The Alpha Concept
However you want to call it: ALPHA, LEADER, BOSS, TOP DOG, The ASERTIVE One
There is a Reason for Hierarchy, Dominance, Submision the Alpha Leaders and even like Ritual, the Alpha Roll
We Can talk of ALPHAS? Oh Yes, We Can! the Alphas are in VOGUE since 2002
WAS THE SAME MECH and Schenkel who spread the believes on the Alpha's in the late 1960s and the Alphas are in Vogue again!
There are Dominance and Submission and More it is also Tangible, Quantitative and Verificable ( Journal of Mammalogy, 2005 DOMINANCE, AGGRESSION, AND GLUCOCORTICOID LEVELS IN SOCIAL CARNIVORES
SCOTT CREEL )
The clearest behavioural correlate of high rank was that ALPHAS won a high proportion of their contests, but it seems unlikely that winning is more stressful than losing.
Speculatively, it is possible that the higher GC (GLUCOCORTICOID) levels of Dominants are a Consequence of their ‘Behavioural State’, rather than their overt actions.
For example, readiness to escalate a fight when challenged may be a Cognitive Stressor, even if NO CHALLENGE IS MADE.
This same pattern is seen in African wild dogs (Creel et al. 1996, 1997): while ALPHAS have higher GC levels than subordinates, there is little association between GC levels and rank among nonalphas.
It is intriguing that elevated GC levels are more clearly related to ALPHA status than to behavioural variables (e.g. rate of aggression) - Scott Creel 2002
It's a Clear Fact that for a Dog is LESS Stressful be the Subordinate Calm Submisive, than be an ALPHA Dominant.
You Do Not go to Change the Mental State of a Submisive Dog and you Do Not go to change the Mental State of a Dominant dog with Treats or Bribery and what Cesar's approach Acctually Does is HE CHANGE THE MENTAL STATE OR BEHAVIOURAL STATE OF A DOMINANT DOG to one CALM SUBMISIVE STATE.
Do you get it?... No? Do you want more? Ok here is more, enjoy!
This Study was already
It's tough at the top for alpha males: study
AFP – Thu, Jul 14, 2011
If you're feeling envious of your boss's paycheck, a study out Thursday shows that success comes with high stress, possibly as much as faced by those who have to struggle to find a bite to eat.
The results of nine years of research on wild baboons, published in the journal Science, suggest that despite perks like easy access to mates and food, top-ranking males experience similar stress levels as their lowest-rung counterparts.
Those in the middle showed lower stress than either the top or bottom ranking males, according to measurements of testosterone and a stress hormone known as glucocorticoid.
"Alpha males exhibited much higher stress hormone levels than second-ranking (beta) males, suggesting that being at the top may be more costly than previously thought," said the study led by researchers at Princeton University.
Samples were taken from the feces of a wild male baboon population in Ambelosi, Kenya.
While the stress levels at the top and bottom were similar, they were likely caused by different problems.
Alpha baboons spent lots of energy fighting to stay on top and trying to mate with as many females as possible, while the low-ranking males expended lots of effort searching for food.
Meanwhile, there may be perks for not reaching quite so high.
The second-rate beta males received about the same amount of attention -- in the form of grooming -- from females, but did "slightly better than predicted" at reaching their "full reproductive potential," the study said.
Being the subordinate have clearly benefits on the adaptation process of performing tasks and their interactions with humans:
Laboratory of Anatomy and Ethology of Domestic Animals, University of Namur (FUNDP), 6 rue Muzet, 5000 Namur, Belgium
- "The present study shows that this group of MWD (military working dogs) still has an Adaptation Capacity to an environmental challenge (return to baseline of the cortisol levels, a higher posture during the second than at the first challenge).
These results are encouraging and indicate that the dogs might have a diminished welfare (i.e. stereotypic behaviors), but are Not chronically stressed."
The communication of aggressive motivation or fighting ability has important fitness consequences for competing animals
Selection should favour rapid and honest communication between opponents to settle Dominance Relationships while Avoiding Prolonged and Intense Fighting.
Among many social species of animal, there have come to exist social Hierarchies in which certain individuals are More Dominant Than Others.
Selection should favour rapid and honest communication between opponents to settle Dominance Relationships while Avoiding Prolonged and Intense Fighting.
The communication of aggressive motivation or fighting ability has important fitness consequences for competing animals.
There are distinct evolutionary benefits to these Social Structures, as they provide an efficient mechanism for arbitration and negotiation in the distribution of scarce resources. - Erik Zimen
Supposedly, studies of wild wolf packs show that "dominance contests with other wolves are rare." That's because canids are more realistic than people. - Gene Lyons
In captive packs, the unacquainted wolves formed dominance hierarchies featuring Alpha, beta, omega animals, etc.
With such assemblages, these Dominance labels were probably Appropriate, for most species thrown together in captivity would usually so Arrange Themselves. - D. Mech
We noted each time a wolf submitted posturally to another wolf. Usually this deference was characterized by "licking up" to the mouth of the dominant animal in the "active submission" posture (Fig. 5 in Schenkel 1967), similar to that described by Darwin
(1877) for domestic dogs. - D. Mech
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets face it, Most of the Hate and criticism against Cesar is because he uses a Powerful tool on Dog Rehabilitation; The Alpha Roll and this is a blasphemy for all those Fundamentalists of the 'purely positive' approach...
That and be World Wide Successful is Scalding Water over them, the dog training world is ruled by Over Inflated Egos.
- "Training should be about helping animals to succeed in the world we've created for them, not boosting our egos"
-Dr. Grey Stafford.
Don't forget when The Monks of the New Skete suggest the use of this tool in their book were hardly criticized to the point Job Michael Evans, a former monk, has reportedly apologized for it....
I agree with that the Alpha Roll shouldn't be done by someone without any prior information about how it Work.
In the original context, the alpha roll was only meant to be used in the most serious cases like Last Resort and always in combination with positive reinforcement techniques.
I have watched countless episodes of THE DOG WHISPERER; at least several seasons worth. I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've seen Cesar Millan use a serious aversive conditioning method such as Alpha Roll or dominance down.
Only on dogs that he considers Red Zone or in great danger of harming someone.
Letting the dog know who's boss and exactly what behavior is expected is a far cry from flat out challenging the dog. I've mainly seen Cesar Millan use distraction & quick corrections to refocus the dogs attention.
