate it? Good science always looks at the most likely explanation first.... belief in a dominance hierarchy just put sin so many curved balls and complications that just aren't there... and have been proven not to be there.

Might I ask that you busy yourself for a little while in reading this website:
www.dogwelfarecampaign.org
This is an old enough site, it was developed in around 2008 or so to explain to people what the problem is with thinking that dominance hierarchies exist between dogs and humans. The website was created and is supported by pretty much all of the most respected, educated, accomplished animal behavioural scientists, applied animal behaviourists, and animal welfare organisations. I think it gets the idea across quite nicely. There has been a huge amount more research carried out since this site was created which supports what it says... and despite exhaustive efforts to find it, evidence for dominance hierarchies in dogs and wild wolves has yet to be found.

Happy reading!

Mince Pie

corsav6 wrote: »

Thanks for the link. I have a huge interest in dogs and would Iove to understand them better.
As i said before I chose certain aspects of Cesar's training methods and applied them, I don't copy everything he does or do I support any training that involves cruelty.

corsav6 wrote: »

No, I believe what I see, which is an alpha male amongst 2 other dogs.

These quotes really don't correspond with each other. You say you want to understand dogs better then just revert back to your own anecdotal evidence rather than acknowledge the research that has been shared with you to help further get to know your furry ones.

Mince Pie

Sorry DBB but the fanny comment properly made me snort and disturb my furries snuggled beside me.

SillyMangoX

DBB wrote: »

I've had a fanny all my life. It doesn't make me a gynaecologist

Thanks DBB now I'm getting very strange looks from my family for bursting out laughing at a very sad part of a movie :pac:

muddypaws

Mince Pie wrote: »

Sorry DBB but the fanny comment properly made me snort and disturb my furries snuggled beside me.

surely not next to you on the sofa? :eek: They'll take over you know, soon you won't be able to get into your own house.

Mince Pie

muddypaws wrote: »

surely not next to you on the sofa? :eek: They'll take over you know, soon you won't be able to get into your own house.

Aye next thing I know they will be sitting higher than me trying to "dominate" me. Little feckers. :pac:

DBB

Some more links which you may find interesting. Again, let me draw your attention to the people writing these articles, seriously respected, clever, and experienced applied behaviourists and scientists:

http://www.apbc.org.uk/articles/caninedominance

http://www.apbc.org.uk/articles/why-wont-dominance-die

And perhaps this will help you to recognise what's actually going on when you stop your dog from charging through the door in front of you, and other things often attributed to the dog trying to be dominant, but in reality can be better explained by simple learning theory:
http://www.apbc.org.uk/articles/learn-to-earn-is-nothing-in-life-free-for-dogs

fatmammycat

corsav6 wrote: »

I enter before the dogs because I'm the master so i lead the pack. I never once said I eat before our dogs, I said they must look me in the eye before their allowed to eat. Dogs certainly are aware who is the alpha male. We have 3 dogs, 1 of those is the master when I don't intervene. He leads the way when their off leads and always meets other dogs 1st. He will take his toy before the other 2 are allowed. I'm sorry but I don't believe that dogs don't see an alpha male.

Corsav6, none of what you describe is being an 'alpha male'. Just a confident pushy dog- as DDB said.

I have one dog, a large intact male, GSD, almost 2 years old: he goes out ahead of me through doors on a regular basis, and I leave him eat his food in peace, no odd eye contact needed. He likes to doze on the bed with me in the morning. He meets all manner of dogs off lead and on lead, but despite all this, he looks to me how to behave and I don't employ ANY of the things you do because I don't believe 'alpha ' status exists. What I have is a well-trained compliant confident dog who regards me as the source of food and entertainment, and his training to happy rewards has imprinted on his growing brain.
For I to be a genuine 'alpha' I'd need a litter of pups somewhere that needed feeding and an 'alpha/parent' partner. Suggesting dogs need 'Alpha leaders' just makes no sense at all when you learn what the structure of a wolf pack really is ( family and a breeding pair).
You might have one pushier dog, after all not all dogs are robots- and even on our pack walks dogs defer to other dogs over different things (water/toys/direction/whistle response)– but that doesn't mean one is an alpha dog, not by a long shot. Indeed the notion of 'alpha' dogs get really blown out of the water when you see a large group of stable dogs interact with each other.

corsav6

Cheers for the links guys, I will bookmark them a read when I get time.
So no alpha male, just a confident dog taking charge in out little pack here. I will still use some of Cesar's methods despite some peoples hatred of him here because it works for me. The main thing for me is to have my dogs under control, we have children and visitors bring their children so its important that the dogs are under control.

borderlinemeath

corsav6 wrote: »

Cheers for the links guys, I will bookmark them a read when I get time.
So no alpha male, just a confident dog taking charge in out little pack here. I will still use some of Cesar's methods despite some peoples hatred of him here because it works for me. The main thing for me is to have my dogs under control, we have children and visitors bring their children so its important that the dogs are under control.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a hatred, at least he's been man enough to come out and say he was wrong on a lot of his opinions and earlier methods. He went along with a lot of popular ideas that labelled behaviours and gave trainers a lazy way to diagnose problems. All problems were because of 'dominance' or your dog trying to be 'alpha' and an owner probably felt relieved to call the behaviour something, as opposed to not labelling it. But the bloody programmes still repeat on TV and there's still books on shelves with his old methods.

