Alpha...shmalpha!!!!!!

See I really don't think you understand the concepts discussed. As Kayla mentioned it was a reward.

So a dog having sex is dominating one another? Or dogs playing are dominating? Bounce will hump Dash when they play, but if you put a cookie on the floor its his.

Dogs, unlike people, don't use sex to control. They might try to control to GET sex, but don't use it as a power play.

My Chis hump one another all the time. It's obviously part of their play or one suddenly gets horney. See....gotta tell you a secret. (don't tell anyone) They love each other sooooooo much, you just wouldn't believe it. There is never a time when one is trying to one-up the other about anything. One way they play is that they'll race through the livingroom, into the kitchen being all silly, play vocalizations etc. Then they'll come to a stop and Chuli will get this funny coy look to her...where she turns her head just a little, freezes and makes tiny, tiny, tiny little minute jerky movements/hops. One little hop and she'll do it again...and again, turn 1/4 turn and another little hop about 1/4 inch off the ground and nip playfully at Jose`'s neck, wagging her tail. Then race around in a circle, engaging her hind legs way under her. (a blur) Then she'll start humping him or he will her. It looks more like she's flirting than anything. Then off they go again playing tag. It's a scream to watch their antics. But there is never a competition thing with them about anything at all. They get along better than just about any dogs I've ever seen. They just like to hump each other.

More recent stuff I've read indicates that it probably isn't frequently a dominance thing, if at all. They think it's more about sex than formerly thought (the M word) and also used in play.

Sex or humping IS a primary reinforcer just like food. So, that explains why Jean Donaldson let a dog do this. It is a viable and valuable reinforcer. It's embarrassing to us because according to our culture, that is gross looking. But who are we to say what is okay for dogs? In using that as a reinforcer, it doesn't mean that the dog is going to hump whenever he pleases or take over Jean's world. Because Jean knows behavior, I'm sure she puts it on cue and so the dog only does this upon invitation.

There are a lot of myths about dominance that need to be thrown out with the garbage once and for all.

I personally don't LIKE my dogs humping so I discourage it. It just annoys me. Maybe they might LIKE to do it but my dogs aren't allowed to do EVERYTHING they like

If I thought my dogs' humping would lead to a squabble, I would discourage it. And in fact, when I think it's enough, I tell them "enough" and they stop. Jose` is significantly heavier than Chuli and sometimes I worry about him putting too much strain on her back or hips. All things in moderation. (well, not all) lol.

My dogs aren't allowed to do everything they like either. It's just that I see no harm in them engaging in doggie behaviors.....since they're dogs. I may not find it attractive. But I also see the value in letting dogs do dog things as long as no harm or behavior problems come of it. And I wouldn't allow them to do it to humans if they ever tried because I just wouldn't go for it and I wouldn't want to subject other people to that "obnoxious" behavior. So, that's where I'd draw the line....with humans. But it's no different than discouraging them from other obnoxious behaviors like pestering for attention.

Jeans dog was taught (gawd knows why) to hump her leg. This behavior happens for so many reasons. We used to think it was all about dominance but we know better now.

Edited to add - DOMINANCE...SCHMOMINANCE:rofl1:

Glad you got the German spelling in this time. Love it! LOL.

Doc...did you like my description of my SCHMOMINANT Chihuahuas? Does that behavior ring a bell for you? They love those dominatrix sex games. :rofl1:






Yes, that's what this article Doc posted discussed, was a main part of the article....that there are still some wolf biologists that are hanging onto this terminology but that it is evolving among other wolf biologists to lean more toward the concept of parent hood rather than "alpha." The point was in the article that it isn't necessary....doesn't add any useful information to label parents as alphas. Wolf packs aren't a bunch of adult wolves unknown to each other, coming together and having pressure to organize or "set up" a hierarchy by way of ritualistic displays and challenges. Wolf packs are family members with parents just like most animals in groups, including humans. Human parents and wolf parents teach their "kids" rules and boundaries, teach them lessons so they can grow up and cut the apron strings eventually. The term "alpha" has taken on additional meanings through the ages which denotes a lot of force, dominance and an intermittent but continual vying for top position on a hierarchy ladder. This is not what is happening in wolf families and certainly not in domestic dogs. Humans are great at jumping to conclusions. People see behaviors and instantly make up something that they would like to see as significant. Dominance, alpha, trying to climb some social ladder or trying to take over.