Cesar tries to empower people to feel more confident and portray more leadership, however, it obviously isn't for everyone. Particularly the social inept. Most people understand the concepts. If you don't understand what he means by dominance, THEN CESAR MILAN'S METHOD ISN'T FOR YOU.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dog behavior refers to the collection of behaviours by the Domestic Dog, Canis Lupus Familiaris, and is believed to be Influenced by Genetic, Social,Situational and Enviromental causes. The Domestic Dog is a subspecies of the Gray Wolf, and shares many of its behavioral characteristics. Although there are important and distinct differences between dogs and wolves.
Oportunistic Omnivores - all these terms apply to both Wolf and Dog.
Domestication is the key difference between wolf and dog.
Dogs can be readily submissive to their owners, but show various degrees of aggression toward strangers or territorial interlopers. They form long-term bonds with humans, as they would often do in a pack or with mates, and show cooperative and altruistic behavior, sacrificing for humans just as they would for kin.
When we peel off the wolf’s innate fearfulness and put it on the dog, we turn the dog into a feral facsimile of a wolf.
But a human-socialized wolf without fear could be an extremely dangerous animal, attacking a human perceived as a pack rival. This happened to me during the filming of the NBC documentary "The Wolf Men". An Alpha male wolf, along with his female cagemate who was in heat, had been released into a large, wooded compound belonging to my friend, the late wildlife illustrator and conservationist Dick Grossenheider.
I am not saying that a male Dog would not react to me in a similar way under comparable circumstances.
Dogs read our eyes and are attentive ethologists of human behavior, action, emotion and intuition. A change in tone of voice can make a dog tremble in fear or dance and yap for joy. Such ability to read human behavior, intentions and emotions was naturally selected for as dogs domesticated themselves and adapted to life with Homo sapiens, the killer ape.
The dogs and wolves and other wild canids whom I have raised since soon after birth and shared my life with have the same deep heart’s essence that I saw in their eyes and which they expressed in their gestures and demeanor toward me: trust, tenderness, empathy, playfulness and full awareness (Not Simply Conditioned Obedience) of Social Boundaries and which behaviors were Acceptable or Not. I call this ‘canid conscience’, which in many respects is far better developed than the conscience of many of our own kind
Since this core is evident as much in a tame wolf as in a toy poodle, it is clear that neither domestication nor wildness has altered their true natures. In the heart of every dog is the spirit of the wolf that embodies the finer qualities of human nature that we call love and devotion.
Michael W Fox D.Sc., Ph.D.,
B. Vet. Med., MRCVS
IPAN Hon. Veterinary Consultant
---------------------------------------------------------------
III Dominance and Submission
Among many social species of animal, there have come to exist social hierarchies in which certain individuals are more dominant than others.
There are distinct evolutionary benefits to these social structures, as they provide an efficient mechanism for arbitration and negotiation in the distribution of scarce resources.
In this section, we will discuss the presence of dominance hierarchies in wolf packs, in chimpanzee societies and in the human business world.
Wolves
Many populations of wolves eat large herbivorous ungulates (e.g. caribou) as their primary food resource. (Mech, 1970) Since these animals are too large to be safely brought down by a lone wolf, wolves usually hunt in packs.
These packs are normally family units; a typical pack might be composed of an Alpha male and female (the only pair that breeds), several grown children of that pair (who act as aunts and uncles to the alpha pair’s pups), a few unrelated adults who dispersed from their natal pack, and the alpha pair’s most recent litter of pups.
With so many members of the pack all striving for the same resources (the right to breed, access to the choicest parts of a freshly-killed caribou), there is inevitable competition among them. However, it is not practical to fight for these resources on a frequent basis, since there are significant expenses associated with fighting (energy expenditure, time, potential injury) for both winner and loser.
Social status hierarchies remove the need for constant fighting, replacing it with relatively long periods of static relationships (an alpha individual may hold itstenure for several years) punctuated by periodic reevaluations (as individuals grow up, age, or make new alliances).
These hierarchies are maintained on a regular basis bymeans of expressive behaviors that communicate an individual’s perceived rank relative to another individual.
Dominant wolves stare straight at their inferiors with erect fur, ears pushed forward and a highly-held tail. Submissive wolves crouch or roll over, with ears held back and tail curled between legs. These behaviors are derived from other behaviors that reflect actual relationships rather than constructed relationships – they are ritualized forms of combat, and ritualized versions of infant and juvenile behaviors (e.g. food begging). Vocalizations also play a significant role (although a human-level language is clearly not necessary for dominance cues to be given and received).
If an individual feels that the social hierarchy is no longer a valid representation of the reality of the power structure, he has only to withhold his submissive behaviors, and a fight with a more dominant individual will almost certainly ensue.
Periodically it is necessary for a dominance hierarchy to be tested in reality (i.e. a fight) in order for all the participants to be willing to agree to it between those tests.
The most common periods of testing occur when an adolescent approaches adulthood, or when a dominant individual’s ability is compromised by age or injury. (Mech, 1970) Wolf societies are made considerably more complicated by the presence of alliances between individuals. While the beta male might not be able to depose the Alpha male on his own, by soliciting another lower-ranking individual over a period of time, he might gain that individuals support against the Alpha. Because of this, deposed Alpha individuals often fall far further than beta status in the wake of losing a fight; it is not uncommon for the old Alpha to become the lowest-ranking member of the pack.
http://characters.media.mit.edu/Papers/MAMA-175.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------
On the Alpha Role, 'Alpha Roll,' Dominance & Dog Training by Larry Sudduth
Abstract
This note comments on the ideas contained in the HISTORY & MISCONCEPTIONS OF DOMINANCE THEORY [ABOUT THE ALPHA ROLL], by Melissa C. Alexander, 2001. After an introduction, the appropriateness of ethological considerations with respect to human behavior is briefly asserted. The existence of a study and conclusions ascribed to Dr. L. David Mech is questioned, and observations about dominance in dogs, dog training, and Ms. Alexander's account of a book she reports reading are made. The note ends with suggestions for readers interested in applying seemingly complex concepts to their day-to-day life with dogs and dog training. [Keywords: alpha role, alpha roll, dog training, dominance, man-dog interaction, dog behavior]
Introduction
Many of the concepts described in the HISTORY & MISCONCEPTIONS OF DOMINANCE THEORY [ABOUT THE ALPHA ROLL], by Melissa C. Alexander, 2001, have complicated underpinnings. Her summary treatment of disparate, complex topics is marked by both brevity and ease of reading. Factors that contribute much to the behaviors she addresses, such as the causality (of any specific dog behavior), mechanisms of canine learning, the manner of canine perception, and the nature of canine cognition are addressed only tangentially, if at all. Likewise, the actual nature of Ms. Alexander's relationship with her dogs is not described. In light of so many intangibles, detailed commentary is neither appropriate or merited.
