Are We Too Wrapped Up in Being Alpha?

I was very impressed with the post and I wonder why when I say some of the same thing I get criticized.

Perhaps it's because, when you make what you think is the same point as someone else, you also add other points that are somehow incongruous with that opinion.  But, all opinions should be welcome.  I never worry if someone disagrees or criticizes me, because as long as I'm civil, I have a right to respond, and so do you. []

ORIGINAL: willowchow

See, we've had this discussion before. 

I feel as though people who have dogs who never challenge them and are naturally followers think that people get too "wrapped up" in being alpha. 

But, if you have a dog who is constantly challenging yes, you are going to be thinking about it a lot more.  And, with good reason.

I think when we say someone is "too wrapped up in being alpha" perhaps the inference is more that true "alpha's" don't have to think about it so much.  They have natural leadership capacity that the dog immediately perceives.  I don't think we should assume that positive trainers who don't use so-called "alpha techniques" with a strong or challenging dog should be perceived as lacking in leadership.  I have had challenging dogs, and never had a dog perceive me as other than the human in charge.  But, I know other people whose middle-of-the-pack-should-be-Lassie dogs walk all over them.  Consistency and insistency (is that a word?)  is a huge factor, and unrelated to the physical in most cases.  We've all seen the very dominant, but non-violent, dog who goes over to another dog playing with a toy, gives a look, and the dog instantly gives up the toy and walks away so that the "leader" can have it.  Dogs recognize leadership better than humans do.  As John C. Maxwell puts it in his books on leadership - "leadership is influence".

[Deleted by Admins]

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

If I'm a "leader", then great. If I'm a treat-slinging weenie, that's great too.

I think this has got to be the best phrase I've seen on this board and I want it for my signature!

 
If you want to be treat-slinging weenie, then go to the zoo.  Dogs needs time to adjust, basic sustinence needs, structure, guidance, companionship, play, and affection.

ORIGINAL: willowchow

See, we've had this discussion before. 

I feel as though people who have dogs who never challenge them and are naturally followers think that people get too "wrapped up" in being alpha. 

But, if you have a dog who is constantly challenging yes, you are going to be thinking about it a lot more.  And, with good reason.

I've never lived with a "natural follower" and I still think people get too caught up in alpha
I don't walk out the door first. I don't eat before my dogs, I sometimes even let them eat off my plate. THey are all allowed up on the couch and bed without being asked.

I don't work to be alpha. In fact, I am the first to admit that while I think my youngest is a superb competition dog and an amazing worker, he is sometimes a terrible housepet (As he slaps people in the face). He begs for food, he likes to chase the cats a bit, he steps all over you (literally) when he jumps on the couch, etc. He is a very hard (but NOT SHARP) dog, he's drivey but tempered with some biddability.

I train my dogs. I am a fair, reliable, and respectable leader for them. I do not ask things of them they cannot offer, I do not (or try not to) punish them for things they cannot give. I have simple demands (thou shalt not eat the cats for real, thou shall not pee or poopeth in the house, thou should not eateth my socks), and in return sometimes yes I wake up with a Deezil Dude underneath my pillow singing his stupid song, or a bone underneath my back.

So everyone doesn't think that Rah may just be an "easy" dog (and easy he is not - I have yet to meet one person that thinks he would be a good pet for them, he exhausts most people just thinking about how much supervision exercise and training he needs) - my first doberman was a dog with a bite history. Not just a bite history - this dog SENT SOMEONE TO THE HOSPITAL with multiple bites. I am not bragging, I am not proud - but this is to illustrate how severe his aggression COULD be. I adopted him and gave him a chance -

I never alpha rolled the dog. I let him sleep in bed from day one, he always laid on the couch. We trained, we worked, and he respected and TRUSTED me that I would not hurt him and I would protect him. I learned to control his environment and consider how I could be a responsible owner and what situations I put him in.

No doubt I am in charge of this house - but not the traditional way that most people would think. And I Don't worry about being alpha every day, I don't think about it at ALL. I offer respect and love and understanding, and I get it back.

Fortunately I have never had a difficult dog, but through the last 7-8 years I have learned more about having my dogs know I am the boss. When I first got my last 2 dogs, I had read about making sure I go through a door way first, making them work for treats, making them sit before leashing them up etc.. I do let them on the couch and bed but if I ever came across a problem with them not moving or getting off when I said, they would be banned. I think it truly has made them better pets. They seem to respect me even more than any other dogs we have had, which have all been good dogs. They have the best recall out of any of our other dogs. I  do think having them know I come first has enriched our relationship.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

I hope that Kim MacMillan will forgive me moving her entire post from a thread on the clicker training section. I thought that her post was very thought-provoking and pretty accurate, especially the part about humans being so focused on "leadership". Do you think humans spend way too much time trying to force the dogs to respect us, whatever that means, and not enough time setting them up for success, learning what motivates them and using it to our advantage, or just plain having fun with them?


I must say that I consider myself a natural leader to my dogs, too, so much so that it seems pretty effortless. I know that some people have more trouble, but I think that some also are just miscommunicating with the dogs, and a slight uptick in training knowledge would remove some of that "language barrier" such that leadership would not be such an issue. I mean, if your dog doesn't understand what you want, he can hardly be deemed "dominant" or "stubborn" for not doing it, right? What do you guys think?

I'm the same way you are, Anne. Training happens as a part of living life, and my dogs always see me as a leader and feel safe. I"m lucky because somehow I do the right things most of the time, and my dogs understand me (most of the time) and I understand them most of the time. Of course it's not 100%. Heck, it's not 100% with people, much less with dogs!

I do agree that miscommunication is the actual problem with most routine training issues for most people.

