alpha roll....

[shazbot]

I know the alpha roll is a bad thing...I'm wondering why.


no I don't use it on my dogs. I'm just curious.

[silverpawz]

It's a good way to get bitten. My concern abut this method isn't so much for the dog, there are far worse things that can happen than being held down.

But for the humans it's pretty much asking for a bite. I can't count the number of times I've worked with people who tried to roll their aggressive dogs and ended up with some nice teeth marks to show for it.

There are better ways to get your point across, ways that are safer for everyone and actually more effective.

[shazbot]

curious why its so contiversial

[oc_spirit]

I dont agree with it because honestly (and I have people with many more years of dog experience than me who will back me up on this) alpha dogs do not force other dogs on to their back. The subordinate dog is the one who willingly will roll over in submission. Yes you will see dogs pushing eachother with their chest and yes the top dog will stand over and even bow into the lower dog when it is on its back but it does not actually force the dog to roll over. The "alpha roll" does nothing but scare/confuse the dog which as posted above, can very easily and quickly result in a bite.

[shazbot]

I've heard that in the wild if a wolf were to forcefully roll another that they intend to kill...is that true? If so what a horrible thought for domestic dogs when their owners do that to them.

[RD]

What OC said. I have never seen adult dogs roll one another over by force as a gesture of dominance.

I have seen it with my own dog and the puppies he's "trained". If a pup did something wrong or didn't listen to me, Dakota would shove them with his nose. I'm not sure if he rolled them over by himself, or if they just immediately collapsed when he touched them.

I don't believe that humans can accurately mimic dog behavior in order to get their point across. Something that is as obviously complex and psychological as the alpha roll is not something that I feel humans should do to their dogs.

I've never observed wolves in a pack, but I've observed dogs and I think the only time a dog would roll another onto its back would be either in play or in a brutal attack. If the dog interprets it as the latter I believe that they *will* fight back and it'll end in a bite.

I was actually just watching this on the Dog Whisperer . . . A Jindo was very well behaved indoors until the guy tried to roll him over on his back. Being forced into such a vulnerable position is very threatening to a dog. It doesn't accomplish anything and it doesn't enforce leadership, it just scares and upsets them if they aren't conditioned to accept and like that kind of handling.

Do I roll my dogs over onto their backs? All the time. But they know me, they trust me and they respect me as the leader. I'm doing this with their trust and consent, not forcing them into an uncomfortable position.

[CanadianK9]

I've heard that in the wild if a wolf were to forcefully roll another that they intend to kill...is that true? If so what a horrible thought for domestic dogs when their owners do that to them.


No thats a farce, the rollover is a sign of appeasement from the one that is rolled over, not aggression from the roller

And besides, your dog is WELL aware you arent a canid, so doing something like this would most likely just make your dog confused, display fear, aggression, or distrust in you.

[shazbot]

No thats a farce, the rollover is a sign of appeasement from the one that is rolled over, not aggression from the roller


yes in an alpah roll, the submissive one willingly rolls over...

I heard that if it is forcefully done by the dominant one that it's meant to be an attack of some sort or even to kill. (not an alpha roll)



edited to add a link to a page I found...now it all makes sense as to why the alpha roll is so bad...this is an excerpt from the page "A wolf would flip another wolf against his will ONLY if he were planning to kill it. Can you imagine what a forced alpha roll does to the psyche of our dogs?"

Found about a 1/3 of the way down the page

http://www.bogartsdaddy.com/Bouvier/Training/alpha-roll_no.htm

[tessa_s212]

I would also steer clear of anyone that does any kind of "ruff shaking"(picking dog practically off the floor by the top of the neck/sides of the neck and just start shaking it harshly).

Alpha rolling, ruff shaking, whether other ignorant people see it or not, is ABUSE in my eyes.

[whatszmatter]

I have seen dogs alpha roll each other, it happens. They look like Greco roman wrestlers sweeping legs and driving the other dog to the ground, and it ain't pretty, especially the struggle of the dog being rolled to get back up. It usually doesn't happen again between two dogs, once is enough.

The most dangerous thing about humans doing it, is that it's a good way to get bit.

