Shame Sleepybones post was deleted!

Total contrast with the rational reasoned explanation of the PBS programme clip, with an abusive attack on academic research scientists.

it's easily found - been posted on PF-uk a dozen times or more.
Miklosi OTOH while well-known in academic circles, is not a household name.
he & other researchers in the same school have done many recent cutting-edge experiments in dog cognition,
sensory limits, and so on.

Oh I have it, if anyone should want to see what was withdrawn. Waste of time watching it though... unlike the PBS programme clip.

It's funny, some of the dog owners who tell me it's important to be "pack leader" actually abhor force, when I check what they mean after some humming and harrring hearing the PL bit. I think quite a bit of it, is people know what they're meant to say. A bit like, I saw rescues with Questionairres, where you get asked if "eating before the dog is important" or "going through a doorway" and I've though, well I know what answers they want to hear here...

Animal Behavior Resources Institute of American Humane Association -
an interview and his professional bio, current interests, etc.

ABRI on-line [abrionline.org/ ] is an excellent resource.

Whats funny & why? and what has being "pack leader" got to do with force??? being pack leader has nothing to do with force, yet another non factual, fictitious myth being spread around for someones commercial purpose. Who are these mysterious millions of people no one seems to come across using force to become leaders of their packs? just another load of non-sense being passed around.

I don't train pet owners anymore, but everytime I have during >> emphasis this decade the dog has been higher ranking in the family relationship than the owner, how does that equate with high a ranking (dominant) dog?? I'll answer it myself, it does not.

There are many dogs which are high ranking (dominant) within the species and between other dogs, a rare element of these might have a high fight drive, common amongst some breeds but generaly quite rare amongst dominance dogs in general.

The only people I have seen who seem to equate a dominant dog as being an aggressive dog are commercial positive trainers & academics who are alnost always tied up with some commercial aspect of dog training.

As far as this crap about 'dominance reduction' programms being sold to pet owners, that is something NEW (if it exists) & seems to be one of the ever new changing lables commercial behaviourtists and commercial positive trainers use to sell yet another gimmick to pet owners who know no better.

As far as dominant dogs with a high fighting drive goes heres one example but these dogs are rare here except those with from European imports or the imports themselves.

YouTube - police dog training. STRONG DOGS!!!


.

That video was not about the Bristol study, if you had watch it you would have understood that, it was about the media releases made by Bristol uni, it went for extreme tabloid headlines and never mentioned any of the study data, the video was critisisng Bristols media release method compared to the non publicity seeking study by Cordoba University, which studied 750 dogs from 5 Spanish cites and selected them at random.

Anyway you have to do a google search of 'dogs cordoba university' to see the comparisons, there is a link to a free download of the Cordoba study, you have to buy the Bristol study.

Google search. dogs Cordoba university


.

If you knew the history of the pack leader theory you'ld know people advocating forceful procedures such as "alpha rolling" (lying a dog on side) in order to assert dominance.

What is odd, is that someone saying it's important to be Pack Leader, is implying subcription to dominance theory, yet in practice, the people I talk to often are more in line with a benevolent positive leader role.

As you apparently withdraw your post and link, I was responding to lfl, who seems knowledgeable enough to not need explicit historical explanation of link between assertion of "pack leader" and forceful dog handling, she is very aware of it.

Actually I well remember Sleepy's misrepresentation of previous papers which was well exposed and similar video clips posted, so I do not require re-watching, they remain irrational, nonsensical, propoganda garbage.

This I think we all agree on.

What evidence is there to assume that dogs create a social structure with humans in a family? And what behaviours make them more high-ranking?

But dominance hierarchies are ones that are competed for, built over time of agonistic interactions.  “Dominance is an attribute of a pattern of repeated, agonistic interactions between two individuals, characterised by a consistent outcome in favour of the same dyad member and a default yielding response of its opponent rather than escalation” (Drews, 1993: 283). In species that are unrelated and therefore need to compete to reproduce etc (like Impala in harems) dominance relationships can be formed, but since canines are social animals, dominance hierarchies seldom come into play, IMO.

Again, what makes these dogs dominant? All I see is highly trained dogs that enjoy their work- they don't see it as aggressive or are angry, I don't think, more that this is what they are supposed to do to get their rewards.


.[/QUOTE]

I read that study and replied to your previous post of it before the particular thread was removed, I think. From what I can remember the study didn't even talk about the notion of dominance more than once, relating to Cocker Spaniels or something. But nonetheless, it was very small and I can't see how it was related to the Bristol study.

You are correct and you found the original paper which bore no relationship to Sleep's linked to webpage which misrepresented their work and appeared to not understand the study or the scientific method.