I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Alexander's condemnation of the 'alpha roll.' That said, I disagree with the some of the rationale for the condemnation advanced by her (primarily that also ascribed to Dr. Raymond Coppinger). In my opinion, a dog can be trained to adopt a physical posture -- one that signals submission in other contexts. The success of such postural training can be trivial or difficult, in the same way that training a dog to retrieve can be trivial or difficult. One should not confuse these activities as being anything other than training. Dominance is not being directly established by training the adoption of a posture. Neither is one changing anything about the fundamental nature of the dog, a nature that seems to incorporate the concept of hierarchy in many of its manifestations.
To reiterate, a dog's capability to exhibit a trained posture should not be confused with a dog's submissiveness. The exhibition by a dog of a trained 'alpha-rolled' posture has no relationship to the deference expressed in the behavior of a subordinate dog when it interacts with dogs (or people) it regards as superior. Without the panoply of contextual cues associated with an 'alpha-rolled' posture that indicates submissiveness, e.g., the behavior being exhibited in response to forceful aggression, the posture, in and of itself, has no relevance to a superior-subordinate relationship in the dog's frame of reference.
Critique
Like compulsive methods in general, the compulsive training of a posture (whether or not the dog accords the posture uniquely canine significance in certain contexts), can contribute to the establishment of a dominant role by a handler. Such training can also lead to unanticipated affect. The dog could react to such training as if the trainer is participating in canine dominance-negotiation behavior, e.g., a challenge. In this case, the trainer should be prepared to cope with the dog's normal behavioral response. The trainer should understand what is required to gracefully win such a confrontation. The trainer should, as well, understand how to behave if necessary to resign and lose the confrontation, such that the dog understands that the confrontation is finished. The dog's perception of human factors, e.g., the level of fear and 'force of personality' in the trainer, contribute to the outcome of such encounters.
Although she makes no such assertion, I don't doubt that Ms. Alexander occupies an alpha role with her dogs. I do, however, doubt any direct attribution or relation of this to her training exercises. In this note, I will address neither the efficacy of training dogs via the employment of deferred reward schedules in general, nor the cognition implied by the delayed and conditional aspects of the 'sit-then-act/behave' modality Ms. Alexander describes..
QUOTATION: "So what's the truth? The truth is dogs aren't wolves. Honestly, when you take into account the number of generations past, saying "I want to learn how to interact with my dog so I'll learn from the wolves" makes about as much sense as saying, 'I want to improve my parenting - - let's see how the chimps do it!'"
Dogs aren't wolves and wolves aren't dogs. That said, they share certain fundamental physiological traits and behaviors. Replicable research that has been formally described in peer-reviewed journals indicates that certain extrapolations between dogs and wolves are appropriate. Until other research that has undergone similar scrutiny indicates the contrary, I'll choose to believe that much about dog behavior can be learned from the study and research of wolves' behavior.
I presume that Ms. Alexander's intent behind the comment about parenting in the above excerpt is sarcasm. I believe, however, that truer words were never spoken. When comparing the innate and learned behaviors related to parenting among different primate species (e.g., chimps and humans), striking similarities are detected. This, of course, does not mean that human parents should raise their children as if the children were chimpanzees. Rather, it means that there is a lot to learn about human parenting from the scientific study of chimp parenting. Similarly, there is a lot to learn about canine behavior from the scientific study of lupine behavior.
QUOTATION: "Dr. L. David Mech performed a 30-year study on dogs at Yale and UC Berkeley. 19 years of the study was devoted to social behavior of a dog pack. (Not a wolf pack. A DOG pack.)"
I know casually of Dr. Mech's work, by virtue of its publication in journals (and secondarily on the Web). I believe Dr. Mech is regarded by his peers as a subject-matter-expert on wolves and their behavior. I was troubled with some of the conclusions attributed by Ms. Alexander to Dr. Mech in her summary statements about his alleged 'dog-pack study.' This troubled feeling was replaced with disquiet when I read Dr. Mech's personal publication list. During the almost 30 years since 1962 when Dr. Mech was first published, there is no indication of a study that resembles Ms. Alexander's cited study. While the cited study could well exist, and indeed might contain the conclusions related in her article, I can not find a reference to such a study by Dr. Mech.
Note. A correspondent reported that Ms. Alexander's referenced study could in fact be referring to a study conducted by Alan Beck. A quick web search revealed that Alan Beck, DVM published a study titled The Ecology of Stray Dogs. A Study of Free Ranging Urban Animals (1973, Baltimore). I do not know whether Dr. Beck's study was the source of the findings apparently erroneously attributed to Dr. Mech by Ms. Alexander. I will gratuitously observe that the stray dogs about which Ms. Alexander writes seemed to have adopted behaviors that in many respects mimic behaviors found in a wolf pack.
QUOTATION: "Young puppies have what's called "puppy license." Basically, that license to do most anything. Bitches are more tolerant of puppy license than males are.
The puppy license is revoked at approximately four months of age. At that time, the older middle-ranked dogs literally give the puppy hell -- psychologically torturing it until it offers all of the appropriate appeasement behaviors and takes its place at the bottom of the social hierarchy. The top-ranked dogs ignore the whole thing."
I am wary of anthropomorphisms when discussing animal behavior. I suggest that the reader exercise the same caution. Uniquely human values are at work when one characterizes animal behavior as "literally giv(ing) the puppy hell" or as "psychological torture." While a marauding wolverine might kill every chicken in the henhouse without eating anything, describing the wolverine as a hen-torturer or hen-murderer is ludicrous. Dogs, for example, can in certain circumstances exhibit mobbing behavior (characterized as some members of a group 'ganging' up on, and attacking, a single animal). This seems cruel and torturous to humans, but I'm certain that this is not a case of dogs 'torturing' another dog. (I'm sure of little else about the behavior, except the need to preclude the occurrence of situations where mobbing could be expressed by my group of dogs.)