[GSDluver4lyfe]

I have seen dogs alpha roll each other, it happens. They look like Greco roman wrestlers sweeping legs and driving the other dog to the ground, and it ain't pretty, especially the struggle of the dog being rolled to get back up. It usually doesn't happen again between two dogs, once is enough.

The most dangerous thing about humans doing it, is that it's a good way to get bit.

Yeah I've seen it too. For example When my trainer was letting her dogs out (I was with her) at her house she let her 4 year old out (Ryot's dad) and her 12 month old pup out together. Both intact males. They were always fine together because Bentley was alpha and no one challenged him. Until that day, that is. her pup decided he was going to be alpha, and the next thing we know, Jay (the pup) is running towards the house with Bentley right behind him throwing him to the ground. It was an interesting sight, he was just rolling all over the place, and he had the "oh shyt" look on his face. Since then they havent been able to be together because Jay insists on being alpha, and when you have more than one alpha male, you WILL have fights if they are allowed to run together.

[sam]

For the OP a good article about alpha rolls by Ian Dunbar

http://www.bogartsdaddy.com/bouvier/Training/alpha-roll_no.htm

[shazbot]

For the OP a good article about alpha rolls by Ian Dunbar

http://www.bogartsdaddy.com/bouvier/Training/alpha-roll_no.htm


I posted that link last night...

[RedyreRottweilers]

I have observed adult Rottweilers communicate their dominance to puppies or other subordinants on numerous occasions.

They DO NOT roll each other. The dominant dog will body slam the subordinant from the front/side with very upright body posture, lots of teeth showing, and lots of noise, and the subordinant will fall to the ground to grovel.

Sometimes the dominant dog will cover the subordinant at this point with lots of LOUD growling, posturing, snapping etc. Looks and sounds awful. Never had one get up with a scratch on it.

I have also seen dominant bitches lay right on top of brat puppies with the same snarling noisy teeth showing display.

Rolling a dog is a useless exercise that is likely to get a less skilled handler bitten. Not adviseable for ANYONE to do, as far as I am concerned.

[J's crew]

I agree with the above. The only rolling that is done, is done by choice by the less dominate one (if there is one).

[shazbot]

I wasn't asking if I should do it, I was just curiuos why it's so controversial.

[Zoom]

It's controversial because there are a bunch of old-school trainers out there saying that it's the best way to show dominance over your dog and advocate rolling a highly aroused dog that isn't listening to as a way to force it into their heads that they have to listen to you. It sprang up after some researchers misinterpreted some wolf-behavior and said that it was an effective tool.

Most trainers these days understand that it's an outdated piece of information at best and potentially harmful to both human and dog at the worst. I worked under one lady for awhile who advocated alpha rolling, but only on very difficult or dominant puppies, because "you" were still that much bigger than the dog so the risk of injury to you was lessened. :rollyes:

[sam]

I posted that link last night...

DOH! I didn't see that.

[shazbot]

DOH! I didn't see that.



lol...no biggie :)

[otch1]

Great posts... for some of us who've been training as long as we have, we first learned these methods for our mentors. They are "old school' and detrimental to the progression of your dogs training. Most of us now know better, as many have posted. Even Ian Dunbar!

[IliamnasQuest]

For one dog to "alpha roll" another, it would have to physically grab the other dog and flip it over. Most of what people are describing as alpha rolls are simply one dog showing dominance and the other submitting to that dominance. That's not an alpha rollover - the AR is something made up by humans and is not a real natural dog behavior. It's been used against dogs showing some sort of dominance and often includes holding down a snarling, struggling dog that is NOT showing any willing submissiveness. In fact, when I was taught to use this (some 17 years ago now) we were to hold our dogs down until they "submitted" which could take some time. After all, we just threw our dogs to the floor, flipped them over and were now towering over them aggressively (often yelling into their faces). It was not a pretty sight.

There are a few problems with the alpha roll. One is that it puts the person in a huge danger of getting bit. If you have a truly dominant dog - or if you have a fear aggressive dog, which is more common - then flipping that dog onto its back is only going to create a dominant or fearful reaction. It doesn't prove to your dog that you're more dominant, and in a dog with fear-based behavior it can and will INCREASE the fear which sets your dog up for further aggression.

