Newbie

I have nothing much to add except to say I've always taken it for granted that I can take anything from my dog whenever I like. I don't think it's particularly relevant whether I've relinquished it to her already or not. Our alpha dog often tempts his subordinates by leaving bones out where the girls can see them. Should they try to take it, he gets very irate and chases them away. Now, it doesn't last long because he gets tired of chasing them away and they can't resist trying to get the tasty morsels, but it does happen. To me, it's not very different from giving the dog a toy to play with, then taking it away when you're leaving and can't supervise anymore, or taking a Kong away to add more food and then giving it back. My dog never knows if she's going to get what she's allowed me to take back again or not, but she completely accepts whatever I decide because I'm the boss.

Again, when playing: generally speaking none are possessive over the toy because I am a key part in the game, the toy belongs to me and it is natural for them to want to return it to me.

 
Because you are alpha. Alpha controls access to resources. Claiming the food bowl or anything the dog is obssessing on is part of NILIF and being alpha, leader, grand poobah, whatever term you like.
 

Yes - in my situation it is natural for the dogs to return it to me because I am alpha.  There is no need for me to "claim it" back - because I am "alpha".  I don't need to use violence or direct conflict to get what I want or make the dogs fall into line - because i am a good "alpha"
 
However if I was in a position where a dog had not accepted me as alpha and was being possessive over his food or toys, I would not "claim them" back as a way of proving my status as I think this is unnecessary and potentially dangerous - that's what I think is the key point here.

There is a difference in having your dog relinquish toys to you only because "you are alpha" or whatever, and having them do it becuase you've built a relationship of trust between you and the dog and the dog knows that when you take something, there's a good chance they might get it back, or even get something better in trade.

Both my dogs relinquish toys to me easily, because I often take them and then give them right back. Sometimes I let the dogs chew on some rawhides to soften them up (I roll them up and put them in Kongs for hours of licking enjoyment) and I've never had any problem going and collecting them back again after they've done their job. I have a track record with them that I'm a benevolent leader and I let them have stuff and sometimes I take it away again, but sometimes I replace it with something better. That just seems the practical, easy way to go about establishing yourself as the one who giveth and taketh away in your house. No need for any kind of advanced wolf behavioral analysis.

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

However if I was in a position where a dog had not accepted me as alpha and was being possessive over his food or toys, I would not "claim them" back as a way of proving my status as I think this is unnecessary and potentially dangerous - that's what I think is the key point here.

 
Claiming back is not a way to say "let's see if i'm still alpha or not", claiming back has to be done when the dog is possesive or the thing could be dangerous for him, lets say that i put chicken in his bowl and i realized that has a pointy bone that could hurt his troat, i have to "claim" back the bowl to take that harmful thing out of it, posesivness is as bad, is part of an unbalanced and not relaxed mind, if the dogs know how to "leave" it thats perfect, you dont need to claim anything but sometimes the dog wont give it back, if you dont claim back you are almost saying that he has the power and level to keep whatever he wants and make HIM be the alpha, like i said before, is not to prove a piont, is to avoid the dog thinks he has the power of do whatever he wants which could bring problems in the future, today is a toy, tomorrow can be the couch or your own bed

ORIGINAL: houndlove

There is a difference in having your dog relinquish toys to you only because "you are alpha" or whatever, and having them do it becuase you've built a relationship of trust between you and the dog and the dog knows that when you take something, there's a good chance they might get it back, or even get something better in trade.

 
I don't know about that at all - I think they can be one and the same thing.  As you say, your actions have built up a track record with your dogs that you are a benevolent leader whom they can trust.  Well, to me that is precisely what an "alpha" should be and an extremely good way of achieving it.  When I say that I teach all puppies to give me items willingly from a very young age, it sounds like I do pretty much the exact same thing as you. 
 
But what if you don't have that "track record" and the dog doesn't see you as a benevolent "leader", "alpha" "Mum" or whatever?  Let's say you're a less experienced owner and didnt train him from the outset or maybe you acquire an older rescue with issues.  Would you take the item regardless, even if the dog was volatile and possessive? as a way of proving your "status"?  My argument is that the answer ought to be "no", because it's needless and risky and is hardly conducive to, as you say, building "a bond of trust between you" and building a "track record with them that you are a benevolent leader". 
 
I think the issue being discussed is that this is precisely what CM appears to do and recommend and I think this is in direct conflict with the wolf pack analysis - even though he seems to take the wolf pack as his basis for his method - which is why I was slightly confused about his philosophy and posted in the 1st place.  You are right in that most families are quite capable of teaching their dogs to be relaxed around food and toys with no need for the wolf bhvrl analysis, but its the "wolf pack analysis" and (this is the crux of the issue) CMs interpretation of it that was originally meant to be on discussion and not the best way to train your dog - to relinquish items or anything else.

