Right I think its been long enough for people to have an opinion on this or vote so as promised here is my interpretation (using appropriate sources) as to the dominance debate.

Im going to try and keep this high level but if anyone wants further detail or references then just ask.

To set the scene; in the 30's & 40's a couple of short term studies were undertaken on captive wolves (Canis Lupus) which (because of the short term of the studies) concentrated on the social interactions of these wolves specifically conflict resolution and determined that these wolves displayed a linear dominance hierarchy and that the top or Alpha wolves used physical and psychological force to maintain their position at the top.  Mitochondrial DNA does prove that the dog is descended from a wolf and because of this link the information found its way to dog people and the findings were then extrapolated to the domestic dog (Canis Familiaris) and owners were advised to reach and maintain alpha status over there dogs by implementing a rank reduction program and following pack rules to ensure there dogs maintain there place in the pack.  An example of a pack rule is the "always eat before the dog because an alpha always eats first" rule.  This theory was promoted in the 70's by eminent dog people of the time such as John Fisher in "think dog" or Bruce Fogle (Bens dad   ) in "Dogs mind" and carried forward by Jan Fennel and more recently by my mate Cesar.  The result is that this theory (note the word) is the most pervasive in dog training circles worldwide.

There is a big "but" however!  The science behind the theory is at best flawed and at worst rubbish.  Firstly wolves are not dogs and the validity of transfering research into wolves to dogs is questionable as the two are a different species and have evolved seperatly for at least 7000 years (studies range between 7000 & 135000 years).  Secondly the study of captive wolves leads to misrepresentations of the actual behaviour of wolves.  Captive wolf packs were unrelated individuals thrown together in a small area under great stress and with a lack of opportunity to carry out instinctive behaviour such as hunting and the close proximity of other wolfs led to excessive social displays which we now know to be ritualistic.  A typical wild wolf pack is a family unit consisting of the parents and their offspring and the parents can be seen to be dominant over the rest of the wolves due to the fact that they are the parents.  It is a myth that Alphas eat first, in any circumstance cubs will eat first and where there is sufficient food the family will eat together only if food is scarce will the breeders eat first and that is simply to maintain the physical ability to breed and carry on the species.  As well as that modern research shows that wolves activley defer to the parent wolf and rather than being a dominance hierarchy the pack is based on a submission hierarchy.  The same is true for captive wolf packs and captive dogs.

Looking at dogs then and there is very little evidence that dogs form packs or dominance hierarchies.  Jean Donaldson states that dogs do not form packs rather they form loose associations with other individuals.  Daniels and Beckoff in their studys of free ranging urban and rural dogs concluded that where dogs do group it is for short periods and that it is not in the dogs interests to form groups and that generally they are solitary animals.  Other studies are consistent in their findings that dogs are not packing animals and should certainly not be likened to wolves in this respect.  Therefore if dogs are not generally packing animals then we can question why we should treat them as such and wonder just what the dogs think when we act crazy and implement pack rules!! In pet homes of more than one dog any conflict occurs because of competion for resources (sleeping space, toy, food, human etc) that a dog finds valuable in that moment in time, ever doghas a right to defend its possessions  and this should not be confused with the dog being dominant.  The next minute the dog guarding the resource may find something else more valuable and leave the possesion to others that it would have previously defended.  As for dogs including humans in there plans for world domination there has been precious little research and no empirical evidence to suggest that they do and frankly given that dogs are not pack animals nor wolves it is highly unlikley that they would A) include us in any hierarchy and B) strive to usurp us in the hierarchy.

Its also worth noting that during the evolutionary/domestication process from wolf like animal to dog there was a genetic shift that rendered the dog genetically the age of a juvenile wolf, called "paedomorphism".  Bear in mind that gentics control learning and behaviour what we are left with in domestic dogs is an animal that has the gentic basis of a juvenile wolf.  Juvenile wolves do not excercise instinct to form a family until they are adults (over 2) so therefore we can conclude that dogs may not have a genetic basis to form packs.

I have missed loads out of that essay and there are things that might come to mind later but to summarise the argument.  The basis of the dominance theory is flawed and those people who follow it do not understand the social behaviour of the wolf, whose behaviour they use to condem the domestic dog.  There is also considerable evidence that dogs do not form packs but are solitary animals forming only loose associations with other dogs and that the control of resources in the here and now is far more important to a dog than being on top of an imaginary hierarchy.

Like I said at the top any references or further info is avaialble on request, ive missed loads so feel free to question anything within this.

Cheers,

Gregg

---