I've also seen some of the long-term effects that the alpha roll can produce. Since it was often used for any sign of "dominance" (which we humans interpret as growling, lifting a lip, hackling up, lunging, etc.) it often taught dogs to hide those signs. I've seen dogs that outwardly appeared docile and accepting suddenly erupt in a frenzy of aggression and it was caused by people who thought that the alpha roll would "teach" the dog to be submissive. Instead, it just taught the dog to hide their aggression until they just couldn't hold it in. Of course, not all dogs did this - and since it appeared to work initially, it continued to be accepted for a long time.

With the information readily available about dog behavior, use of reinforcement tools, good training methods, etc. - it's a travesty to promote something as archaic and dangerous as the alpha roll. While I think there is a place for some physical correction, trying to use it as a means to make another dog submissive is a huge mistake. Any trainer who still depends on the alpha rollover has proven that they are not very knowledgeable about dog behavior and are just trying to use a form of force instead. There are much better methods available even for aggressive dogs.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

[sam]

I agree with Melanie.
If you have to use physical force and domination to control your dog's behavior, than he knows you're not a true alpha but actually more of a similarly ranked beta animal- they are the ones having the physical disputes. It would be better termed a 'beta roll' for that reason. It's not surprising if you set yourself up as a competitor with your dog that he will eventually fight back using their stregth, speed and big teeth.
It makes more sense to be a leader who controls the resources and can control the situation without needing to rely on physical force or domination - that's where training and management come in.

Here's a great article about David Mech's wolf studies as they relate to dominance and hierarchy. I thought it was really interesting.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/wolf_mech_dominance_alpha_status.htm

[whatszmatter]

dave mech has done his research, but some things are very obvious to me that necessarily do NOT outdate nor render earlier studies outdated and useless, in fact they seem to be strengthened by his work.

One, pack dynamics are more fluid and not as rigid as once thought, that is true. His work shows there is still use of dominance and sumbission, either by psychological measures or physical ones.

He shows that aren't done as much as they thought, but there is one large difference. He's studying ONE pack. Granted some members come and go, and usually cause they know they aren't going to be the leader and want to be so they leave and start their own, or they don't feel the need to be a part of the pack. pack drive does vary from dog to dog and wolf to wolf, just like any other drive.

Wouldn't any similiar family dynamic have less outward display of uneasiness? Humans, dogs, wolves, chimps, etc. The young grow up respecting the boundaries, physical or mental displays are more subtle as they grow up because they can be, its been that way from the beginning for them, just like with any other family or "pack". Elders no when their time has come to pass the reigns, most of the time and allow younger stronger to move in, sometimes they aren't.

THe older studies were with unrelated adults struggling for status. Just like anything else. Take teenagers raised with no boundaries or "pack" structure. Put them in a new school, a new family with teenagers or adults that they don't respect, never learned to, never had to, what do you think the outcome would be a lot of the times?

There are varying degrees of this, some people don't push hard for rank or status, just like some dogs don't and some do, or some wolves don't and some do.

Its also been shown by him or by others that pushing rank too much will be dealt with severly and harshly, and either is over with and the pack moves on, the offender leaves and the pack goes on, or the offender can be killed.

and please don't construe this to be that I advocate alpha rolls, I think its a good way to get bit

[sam]

dave mech has done his research, but some things are very obvious to me that necessarily do NOT outdate nor render earlier studies outdated and useless, in fact they seem to be strengthened by his work.

One, pack dynamics are more fluid and not as rigid as once thought, that is true. His work shows there is still use of dominance and sumbission, either by psychological measures or physical ones.

He shows that aren't done as much as they thought, but there is one large difference. He's studying ONE pack. Granted some members come and go, and usually cause they know they aren't going to be the leader and want to be so they leave and start their own, or they don't feel the need to be a part of the pack. pack drive does vary from dog to dog and wolf to wolf, just like any other drive.

Wouldn't any similiar family dynamic have less outward display of uneasiness? Humans, dogs, wolves, chimps, etc. The young grow up respecting the boundaries, physical or mental displays are more subtle as they grow up because they can be, its been that way from the beginning for them, just like with any other family or "pack". Elders no when their time has come to pass the reigns, most of the time and allow younger stronger to move in, sometimes they aren't.