I also think that part of the problem is the human need for familiarity, they see a programme or a book by somebody they've heard of and they think, that must be right, right? It's like the comfort of a well trusted brand name of dog food - millions buy pedigree, because it's always been there - but it's one of the worst foods to feed your dog.

corsav6

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a hatred, at least he's been man enough to come out and say he was wrong on a lot of his opinions and earlier methods. He went along with a lot of popular ideas that labelled behaviours and gave trainers a lazy way to diagnose problems. All problems were because of 'dominance' or your dog trying to be 'alpha' and an owner probably felt relieved to call the behaviour something, as opposed to not labelling it. But the bloody programmes still repeat on TV and there's still books on shelves with his old methods.

I also think that part of the problem is the human need for familiarity, they see a programme or a book by somebody they've heard of and they think, that must be right, right? It's like the comfort of a well trusted brand name of dog food - millions buy pedigree, because it's always been there - but it's one of the worst foods to feed your dog.

I have a terrier and like all terriers seem to be he's over confident, to the point that he would get himself killed. He is now a lot more accepting of other dogs and has calmed down a lot. Our 3 dogs are rescue dogs so training started after they were a year old, if that matters. They are now obedient dogs who can be trusted off lead and around other dogs, when we 1st got them this wouldn't have been possible. I'm sure at this stage there are better ways to train dogs and my alpha role is non existant, but certain aspects of Cesar's method still apply. I think all dog owners should learn how to read a dogs body language, and react accordingly.
As i said before I don't copy everything Cesar does. To pin a dog down by his neck is pointless, to make a dog walk beside a lawnmower he's terrified of is cruel, mow the lawn when he's not around. I want them to look at me before feeding so they know its my food to give them and I can safely take their bowl without incident before they finish, i don't like them growling at everything when they feed just because their eating.
As for food, I feed them bakers and some breeder food from the local pet stop.
So I may be wrong in some of my methods and probably wasting time but it works for me.

borderlinemeath

corsav6 wrote: »

I have a terrier and like all terriers seem to be he's over confident, to the point that he would get himself killed. He is now a lot more accepting of other dogs and has calmed down a lot. Our 3 dogs are rescue dogs so training started after they were a year old, if that matters. They are now obedient dogs who can be trusted off lead and around other dogs, when we 1st got them this wouldn't have been possible. I'm sure at this stage there are better ways to train dogs and my alpha role is non existant, but certain aspects of Cesar's method still apply. I think all dog owners should learn how to read a dogs body language, and react accordingly.
As i said before I don't copy everything Cesar does. To pin a dog down by his neck is pointless, to make a dog walk beside a lawnmower he's terrified of is cruel, mow the lawn when he's not around. I want them to look at me before feeding so they know its my food to give them and I can safely take their bowl without incident before they finish, i don't like them growling at everything when they feed just because their eating.
As for food, I feed them bakers and some breeder food from the local pet stop.
So I may be wrong in some of my methods and probably wasting time but it works for me.

But....how do they know it's YOUR food to give them? You're assuming they understand that when they absolutely don't. Dogs don't understand that you own the food, to them it's just food, nourishment - something they're hardwired to seek out since birth.

Were they growling at each other or at you when the food was down? If they're resource guarding the food by growling, the last thing you want to do is scare them further by making them look at you. I pointed this out in a post earlier, a dogs natural instinct when scared is to defend - so no wonder they were growling.

To properly work with a resource guarding dog you need to be showing them there is no problem with their food, they can have food, more food, they don't need to guard what they have - from you, or any other human, or the other dogs. Keep adding food, or nice treats to the bowl when they're eating, dogs will learn by association and they will associate the person coming to the bowl with food as a welcome thing, not something to be scared of. My rescue boy was a food guarder when he arrived, now he'll happily sit eating a bone (the most prized of all foods) beside my other dog, he'll let her take it, he'll let me take it, he's worked through his problems.

I absolutely wouldn't rate Bakers at all as a food, loads of colourants (for whos benefit? Dogs don't care what colour it is) Terriers are active enough little feckers as it is - add some low nutrient food, high in colours and additives and you've some hyperactive dogs. Feeding a low quality supermarket food has been known to cause behavioural issues in dogs. What is the other brand of food you feed? Could you stick with it and cut out the bakers?