What we humans view as torturous can be part and parcel of a normal life for a dog. A dog that kills and eats a squirrel -- or 'even worse,' begins to eat said squirrel while it is still alive -- is horrendous and cruel to us. Some would say that such 'vicious' behavior is torture and undoglike and unnatural. One could anthropomorphize and opine a belief that the squirrel briefly shares our human point of view. I do not share either point of view. I also don't view a cat's 'playing' with a mouse before killing it as torture. I believe it's part of the animals' innate and learned behavior, and accept it as an animal behavior that is not easily accommodated by human sensibilities.
QUOTATION: "To be "alpha," control the resources. I don't mean hokey stuff like not allowing dogs on beds or preceding them through doorways. I mean making resources contingent on behavior. Does the dog want to be fed. Great -- ask him to sit first. Does the dog want to go outside? Sit first. Dog want to greet people? Sit first. Want to play a game? Sit first. Or whatever. If you are proactive enough to control the things your dogs want, *you* are alpha by definition."
To paraphrase, 'Don't do hokey stuff like A, B, and C, do hokey stuff like X, Y, and Z.' To reprise my refrain from above: dogs can be trained; inductive and operant methods can be employed; this is a long and complicated topic. I believe the activities described by Ms. Alexander have much more to do with training than with impacting any dominant-subordinate relationship between a handler and a dog. If "you are proactive enough" to control situational and environmental influences to your dog's behavior, then one can prevent the expression of behavior that would otherwise be expressed, and the converse. Nothing more, nothing less.
QUOTATION: Reward deferential behavior, rather than pushy behavior. I have two dogs. If one pushes in front of the other, the other gets the attention, the food, whatever the first dog wanted. The first dog to sit gets treated. Pulling on lead goes nowhere. Doors don't open until dogs are seated and I say they may go out. Reward pushy, and you get pushy.
This is the only instance I will give utterance to the single word that most often came to mind as I read Ms. Alexander's article. PUHLEEEZ! Ignore the dogs' hierarchy in your own household? Knock yourself out ... at your own and your other dogs' peril ... and then try to repair the consequences. Uniquely human concepts like parity, equality and egalitarianism are not applicable to dogs. Likewise, reinforcement schedules that are effective while training humans will not necessarily work with dogs. Anthropomorphisms such as those exhibited in the above excerpt are inappropriate, and can even be dangerous -- with the wrong confluence of events and the wrong dog.
QUOTATION: In a recent article in the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) newsletter, Dr. Ray Coppinger -- a biology professor at Hampshire College, co-founder of the Livestock Guarding Dog Project, author of several books including Dogs : A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution; and an extremely well- respected member of the dog training community -- says in regards to the dominance model (and alpha rolling) ... [Note, the HTML links are not present in the original article. Nor is mention made that Dr. Coppinger coauthored Dogs: A Startling New Understanding ... with his wife, Lorna, herself an author.]
I first learned of Dr. Coppinger through Ms. Alexander's article. While I am pleased he finds 'alpha rolls' at least as inappropriate as I do, I do not agree with his rationale, at least as summarized by Ms. Alexander. Reviewing a list of Dr. Coppinger's publications (which may or may not be exhaustive), reveals at least one peer-reviewed article related to dog behavior, as well as other areas of study.
QUOTATION: "That pretty much sums it up, don't you think?"
I'd make other comments if I had but the time. Not to try to prove myself right or Ms. Alexander wrong, but to try to further illustrate and reinforce the idea that there is no shortcut to understanding canine behavior and training dogs. One of the easiest ways to go wrong, is to lose sight of the fact that your companion is a dog. Irrespective of any surrogate role that the dog has in your life, it's not a human, a child, or a baby, even if it is loved like one. It is a dog. If it's a working Bouvier, then it is not just a 'dog.' It is an intelligent, assertive, and powerful dog.
It is reasonable for the reader to conclude that I disagree with many of Ms. Alexander's opinions, and that she probably disagrees with mine. That said, readers of her article and this note should not be led to believe -- even inadvertently -- that either article is authoritative in any regard. I firmly believe that an owner can be injured by his/her working dog (to whom the owner is unknowingly subordinate), if the dog believes the owner is attempting to press the issue. I believe that such an injury could happen even though the dog has been trained to sit 'politely' before eating meals or playing fetch.
Conclusion
What should one do, especially the novice, to ensure one has the alpha role with respect to one's dogs? Understand that your role is decided by the dog, and then try to ensure that the dog makes the 'correct' decision. Start with a sound foundation of knowledge grounded in human psychology (so you understand the whats, whys, and wherefores of human actions) and animal behavior (so you gain the benefit of the lifetimes of research devoted to trying to understand the whats, whys, and wherefores of dog actions). Start with reading and comprehending an introductory, college-level psychology textbook and a like textbook on animal behavior.
Add other specific academic and scientific information, the relevance of which is established by your initial studies and your personal inclinations. In my case, my 'advanced' studies focused on movements/schools associated with a psychologist named Piaget, and a behaviorist named Lorenz.
Anyone who puts pen to paper can seem like an expert. Buttressed by a sound academic background (which does not have to be formally earned by attending a college or university), read articles and treatises related to topics of interest that have been published in academia or other circles that foster (and in many cases require) peer review. One of the benefits of peer-reviewed publications is that wheat is winnowed from the chaff by experts. An example of such information is Dr. Mech's note, Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs, that was originally published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology, 2000.
Build on this broad, stable foundation of knowledge, by branching out and critically reading ancillary published information. Pre-armed with the relevant knowledge, one can assess information of unknown vintage or heritage, such as the new and novel ideas ascribed to Dr. Coppinger's book by Ms. Alexander. Adopt the credo that printed matter has received more scrutiny than electronically published material, and therefore could be more valuable.
Only after the reader is knowledgeable -- and to a certain extent, jaundiced -- should the musings of authors like Ms. Johnson and me be read and assessed for validity. Understand the concepts that the author is trying to convey, and then see how these concepts stack up against your understanding of the world. Then, and only then, incorporate such musings into your thinking, or not, as is your wont.