Dogs can have lousy, lousy behavior; pushy, nasty, bratty behavior. But that doesn't mean that they have some particular conscious agenda which has to do with hierarchy. (It's actually simply a lack of training). They may indeed wind up controlling their human family because of their behavior. But how can humans conclude that they have some logical, cognitive thing going on in their minds to plan and execute a take-over? That is just ridiculous to assume something like that with no evidence whatsoever. And all the labeling that goes on....all the guess work when certain body language or gestures are seen. Conclusions can not be made without going through a process. It is completely un parsimonious to skip over the process or steps involved before coming to a conclusion. And this is what the trouble with Cesar Milan is. He makes all kinds of rash statements about dogs where there is NO scientific substance, no process to rule out variables, nothing....not even common sense in a lot of his philosophy. Exercise, discipline, affection. Okay, I can go along with that. Great. Wow! What a revelation. Rffffffff.

Yes, that they do. I don't think anyone argues that point.

No, I get why Jean encouraged this behavior. :yikes:

Personally, I think she's a mentally unstable loon.

On the topic of "alpha". I don't use this term and prefer "leader".

Actually, the opposite is true. Isle Royale used "breeding pair" for a while, then switched back to "alphas" in the early 2000s.

It DOES add useful information. It tells you who is leading the pack without making assumptions about who is breeding--which might be multiple wolves. And wolf packs DO have long standing adult members who aren't alphas. They will also accept a wolf from a different pack occasionally, so it's not accurate to portray a wolf pack as "two parents plus pups." Trying to take on an 800 pound moose with only two veteran wolves and a bunch of one year old pups is a bad strategy for survival! Especially if one of those veteran wolves will be out of commission part of the year, giving birth and raising her pups.

It is a more flexible term in that it doesn't limit the leaders to being a) a pair and b) breeding. Now, in most cases the lead wolves will be a pair, and breeding. But not always. And in scientific papers you want to be as precise as possible. There is one pack on Isle Royale being led by two males and one female, and there's another pack on Isle Royale where the male alpha bred with the alpha female, but allowed his son to breed with a different female.

That's an extremely anthromorphic and romantic view of wolves. It would be more accurate to say that the alpha wolves prevent the younger wolves from breeding (usually--there are exceptions) until the young wolves either get sick of it and strike out on their own or decide to lump it and stay.

Whether you call them the breeding pair or the alpha or the parent wolves, the lead wolves are dominant. They reinforce their dominance in various ways, from the way they pee-mark to their reactions when another wolf shows interest in a female in heat. Trying to obfuscate this by trading one word for another is disingenous.

All very good stuff, and generally how I feel about the topic at hand. I think too many times people are so wanting to see things a certain way, they totally miss what else an article like his could be saying.

as for the Donaldson vid, that was weird. Good for her, sex isn't always about dominance, thanks for the insight. But man, sex as a reinforcer??? I'd hope you'd teach your dog to do something more impressive than that, and I"d make **** sure my dog wasn't humping me as I walked away if I was so good at putting things on cue.

I've done my fair share of reading about wolves and David Mech is considered the leading expert in wolf behavior as he's done long standing observations with a natural wolf pack. Most packs are mom, pa and kids and often two litters, an older litter and a new litter. There might be a daughter who is matriarchal. There's nothing anthropomorphic about that. It's just that it's more of a familial structure than not. It is atypical to have a group of a lot of non-related wolves in a pack. The young wolves typically grow up and disperse, making their own families. There are typical ages that they dispurse 1-2 yrs old, but some stay a little longer, sometimes till 4 yrs old or so. Yes, occassionally a stray is taken in. And very occassionally some unknown wolves will group together and form a larger pack than is the norm but that is rare.

Parent's by the sheer nature of the role will see to it that rules and boundaries are met, that they learn how to hunt and survive. They don't order as much as people have thought they do apparently. Breeding, rearing young and hunting large game is what they're most interested in..what is most ordered. They're not going around bossing everyone around constantly.

And the breeding pair may or may not be the only breeders. I still agree with and see the point Mech makes.... that using the term, "alpha" adds no more significance or important information than using the term breeding pair or parents. But the division of labor that goes on in a pack is important information.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about the significance of the terms. I do see a difference between the terms and I see what David Mech means.