THe older studies were with unrelated adults struggling for status. Just like anything else. Take teenagers raised with no boundaries or "pack" structure. Put them in a new school, a new family with teenagers or adults that they don't respect, never learned to, never had to, what do you think the outcome would be a lot of the times?

There are varying degrees of this, some people don't push hard for rank or status, just like some dogs don't and some do, or some wolves don't and some do.

Its also been shown by him or by others that pushing rank too much will be dealt with severly and harshly, and either is over with and the pack moves on, the offender leaves and the pack goes on, or the offender can be killed.

and please don't construe this to be that I advocate alpha rolls, I think its a good way to get bit

I'm not sure if I know what you're asking or what point you're making but I agree with everything you've said- or at least I think I do.

Hierarchy certainly exists and in a normal wolf pack it's much like a family- a Mom, Dad and kids each having a role to play and eventually the kids move on and create their own family. As the kids get older and more of a PIA, it's probably nearing the time for them to go off on their own.

Obviously as you say, with the old studies that were mostly groups of juvenile wolves, there would be much more tension, power struggles, much more physical fighting. Some dogs/wolves might even be killed or forced out where they might die of starvation. Lots of tension and settling disputes by physical means doesn't tend to lead to any sort of respectful harmonious pack order. All the more proof that it's not the best way to assert yourself as a leader- it's how members of CLOSE rank settle disputes not like how a true alpha does. I don't want to set things up that indicate to my dog that we are in a struggle for leader ship so physically dominating him isn't going to be my choice - being smarter, being in control, looking fater his needs and setting a good example , letting him relax and enjoy being the dog is what I'm going to do.

I think there certainly ARE dogs who are status seeking and owners that inadvertently teach the dog that they are in charge. It's just as dangerous to me to say dogs are NEVER statud seeking and NOTHING is about dominance or hierarchy as it is to make EVERYTING about dominance. Bottom line thougfh, I see lots more of people attributing problems to staus seeking or "dominance" that have nothing to do with that and is really just an untrained often normal, happy exubrant dog just being a dog and needs to be taught some manners and how to behave. The dog isn't trying to be "dominant" or trying to be "bad". They just don't know any better and their owners haven't been very good at tecahing them. When those owners are told that these issues are dominance and the dog is disrespecting thier leadership and the means to cxahnge that is to physically dominate the dog, boy can things get scary fast. The dogs gets all kinds of mixed messages and things can get ugly. Eve when the don't get ugly, using alpha rolls, scruff shakes, making a whole lotta fuss about who eats first , who walks through doors first might subdue a dog to some degree but they never really get very far interms of tecahing a dog how to behave and having a wll trained dog. worse case is peole hurt and dogs get euthanised. The saddest thing is it's al so UNNECESSARY! There's no need for it.

I don't find that I need to physically dominate my dogs or use really any physical corrections. I train with my brain, by controling the resources and making sure the behaviors I want to see "work" and what I don't like doesn't ever "work" and will disappear. I do lots of things to tecah my dogs self control and that doing things MY way is in their best interest. I train hard to have well behaved dogs I can take anywhere and compete in multiple venues with.
I also think that many dogs live in groups of four dogs or even more in a family and don't have a clear linear hierarchy. Certain dogs may care more about beds or bones and all dogs might do some amount of resource guarding from each other for prized possessions. Obviously that's not always the case and their may indeed be an alpha bitch or alpha dog. I certainly see that with my two-- there is no clear top dog. One always goes through the door first because she is hyper and excited but she isn't able to take food away from Sammy IF he decides he wants it. If I toss food between then it's a toss up who will get it.
Dogs living in a human family don't live the same way they might in a true pack where food may be scarce at times and reproductive rights are at issue.

I think it's useful to look at wolf pack studies and have a better understanding of their behavior but I don't think I need to use a wolf's means to communicate with or train my dog. I also think the Coppingers work that shows that today's dogs probably didn't evolve from wolves is very compelling. There are some distinct and important differences between dogs and wolved bith wild and domesticated.

The biggest point to me though is what we do with this information and what it means in terms of living with and training our pet dogs? I think if more people understood that a true alpha doesn't throw his weight around, doesn't use gratuitous physical force and is actually often loving and playful with the younger dogs it would change how people feel they need to behave towards their dogs and that would be a good thing.