Everyone wants to get to heaven, but no one wants to die. There is no shortcut to understanding working dogs or their behaviors. It's not necessarily fun or even easy, either. But don't let the apparent complexity scare you away, or detract from the fun that dog ownership should be. If I had to offer one single item of advice, it would be to view with suspicion everything that an author exhorts to be the truth -- except of course the conclusion to this note. <grin>
http://www.bogartsdaddy.com/bouvier/Training/alpha_roll_response.htm
WAS THE SAME MECH and Schenkel who spread the believes on the Alpha's in the late 1960s and the Alphas are in Vogue again!
There are Dominance and Submission and More it is also Tangible, Quantitative and Verificable ( Journal of Mammalogy, 2005 DOMINANCE, AGGRESSION, AND GLUCOCORTICOID LEVELS IN SOCIAL CARNIVORES
SCOTT CREEL )
The clearest behavioural correlate of high rank was that ALPHAS won a high proportion of their contests, but it seems unlikely that winning is more stressful than losing.
Speculatively, it is possible that the higher GC (GLUCOCORTICOID) levels of Dominants are a Consequence of their ‘Behavioural State’, rather than their overt actions.
For example, readiness to escalate a fight when challenged may be a Cognitive Stressor, even if NO CHALLENGE IS MADE.
This same pattern is seen in African wild dogs (Creel et al. 1996, 1997): while ALPHAS have higher GC levels than subordinates, there is little association between GC levels and rank among nonalphas.
It is intriguing that elevated GC levels are more clearly related to ALPHA status than to behavioural variables (e.g. rate of aggression) - Scott Creel 2002
It's a Clear Fact that for a Dog is LESS Stressful be the Subordinate Calm Submisive, than be an ALPHA Dominant.
You Do Not go to Change the Mental State of a Submisive Dog and you Do Not go to change the Mental State of a Dominant dog with Treats or Bribery and what Cesar's approach Acctually Does is HE CHANGE THE MENTAL STATE OR BEHAVIOURAL STATE OF A DOMINANT DOG to one CALM SUBMISIVE STATE.
Do you get it?... No? Do you want more? Ok here is more, enjoy!
This Study was already
It's tough at the top for alpha males: study
AFP – Thu, Jul 14, 2011
If you're feeling envious of your boss's paycheck, a study out Thursday shows that success comes with high stress, possibly as much as faced by those who have to struggle to find a bite to eat.
The results of nine years of research on wild baboons, published in the journal Science, suggest that despite perks like easy access to mates and food, top-ranking males experience similar stress levels as their lowest-rung counterparts.
Those in the middle showed lower stress than either the top or bottom ranking males, according to measurements of testosterone and a stress hormone known as glucocorticoid.
"Alpha males exhibited much higher stress hormone levels than second-ranking (beta) males, suggesting that being at the top may be more costly than previously thought," said the study led by researchers at Princeton University.
Samples were taken from the feces of a wild male baboon population in Ambelosi, Kenya.
While the stress levels at the top and bottom were similar, they were likely caused by different problems.
Alpha baboons spent lots of energy fighting to stay on top and trying to mate with as many females as possible, while the low-ranking males expended lots of effort searching for food.
Meanwhile, there may be perks for not reaching quite so high.
The second-rate beta males received about the same amount of attention -- in the form of grooming -- from females, but did "slightly better than predicted" at reaching their "full reproductive potential," the study said.
Being the subordinate have clearly benefits on the adaptation process of performing tasks and their interactions with humans:
Laboratory of Anatomy and Ethology of Domestic Animals, University of Namur (FUNDP), 6 rue Muzet, 5000 Namur, Belgium
- "The present study shows that this group of MWD (military working dogs) still has an Adaptation Capacity to an environmental challenge (return to baseline of the cortisol levels, a higher posture during the second than at the first challenge).
These results are encouraging and indicate that the dogs might have a diminished welfare (i.e. stereotypic behaviors), but are Not chronically stressed."
The communication of aggressive motivation or fighting ability has important fitness consequences for competing animals
Selection should favour rapid and honest communication between opponents to settle Dominance Relationships while Avoiding Prolonged and Intense Fighting.
Among many social species of animal, there have come to exist social Hierarchies in which certain individuals are More Dominant Than Others.
Selection should favour rapid and honest communication between opponents to settle Dominance Relationships while Avoiding Prolonged and Intense Fighting.
The communication of aggressive motivation or fighting ability has important fitness consequences for competing animals.
There are distinct evolutionary benefits to these Social Structures, as they provide an efficient mechanism for arbitration and negotiation in the distribution of scarce resources. - Erik Zimen
Supposedly, studies of wild wolf packs show that "dominance contests with other wolves are rare." That's because canids are more realistic than people. - Gene Lyons
In captive packs, the unacquainted wolves formed dominance hierarchies featuring Alpha, beta, omega animals, etc.
With such assemblages, these Dominance labels were probably Appropriate, for most species thrown together in captivity would usually so Arrange Themselves. - D. Mech
We noted each time a wolf submitted posturally to another wolf. Usually this deference was characterized by "licking up" to the mouth of the dominant animal in the "active submission" posture (Fig. 5 in Schenkel 1967), similar to that described by Darwin
(1877) for domestic dogs. - D. Mech
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets face it, Most of the Hate and criticism against Cesar is because he uses a Powerful tool on Dog Rehabilitation; The Alpha Roll and this is a blasphemy for all those Fundamentalists of the 'purely positive' approach...
That and be World Wide Successful is Scalding Water over them, the dog training world is ruled by Over Inflated Egos.
- "Training should be about helping animals to succeed in the world we've created for them, not boosting our egos"
-Dr. Grey Stafford.
Don't forget when The Monks of the New Skete suggest the use of this tool in their book were hardly criticized to the point Job Michael Evans, a former monk, has reportedly apologized for it....
I agree with that the Alpha Roll shouldn't be done by someone without any prior information about how it Work.
In the original context, the alpha roll was only meant to be used in the most serious cases like Last Resort and always in combination with positive reinforcement techniques.
I have watched countless episodes of THE DOG WHISPERER; at least several seasons worth. I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've seen Cesar Millan use a serious aversive conditioning method such as Alpha Roll or dominance down.
Only on dogs that he considers Red Zone or in great danger of harming someone.
Letting the dog know who's boss and exactly what behavior is expected is a far cry from flat out challenging the dog. I've mainly seen Cesar Millan use distraction & quick corrections to refocus the dogs attention.