Sorry for all the "mosts!" [8D]

ORIGINAL: nfowler

Yes. To answer your question, yes. I'm different than most people, though. I'm tired and bored to death with the Alpha talk.

 
 
LOL!  Agreed.  ;  )
 
I never thought about Alpha and all of that before my husband read something on it  a couple years ago.  It just seemed ridiculous to get all so concerned about that.  But I guess some people need to have that label applied to themselves to feel more in control?
 
It is just natural that you are leading, usually.  And sometimes we are just together, relaxing....not leading anybody!  lol : 

 Dogs don't need to "respect" you in order to obey your commands. You don't need to be "alpha", or your dog's leader, in order to get your dog to obey you. All dogs need to know is what you want them to do (communicate) and why they should do it (motivate). 
 
 

I guess some people need to have that label applied to themselves to feel more in control?

You know, I think you hit the nail right on the head with that one.

As someone who has had a very, very difficult dog, and who now has the easiest dog on the planet, I sympathize with Willowchow's point.

But in my own experience, when I was working with a dog that needed a LOT of leadership, I did find that leadership looks nothing like what I thought it looked like. I think that's what Anne is trying to get across.

When my dog started getting really scary, I reacted to that and worked (struggled) for awhile, trying to "be alpha".

This did nothing to establish any sense of leadership. Leadership in dogs and people is really much more intellectually subtle than being "alpha" or rolling your dog or staring them down or whatever other theatrics I learned from the Monks of New Skete.

Leadership is more about stewardship, about really taking care of the dog's needs and knowing the difference between what the dog wants and what it needs. It's about having that vision of the dog's needs and following through on exactly that vision.

(that sounds vague, I know, but I don't want to go off on a tangent)

Now that I have a very very easy dog again, I find it very easy to fall right back into the theatrics of "alpha" that I learned first. I punish my dog all the time, because he's so easy that I can become lazy. And I am not the most fantastic leader to my dog, because he doesn't require it.

But now I know enough to see in these moments of weakness that I am the one missing out on that sense of stewardship that I find so rewarding and beautiful.

Hope that makes sense.

So...are you thinking that alpha /dominace is more rewarding for humans ?

I have heard the term "more rewarding to humans" being bandied about in connection w/positive training methods, cuddling with dogs (affection) and on and on...

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

I guess some people need to have that label applied to themselves to feel more in control?

You know, I think you hit the nail right on the head with that one.

JM,
I definitely think that all the rules we talk about, like no dogs on beds, humans go through doorways and eat first, etc. etc...

...I do think these are human constructions that mean nothing to the dog. They are for the human.

I don't necessarily think they are useless. Establishing boundaries is really hard, and sometimes it's easiest to start doing it by establishing some arbitrary rules. I did this when I kept being bad about boundaries in my business. I would make a rule every week, like don't ever take a job for less than a certain amount of money, or don't ever take less than half up front, or don't ever start work until you get a contract signed. For awhile, following these rules (which are all completely arbitrary) helped me to establish a vision of what my business needs, and what I need to provide as a leader.

But now that I understand what lies behind these rules, I know that they hinder me as much as they used to help. I do business without contracts with some clients, and it works really well. I take small jobs sometimes, and they wind up being profitable enough--because I know now how to tell when a small job will build goodwill and bring in future work.

I think that these arbitrary "leadership" rules with dogs work similarly. And I think that's fine. I think that dogs are a great way to learn about leadership.

For me it had nothing to do with needing a label.  I had to learn how to as mudpuppy said communicate with her.  The wording is alpha, leader whatever.  For me, at the time it just meant one more day not bitten.

ORIGINAL: JM

So...are you thinking that alpha /dominace is more rewarding for humans ?

I have heard the term "more rewarding to humans" being bandied about in connection w/positive training methods, cuddling with dogs (affection) and on and on...

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

I guess some people need to have that label applied to themselves to feel more in control?

You know, I think you hit the nail right on the head with that one.

Pretty much.  Dogs take hierarchy in stride, it's part of who they are, and most of them don't give a rat's butt if someone else is leading the show.  In fact, most prefer that is someone else, which is why it's so easy for most humans to own most dogs.  But, humans, when confronted by what they perceive as disobedience or stubborness (many times it's just normal canine behavior that humans don't appreciate or a lack of understanding of what the human wants), want to eliminate the problem behavior immediately.  Humans like instant gratification, and are, I think, more in to control than dogs are, in general.  That's not to say you don't find the occasional bossy dog, as they are there, but humans make it harder to deal with them than it has to be, too, for the most part.

How do you figure JM?  What is "more rewarding" have to do with that statement?

If you must be calling the self Alpha, it must or may mean that you really don't feel like you are in charge.  Basically, a relationship is a relationship.  It takes two.  And when you get a puppy, you are naturally inclined to teach that puppy.

I understand what people are saying about the most difficult dogs that we sometimes have to work more with.  But the same is going to work in a relationship.  We call ourselves masters to the dog, but that may be so, however, if we look at it with a magnifying glass...basically it is a learning challenge for both dog and human. 

We work together on things.  Walking a dog that is leash reactive is going to be a learning relationship.  The human, the dog, and that leash.  We will try the 'be a tree' and the human is leading this dog to do that, and eventually the dog gets it.  And now we are at a relaxed stage in the walk on the leash.  No more reactivity, no more need to work at it.

Hence, the idea is not what is more rewarding for whom, but how well we are enjoying the relationship together.  The dog respects the teaching as it did not hurt her in any way.  She can enjoy and trust that all is ok on the walk. 

At times you must experience working at a thing, but does not mean that I have to be the towering over the dog Alpha and Omega.   The word is simply over used I believe.