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

I think the issue being discussed is that this is precisely what CM appears to do and recommend and I think this is in direct conflict with the wolf pack analysis - even though he seems to take the wolf pack as his basis for his method - which is why I was slightly confused about his philosophy and posted in the 1st place.  You are right in that most families are quite capable of teaching their dogs to be relaxed around food and toys with no need for the wolf bhvrl analysis, but its the "wolf pack analysis" and (this is the crux of the issue) CMs interpretation of it that was originally meant to be on discussion and not the best way to train your dog - to relinquish items or anything else.

 
Let's say that in a pack of wolves there is a member that grabbed the best piece of meat after hunting a deer and that member is not the alpha, how do you think the alpha would act towards someone that was not respecting the pack rules and didnt wait for the alpha to eat first? let's say that the alpha saw something and step away from the meat for a moment thinking it was a bear but it was not, comes back to keep eating, should the alpha then wait for the others to finish or the alpha lost his place and has to wait?

ORIGINAL: espencer

Let's say that in a pack of wolves there is a member that grabbed the best piece of meat after hunting a deer and that member is not the alpha, how do you think the alpha would act towards someone that was not respecting the pack rules and didnt wait for the alpha to eat first?

 
It is impossible for a human to emulate the reaction an alpha is likely to display in that scenario.  It's true that there is a strict order at feeding time and watch out ANYONE who jumps the queue.  The aggression is astonishingly forceful yet at the same time somehow emotionless.  A human's botched attempt at this canine language, particularly coming from an inexperieced handler, is more likely to confuse or aggravate the animal.  I do believe that it is dangerous for us humans to attempt to emulate this aspect of canine behaviour and that in any case it is needless, as we can successfully demonstrate leadership in other ways.
 

ORIGINAL: espencer

let's say that the alpha saw something and step away from the meat for a moment thinking it was a bear but it was not, comes back to keep eating, should the alpha then wait for the others to finish or the alpha lost his place and has to wait?

 
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here.  If you mean what I think you mean, then I have not personally seen this happen, so can only speculate - and I'm guessing that you haven't seen it happen and are likely to be speculating too, in which case any argument along this line is not going to be based on any kind of fact or evidence and will be a bit of a waste of time.  In fact if that were true, I could argue that there is no solid evidence that such a thing does happen, that by extrapolating the scenario logically we could see it is extremely unlikely to happen and therefore this line of argument is completely redundant. 
 
HOWEVER there is a kind of checklist in a dog's mental state - certain things have to happen before other things.  (This bit is researched fact and not my opinion or speculation)  A dog will not settle down to eat if he does not feel safe - which is why many dogs go off their food when they go to a new home.  Many times an owner thinks they can counter condition a dog to accept something he is scared of by bringing him to face it and offering food rewards but the dog is disinterested in the treats on offer and still stressed by the threat - even if he is a very food motivated dog and the treat value is high.  This is because he has been brought too close to the object too soon and his fear of the threat overcomes his natural motivation by food.  He is in a dangerous situation and will not let his guard down to eat, so the food reward is useless.  [This can be solved by a. provided sound leadership, b. offering a higher value reward to distract him and build a +ve assoc and c. back up a few paces and go slower - but this is o/t]
 
THEREFORE my guess is that a pack similarly will not let their guard down to eat unless they are reasonably sure they are safe first.  The fact is that any threat is a threat to the whole pack and not just the "alpha" (albeit he is in the "front line").  So, logically, none of the pack would feel safe to let their guard down and eat while his back was turned.  Secondly, part of the alpha theory is that a pack will back up the actions of their leader to the absolute hilt, which is why owners of scared dogs are advised to remain aloof, calm and unbothered by any supposed threat.  If they are giving their dog consistent leadership signals, he will take his cue from the owner.  Thus, if the "alpha" ignores the threat and continues eating, the rest of pack also ignore the threat.  But if he does not and takes action, then again they all follow suit.  Neither of these outcomes leaves room for grab a quick bite while the "alpha's" back is turned.  Which is why I believe it is extremely unlikely to happen in the wild and therefore not necessary to try to apply in the home.

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

It is impossible for a human to emulate the reaction an alpha is likely to display in that scenario.  It's true that there is a strict order at feeding time and watch out ANYONE who jumps the queue.  The aggression is astonishingly forceful yet at the same time somehow emotionless.  A human's botched attempt at this canine language, particularly coming from an inexperieced handler, is more likely to confuse or aggravate the animal.  I do believe that it is dangerous for us humans to attempt to emulate this aspect of canine behaviour and that in any case it is needless, as we can successfully demonstrate leadership in other ways.

 
I believe a human can "emulate" an alpha behavior and i agree that if is somebody without experience has big chances to bring emotions that will make the dog realize he is still able to "fight" for the toy, food or whatever he is holding
 

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

then I have not personally seen this happen, so can only speculate - and I'm guessing that you haven't seen it happen and are likely to be speculating too, in which case any argument along this line is not going to be based on any kind of fact or evidence and will be a bit of a waste of time.  In fact if that were true, I could argue that there is no solid evidence that such a thing does happen, that by extrapolating the scenario logically we could see it is extremely unlikely to happen and therefore this line of argument is completely redundant. 