Cesar tries to empower people to feel more confident and portray more leadership, however, it obviously isn't for everyone. Particularly the social inept. Most people understand the concepts. If you don't understand what he means by dominance, THEN CESAR MILAN'S METHOD ISN'T FOR YOU.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dog behavior refers to the collection of behaviours by the Domestic Dog, Canis Lupus Familiaris, and is believed to be Influenced by Genetic, Social,Situational and Enviromental causes. The Domestic Dog is a subspecies of the Gray Wolf, and shares many of its behavioral characteristics. Although there are important and distinct differences between dogs and wolves.
Oportunistic Omnivores - all these terms apply to both Wolf and Dog.
Domestication is the key difference between wolf and dog.
Dogs can be readily submissive to their owners, but show various degrees of aggression toward strangers or territorial interlopers. They form long-term bonds with humans, as they would often do in a pack or with mates, and show cooperative and altruistic behavior, sacrificing for humans just as they would for kin.
When we peel off the wolf’s innate fearfulness and put it on the dog, we turn the dog into a feral facsimile of a wolf.
But a human-socialized wolf without fear could be an extremely dangerous animal, attacking a human perceived as a pack rival. This happened to me during the filming of the NBC documentary "The Wolf Men". An Alpha male wolf, along with his female cagemate who was in heat, had been released into a large, wooded compound belonging to my friend, the late wildlife illustrator and conservationist Dick Grossenheider.
I am not saying that a male Dog would not react to me in a similar way under comparable circumstances.
Dogs read our eyes and are attentive ethologists of human behavior, action, emotion and intuition. A change in tone of voice can make a dog tremble in fear or dance and yap for joy. Such ability to read human behavior, intentions and emotions was naturally selected for as dogs domesticated themselves and adapted to life with Homo sapiens, the killer ape.
The dogs and wolves and other wild canids whom I have raised since soon after birth and shared my life with have the same deep heart’s essence that I saw in their eyes and which they expressed in their gestures and demeanor toward me: trust, tenderness, empathy, playfulness and full awareness (Not Simply Conditioned Obedience) of Social Boundaries and which behaviors were Acceptable or Not. I call this ‘canid conscience’, which in many respects is far better developed than the conscience of many of our own kind
Since this core is evident as much in a tame wolf as in a toy poodle, it is clear that neither domestication nor wildness has altered their true natures. In the heart of every dog is the spirit of the wolf that embodies the finer qualities of human nature that we call love and devotion.
Michael W Fox D.Sc., Ph.D.,
B. Vet. Med., MRCVS
IPAN Hon. Veterinary Consultant
---------------------------------------------------------------
III Dominance and Submission
Among many social species of animal, there have come to exist social hierarchies in which certain individuals are more dominant than others.
There are distinct evolutionary benefits to these social structures, as they provide an efficient mechanism for arbitration and negotiation in the distribution of scarce resources.
In this section, we will discuss the presence of dominance hierarchies in wolf packs, in chimpanzee societies and in the human business world.
Wolves
Many populations of wolves eat large herbivorous ungulates (e.g. caribou) as their primary food resource. (Mech, 1970) Since these animals are too large to be safely brought down by a lone wolf, wolves usually hunt in packs.
These packs are normally family units; a typical pack might be composed of an Alpha male and female (the only pair that breeds), several grown children of that pair (who act as aunts and uncles to the alpha pair’s pups), a few unrelated adults who dispersed from their natal pack, and the alpha pair’s most recent litter of pups.
With so many members of the pack all striving for the same resources (the right to breed, access to the choicest parts of a freshly-killed caribou), there is inevitable competition among them. However, it is not practical to fight for these resources on a frequent basis, since there are significant expenses associated with fighting (energy expenditure, time, potential injury) for both winner and loser.
Social status hierarchies remove the need for constant fighting, replacing it with relatively long periods of static relationships (an alpha individual may hold itstenure for several years) punctuated by periodic reevaluations (as individuals grow up, age, or make new alliances).
These hierarchies are maintained on a regular basis bymeans of expressive behaviors that communicate an individual’s perceived rank relative to another individual.
Dominant wolves stare straight at their inferiors with erect fur, ears pushed forward and a highly-held tail. Submissive wolves crouch or roll over, with ears held back and tail curled between legs. These behaviors are derived from other behaviors that reflect actual relationships rather than constructed relationships – they are ritualized forms of combat, and ritualized versions of infant and juvenile behaviors (e.g. food begging). Vocalizations also play a significant role (although a human-level language is clearly not necessary for dominance cues to be given and received).
If an individual feels that the social hierarchy is no longer a valid representation of the reality of the power structure, he has only to withhold his submissive behaviors, and a fight with a more dominant individual will almost certainly ensue.
Periodically it is necessary for a dominance hierarchy to be tested in reality (i.e. a fight) in order for all the participants to be willing to agree to it between those tests.
The most common periods of testing occur when an adolescent approaches adulthood, or when a dominant individual’s ability is compromised by age or injury. (Mech, 1970) Wolf societies are made considerably more complicated by the presence of alliances between individuals. While the beta male might not be able to depose the Alpha male on his own, by soliciting another lower-ranking individual over a period of time, he might gain that individuals support against the Alpha. Because of this, deposed Alpha individuals often fall far further than beta status in the wake of losing a fight; it is not uncommon for the old Alpha to become the lowest-ranking member of the pack.
http://characters.media.mit.edu/Papers/MAMA-175.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------
On the Alpha Role, 'Alpha Roll,' Dominance & Dog Training by Larry Sudduth
Abstract
This note comments on the ideas contained in the HISTORY & MISCONCEPTIONS OF DOMINANCE THEORY [ABOUT THE ALPHA ROLL], by Melissa C. Alexander, 2001. After an introduction, the appropriateness of ethological considerations with respect to human behavior is briefly asserted. The existence of a study and conclusions ascribed to Dr. L. David Mech is questioned, and observations about dominance in dogs, dog training, and Ms. Alexander's account of a book she reports reading are made. The note ends with suggestions for readers interested in applying seemingly complex concepts to their day-to-day life with dogs and dog training. [Keywords: alpha role, alpha roll, dog training, dominance, man-dog interaction, dog behavior]
Introduction
Many of the concepts described in the HISTORY & MISCONCEPTIONS OF DOMINANCE THEORY [ABOUT THE ALPHA ROLL], by Melissa C. Alexander, 2001, have complicated underpinnings. Her summary treatment of disparate, complex topics is marked by both brevity and ease of reading. Factors that contribute much to the behaviors she addresses, such as the causality (of any specific dog behavior), mechanisms of canine learning, the manner of canine perception, and the nature of canine cognition are addressed only tangentially, if at all. Likewise, the actual nature of Ms. Alexander's relationship with her dogs is not described. In light of so many intangibles, detailed commentary is neither appropriate or merited.