I am a convert to positive training and the results I've had with my dogs far exceeds what I could achieve with my old methods. I didn't switch because I was a bleeding herat who couldn't stomach physically correcting a dog. Heck I have no problem using spurs and a crop when need be in show jumping. I use the methods I do because they WORK better. There's now lots of good scientific proof of that. I also find it much more fun for the dogs and for me and it sets things up so that my dogs LOVE to work, they THINK and TRY so hard because if they get it wrong they won't be corrected. That way they can keep trying and keep offering behaviors and they learn so fast. Dogs who get corrected for offering the wrong behavior tend to use their brains less and sort of just go along. People who use physical corrections also are more focused on the wrong behavior because it's how you teach the dog what the right behavior is and it's much more frustarting for the trainer. It's amazing how much the dynamic changes when you take the force or "you HAVE to" and make it a dogs choice. Dogs are such a trainable, biddable species, typically so easy to motivate and their world's are so simple so easy to manipulate and control. I just don't see any need to use physical corrections to teach anything anymore. I can't imagine why anyone would feel the need use methods that intimidate, scare, startle or hurt dogs in an effort to train them or even to elevate the people into a leader position or lower the dog's rank. There are simply better, more effective ways.Also, "positive training" doesn't for a second mean permissive training or letting the dog get away with any type of "bad" behavior.

Steps certainly need to be taken if you do end up with a dog who sees himself as the alpha which may result in a dangerous situation with biting and more. We saw lots of those case studies at the aggression seminar a few months back and none of the strategies to change that situation and show the dog what their rank is involved physical force. They did involve changing the dogs whole world and what "worked".

I hope I haven't taken this way off topic. This is certainly an important topic in dog training, dog ownership and one that I feel merits lots of discussion.

[GSDluver4lyfe]

Well, Melanie, MY definition of an alpha roll is ANY gesture forcing a dog to submit. Whether that be hitting them to the floor, standing over them, or MAKING them do any sort of submissive behavior. Just my opinion of what an alpha roll means.

[IliamnasQuest]

Well, Melanie, MY definition of an alpha roll is ANY gesture forcing a dog to submit. Whether that be hitting them to the floor, standing over them, or MAKING them do any sort of submissive behavior. Just my opinion of what an alpha roll means.

Well, that may be YOUR definition but it isn't how the alpha roll is meant in dog training. They don't call it alpha hitting or alpha standing over them - it's a physical rolling over of the dog, generally done by grabbing them by the neck area and flipping them over onto their backs. Dogs don't tend to do this. They may act dominant and the other dog may roll onto its back submissively, or they may fight until one dog gives in, but it's not the same as actually flipping a dog that is in aggressive or fear mode and holding them down as the dog struggles. The alpha roll as understood in dog training is very much a human thing and NOT a dog thing.

Dogs have their own ways of offering dominance and submission, and unfortunately the old-type trainers never bothered to actually learn what those are. They simply took one thing that allowed them to use force in a way that appeared successful, and they made that into a "method". And dogs have suffered for it for years.

I roll my dogs all the time, from when they're puppies to when they're old dogs. It's not done forcefully, and I even teach them a command so they can relax and give in without feeling stressed and unhappy about it. My middle chow was 14 months old when she came to live with me and I can guarantee she would have bitten anyone who tried to "alpha roll" her. And yet, with gentler methods, she learned to accept my positioning of her in any way I chose (even though she was very uncomfortable initially about rolling onto her back for me). I could have been forceful and pushed the issue at first, but why? It would not have helped our bonding or our relationship. By teaching her to trust me first, and then to accept my leadership we have developed something really enjoyable between us.

And in my little group of five bitches, I've seen Trick push Dora down at times (Trick being my older shepherd, Dora is the middle chow) in a dominant act. But it's never a matter of grabbing her and flipping her over. Just yesterday Trick thought Dora and the young chow were playing too rough, so she pushed between them and then with one paw shoved Dora to the ground briefly. Dora submitted and laid there for a minute. There was no dominance struggle like there is in the human version. It was merely a quick "hey, knock it off, that's too much" and it was over.

By the way, "GSDluver" .. weren't you banned?

Melanie and the gang in Alaska