 
Well then we can say the same about alphas not claiming back things and leave them to the followers

ORIGINAL: espencer

I believe a human can "emulate" an alpha behavior

 
Yes of course we can - what I was getting at is that there are some we can emulate safely.  Interrupting feeding time is NOT a safe way to do this.  In any case, you can demontrate your status just as (if not more) effectively to the dog by being a provider of food, rather than one who takes food away.  Plus, taking a dog's food bowl away actually convinces him of the need to guard it, rather than teaching hi to be relaxed around food.
 

ORIGINAL: espencer

 that if is somebody without experience has big chances to bring emotions

 
I'm afraid I don't understand this bit at all, sorry.
 

ORIGINAL: espencer

Well then we can say the same about alphas not claiming back things and leave them to the followers

 
Er no.  There is plenty of observational evidence to support the theory that there is a strict order at feeding time, and that once an animal walks away from the kill, he signals he is satisfied and it's OK for someone else to take their turn.  There is no observational evidence (that I know of) to support the theory that any higher ranking animal in the wild would return to the kill to "prove a point". 
 
I have seen some pet dogs display this kind of behaviour - walking away from his bowl but running up and barking or snarling if anyone approaches it.  However, each of these without exception showed signs of stress and anxiety and were clearly not coping with the role their owners had inadvertantly given them.  They were completely inadequate for the role of "alpha" and very insecure about it and thus the need to make a point - such an individual would not attain alpha status in the wild.  Would you want to emulate the behaviour of an insecure and inadequate alpha who would not naturally attain this status? 

So i guess we agree that an inexperienced owner that could be sending insecurity emotions to the dog should not try this at home and that the TV show should put more emphasis about being a dangerous situation instead of just a "dont try this at home" disclaimer

and I'm guessing that you haven't seen it happen and are likely to be speculating too, in which case any argument along this line is not going to be based on any kind of fact or evidence and will be a bit of a waste of time.

 
I've seen it happen during mating season, when the alphas need the best nutrition to keep breeding. The younger wolves are coming into adolescence and challenging and the fights get pretty mean. Alpha retains by brute force, when necessary. That is the young'uns try to get in there and get the first bite of meat and the alpha fights them to the point of submission to retain position. Eventually, some of the young ones may split off and start their own pack.
 
This was shown in a documentary but since it flies on the face of the belief that wolves don't fight to maintain alpha, it is usually rejected here, even though it's documented evidence. Documented evidence from researchers that were actually there, rather than pontificating on it from their desk at a university.
 

ORIGINAL: ron2

the young'uns try to get in there and get the first bite of meat and the alpha fights them to the point of submission to retain position.

 
Its reasonably widely accepted that the alphas eat first and will react aggressively to any pack member who attempts to jump the queue - its fairly well documented that at times when the pack is adjusting this does happen and as I said in my earlier post, the aggression displayed is shockingly forceful. 
 
What I'm dubious about is the theory that an alpha can and will go back after he has walked away and interrupt a lower ranked members' feeding to underline his own status - is that what you are describing? 

What I'm dubious about is the theory that an alpha can and will go back after he has walked away and interrupt a lower ranked members' feeding to underline his own status - is that what you are describing?

 
That has happened, too. After a scuffle, the alpha went back to eating, then stopped, went after the challenger again. No, it doesn't happen every day, but it can and will happen when necessary.

In reply to espencer - it definately needs to be highlighted much more clearly just how dangerous and unnecessary the techniques are and that CM isn't using them because its the best approach or the only way to fix a given problem, but because it makes for interesting and, (in a sick kind of way) "exciting" viewing because the methods are so confrontational and the individual dogs used are often so volatile.
 
In reply to ron2 - The only time I have seen it happen is against an intruder on the pack, not against another pack member - or in pet dogs who are not natural alphas and are insecure in the role.  My first thought is that if it happens only relatively rarely I'd question how applicable it is in the home environment and (crucially) whether we as humans are capable of judging just when to use it.  For instance, you say it was "after a scuffle".  Is that the norm and if so how is this applicable at home?  What kind of "scuffle" might there be at mealtimes resulting in the necessity to apply this?  Another crucial factor is: what was the reaction of the "challenger"?  As to the "applicability" (is that even a word?) of this dcoumented bhvr, well I'll have to reserve judgement until I find out more for myself, but I am still unconvinced that humans are capable of mimicking the bhvr seen at these times accurately or (more importantly) safely - and the risk, however big or small, is not necessary to take. 
 
Again going back to OP a bit - if CMs methods are based on the "wolf pack", and in the wolf pack the alpha ALWAYS eats first, then why does he not eat something before putting the dog's food down?  Why does he ignore this part of the process (which always happens and is easy and safe to copy)  and instead choose to interrupt the dogs feed (which, as you said yourself "doesn't happen every day" and when it does "the fights can get pretty mean") ??  Or does he do this/advise the owners to do it but it was shown in earlier programmes which I missed?