I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Alexander's condemnation of the 'alpha roll.' That said, I disagree with the some of the rationale for the condemnation advanced by her (primarily that also ascribed to Dr. Raymond Coppinger). In my opinion, a dog can be trained to adopt a physical posture -- one that signals submission in other contexts. The success of such postural training can be trivial or difficult, in the same way that training a dog to retrieve can be trivial or difficult. One should not confuse these activities as being anything other than training. Dominance is not being directly established by training the adoption of a posture. Neither is one changing anything about the fundamental nature of the dog, a nature that seems to incorporate the concept of hierarchy in many of its manifestations.
To reiterate, a dog's capability to exhibit a trained posture should not be confused with a dog's submissiveness. The exhibition by a dog of a trained 'alpha-rolled' posture has no relationship to the deference expressed in the behavior of a subordinate dog when it interacts with dogs (or people) it regards as superior. Without the panoply of contextual cues associated with an 'alpha-rolled' posture that indicates submissiveness, e.g., the behavior being exhibited in response to forceful aggression, the posture, in and of itself, has no relevance to a superior-subordinate relationship in the dog's frame of reference.
Critique
Like compulsive methods in general, the compulsive training of a posture (whether or not the dog accords the posture uniquely canine significance in certain contexts), can contribute to the establishment of a dominant role by a handler. Such training can also lead to unanticipated affect. The dog could react to such training as if the trainer is participating in canine dominance-negotiation behavior, e.g., a challenge. In this case, the trainer should be prepared to cope with the dog's normal behavioral response. The trainer should understand what is required to gracefully win such a confrontation. The trainer should, as well, understand how to behave if necessary to resign and lose the confrontation, such that the dog understands that the confrontation is finished. The dog's perception of human factors, e.g., the level of fear and 'force of personality' in the trainer, contribute to the outcome of such encounters.
Although she makes no such assertion, I don't doubt that Ms. Alexander occupies an alpha role with her dogs. I do, however, doubt any direct attribution or relation of this to her training exercises. In this note, I will address neither the efficacy of training dogs via the employment of deferred reward schedules in general, nor the cognition implied by the delayed and conditional aspects of the 'sit-then-act/behave' modality Ms. Alexander describes..
QUOTATION: "So what's the truth? The truth is dogs aren't wolves. Honestly, when you take into account the number of generations past, saying "I want to learn how to interact with my dog so I'll learn from the wolves" makes about as much sense as saying, 'I want to improve my parenting - - let's see how the chimps do it!'"
Dogs aren't wolves and wolves aren't dogs. That said, they share certain fundamental physiological traits and behaviors. Replicable research that has been formally described in peer-reviewed journals indicates that certain extrapolations between dogs and wolves are appropriate. Until other research that has undergone similar scrutiny indicates the contrary, I'll choose to believe that much about dog behavior can be learned from the study and research of wolves' behavior.
I presume that Ms. Alexander's intent behind the comment about parenting in the above excerpt is sarcasm. I believe, however, that truer words were never spoken. When comparing the innate and learned behaviors related to parenting among different primate species (e.g., chimps and humans), striking similarities are detected. This, of course, does not mean that human parents should raise their children as if the children were chimpanzees. Rather, it means that there is a lot to learn about human parenting from the scientific study of chimp parenting. Similarly, there is a lot to learn about canine behavior from the scientific study of lupine behavior.
QUOTATION: "Dr. L. David Mech performed a 30-year study on dogs at Yale and UC Berkeley. 19 years of the study was devoted to social behavior of a dog pack. (Not a wolf pack. A DOG pack.)"
I know casually of Dr. Mech's work, by virtue of its publication in journals (and secondarily on the Web). I believe Dr. Mech is regarded by his peers as a subject-matter-expert on wolves and their behavior. I was troubled with some of the conclusions attributed by Ms. Alexander to Dr. Mech in her summary statements about his alleged 'dog-pack study.' This troubled feeling was replaced with disquiet when I read Dr. Mech's personal publication list. During the almost 30 years since 1962 when Dr. Mech was first published, there is no indication of a study that resembles Ms. Alexander's cited study. While the cited study could well exist, and indeed might contain the conclusions related in her article, I can not find a reference to such a study by Dr. Mech.
Note. A correspondent reported that Ms. Alexander's referenced study could in fact be referring to a study conducted by Alan Beck. A quick web search revealed that Alan Beck, DVM published a study titled The Ecology of Stray Dogs. A Study of Free Ranging Urban Animals (1973, Baltimore). I do not know whether Dr. Beck's study was the source of the findings apparently erroneously attributed to Dr. Mech by Ms. Alexander. I will gratuitously observe that the stray dogs about which Ms. Alexander writes seemed to have adopted behaviors that in many respects mimic behaviors found in a wolf pack.
QUOTATION: "Young puppies have what's called "puppy license." Basically, that license to do most anything. Bitches are more tolerant of puppy license than males are.
The puppy license is revoked at approximately four months of age. At that time, the older middle-ranked dogs literally give the puppy hell -- psychologically torturing it until it offers all of the appropriate appeasement behaviors and takes its place at the bottom of the social hierarchy. The top-ranked dogs ignore the whole thing."
I am wary of anthropomorphisms when discussing animal behavior. I suggest that the reader exercise the same caution. Uniquely human values are at work when one characterizes animal behavior as "literally giv(ing) the puppy hell" or as "psychological torture." While a marauding wolverine might kill every chicken in the henhouse without eating anything, describing the wolverine as a hen-torturer or hen-murderer is ludicrous. Dogs, for example, can in certain circumstances exhibit mobbing behavior (characterized as some members of a group 'ganging' up on, and attacking, a single animal). This seems cruel and torturous to humans, but I'm certain that this is not a case of dogs 'torturing' another dog. (I'm sure of little else about the behavior, except the need to preclude the occurrence of situations where mobbing could be expressed by my group of dogs.)
What we humans view as torturous can be part and parcel of a normal life for a dog. A dog that kills and eats a squirrel -- or 'even worse,' begins to eat said squirrel while it is still alive -- is horrendous and cruel to us. Some would say that such 'vicious' behavior is torture and undoglike and unnatural. One could anthropomorphize and opine a belief that the squirrel briefly shares our human point of view. I do not share either point of view. I also don't view a cat's 'playing' with a mouse before killing it as torture. I believe it's part of the animals' innate and learned behavior, and accept it as an animal behavior that is not easily accommodated by human sensibilities.
QUOTATION: "To be "alpha," control the resources. I don't mean hokey stuff like not allowing dogs on beds or preceding them through doorways. I mean making resources contingent on behavior. Does the dog want to be fed. Great -- ask him to sit first. Does the dog want to go outside? Sit first. Dog want to greet people? Sit first. Want to play a game? Sit first. Or whatever. If you are proactive enough to control the things your dogs want, *you* are alpha by definition."
To paraphrase, 'Don't do hokey stuff like A, B, and C, do hokey stuff like X, Y, and Z.' To reprise my refrain from above: dogs can be trained; inductive and operant methods can be employed; this is a long and complicated topic. I believe the activities described by Ms. Alexander have much more to do with training than with impacting any dominant-subordinate relationship between a handler and a dog. If "you are proactive enough" to control situational and environmental influences to your dog's behavior, then one can prevent the expression of behavior that would otherwise be expressed, and the converse. Nothing more, nothing less.
QUOTATION: Reward deferential behavior, rather than pushy behavior. I have two dogs. If one pushes in front of the other, the other gets the attention, the food, whatever the first dog wanted. The first dog to sit gets treated. Pulling on lead goes nowhere. Doors don't open until dogs are seated and I say they may go out. Reward pushy, and you get pushy.
This is the only instance I will give utterance to the single word that most often came to mind as I read Ms. Alexander's article. PUHLEEEZ! Ignore the dogs' hierarchy in your own household? Knock yourself out ... at your own and your other dogs' peril ... and then try to repair the consequences. Uniquely human concepts like parity, equality and egalitarianism are not applicable to dogs. Likewise, reinforcement schedules that are effective while training humans will not necessarily work with dogs. Anthropomorphisms such as those exhibited in the above excerpt are inappropriate, and can even be dangerous -- with the wrong confluence of events and the wrong dog.
QUOTATION: In a recent article in the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) newsletter, Dr. Ray Coppinger -- a biology professor at Hampshire College, co-founder of the Livestock Guarding Dog Project, author of several books including Dogs : A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution; and an extremely well- respected member of the dog training community -- says in regards to the dominance model (and alpha rolling) ... [Note, the HTML links are not present in the original article. Nor is mention made that Dr. Coppinger coauthored Dogs: A Startling New Understanding ... with his wife, Lorna, herself an author.]
I first learned of Dr. Coppinger through Ms. Alexander's article. While I am pleased he finds 'alpha rolls' at least as inappropriate as I do, I do not agree with his rationale, at least as summarized by Ms. Alexander. Reviewing a list of Dr. Coppinger's publications (which may or may not be exhaustive), reveals at least one peer-reviewed article related to dog behavior, as well as other areas of study.
QUOTATION: "That pretty much sums it up, don't you think?"
I'd make other comments if I had but the time. Not to try to prove myself right or Ms. Alexander wrong, but to try to further illustrate and reinforce the idea that there is no shortcut to understanding canine behavior and training dogs. One of the easiest ways to go wrong, is to lose sight of the fact that your companion is a dog. Irrespective of any surrogate role that the dog has in your life, it's not a human, a child, or a baby, even if it is loved like one. It is a dog. If it's a working Bouvier, then it is not just a 'dog.' It is an intelligent, assertive, and powerful dog.
It is reasonable for the reader to conclude that I disagree with many of Ms. Alexander's opinions, and that she probably disagrees with mine. That said, readers of her article and this note should not be led to believe -- even inadvertently -- that either article is authoritative in any regard. I firmly believe that an owner can be injured by his/her working dog (to whom the owner is unknowingly subordinate), if the dog believes the owner is attempting to press the issue. I believe that such an injury could happen even though the dog has been trained to sit 'politely' before eating meals or playing fetch.
Conclusion
What should one do, especially the novice, to ensure one has the alpha role with respect to one's dogs? Understand that your role is decided by the dog, and then try to ensure that the dog makes the 'correct' decision. Start with a sound foundation of knowledge grounded in human psychology (so you understand the whats, whys, and wherefores of human actions) and animal behavior (so you gain the benefit of the lifetimes of research devoted to trying to understand the whats, whys, and wherefores of dog actions). Start with reading and comprehending an introductory, college-level psychology textbook and a like textbook on animal behavior.
Add other specific academic and scientific information, the relevance of which is established by your initial studies and your personal inclinations. In my case, my 'advanced' studies focused on movements/schools associated with a psychologist named Piaget, and a behaviorist named Lorenz.
Anyone who puts pen to paper can seem like an expert. Buttressed by a sound academic background (which does not have to be formally earned by attending a college or university), read articles and treatises related to topics of interest that have been published in academia or other circles that foster (and in many cases require) peer review. One of the benefits of peer-reviewed publications is that wheat is winnowed from the chaff by experts. An example of such information is Dr. Mech's note, Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs, that was originally published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology, 2000.
Build on this broad, stable foundation of knowledge, by branching out and critically reading ancillary published information. Pre-armed with the relevant knowledge, one can assess information of unknown vintage or heritage, such as the new and novel ideas ascribed to Dr. Coppinger's book by Ms. Alexander. Adopt the credo that printed matter has received more scrutiny than electronically published material, and therefore could be more valuable.
Only after the reader is knowledgeable -- and to a certain extent, jaundiced -- should the musings of authors like Ms. Johnson and me be read and assessed for validity. Understand the concepts that the author is trying to convey, and then see how these concepts stack up against your understanding of the world. Then, and only then, incorporate such musings into your thinking, or not, as is your wont.
Everyone wants to get to heaven, but no one wants to die. There is no shortcut to understanding working dogs or their behaviors. It's not necessarily fun or even easy, either. But don't let the apparent complexity scare you away, or detract from the fun that dog ownership should be. If I had to offer one single item of advice, it would be to view with suspicion everything that an author exhorts to be the truth -- except of course the conclusion to this note. <grin>
http://www.bogartsdaddy.com/bouvier/Training/alpha_roll_response.htm