It finally happened

[Karfae69]

We took off for Memorial Day weekend to our local favorite spot. We got checked in and took our dog over to the dog walk area. Our dog a Amstaff with already a flag(because of how she looks) on her met another dog on a leash. There was growling and both dogs reacted, no bites but stage was set. Next morning heading to the beach ran into the 2 week new hire who asked what happened. Had a talk on how both dogs reacted but no harm. Made a great effort to explain that the dogs just did not get along. Was told that other owners stated that "dog was distraught all night", here we go. Fast forward an hour call from local manager as we have had a incident. Again try to explain was nothing serious, our dog has a history there over 3 years of great behavior and both dogs acted up. Letting dogs meet on leash nose to nose was our mistake(both owners). I knew where this was headed and next came the "what if it was a small child?" line and your dog is a pit bull, went downhill from there. So from a grumpy moment at a dog walk we went to your dog may maul a child. I asked if we needed to leave which was requested. Luckily a place nearby that knows us and our dog welcomed us and had space. So this Army vet packed up and moved on. The lesson here is to not put your dog in a position to fail. I should have recognized that the other owner was letting his dog too much in my dogs space rather than letting dogs do what they do, sniff rear ends first. Everyone wants their dog to be buddies with other dogs, do it right.

[Dog_Folks]

Sorry Pawz4me. Your first link discusses the theory that dogs broke off from wolves earlier than thought. Not that they were never part of the same evolutionary chain.

The writer is NOT a scientist per say, although she has a degree in Geology. She is a science writer. There were no references to where this information came from.

Your second link is a BLOG for crying out loud. That is NOT science, no matter what they call their blog.

A snippet from your third link:"Finally, AVSAB points out that while aggression
between both domesticated and wild animals can be related to the desire to attain higher rank and thus priority access to resources, there
are many other causes. What do you call this? Not dominance?

When two dogs meet, and the aggression arises, and a fight begins, just what are you going to call it? What is the reason for this, if not dominance?

Use of dominance in the human/dog relationship and dog training is outdated and inappropriate. See my post above for further information.

We are getting caught up in schematics.

Regardless, my dogs don't need "friends" other than their own pack members, and they are not allowed to do meet and greet with strange dogs for the reasons I have outlined here earlier.

Everyone has their own opinions, this is mine.

[Pawz4me]

Regarding the debunking of alpha/dominance theory -- here are a few quick links. Not as thorough as I would like to be, but I'm up to my eyeballs in playing catch up (we were gone all last week). I can add more later if anyone is interested. The information is easily found in a Google search. There are many reputable sources that support and elaborate on the following information.

The crux of the issues with alpha/dominance theory comes down to two basic points:

1. Dogs are not directly descended from wolves. They shared a common ancestor that became extinct. The most recent research I've seen indicates that wolves and dogs split from their common ancestor into distinct species at least 27,000 years ago.

Link

Genetic evidence from an ancient wolf bone discovered lying on the tundra in Siberia's Taimyr Peninsula reveals that wolves and dogs split from their common ancestor at least 27,000 years ago. "Although separation isn't the same as domestication, this opens up the possibility that domestication occurred much earlier than we thought before," said lead study author Pontus Skoglund, who studies ancient DNA at Harvard Medical School and the Broad Institute in Massachusetts. Previously, scientists had pegged the wolf-dog split at no earlier than 16,000 years ago.

So . . . dogs are not wolves, nor did they descend directly from wolves. They are distinct species that split many thousands of years ago. Modern wolves have little in common with our pet dogs.

2. The original wolf studies that led to alpha/dominance theory were conducted beginning in the 1930s. And they were highly flawed due to one glaring problem -- all the wolves that were studied were captives who had been thrown together. They were totally artificial packs, nothing at all like the family packs that form among wild wolves. Researchers now know that left to their own devices wolf packs are family units consisting of a breeding pair and their offspring. What researchers noted among the family wolf packs was a natural hierarchy that is very much like a human family -- the parents are at the top of the totem pole, followed by oldest sibling and on down the line to the youngest sibling. And once researchers started studying naturally formed packs they realized that what they saw as far as behavior bore little to no resemblance to what they'd seen in the captive wolves and had labeled "alpha" or "dominant" behaviors.

Link

"The concept of the alpha wolf as a "top dog" ruling a group of similar-aged compatriots," Mech writes in the 1999 paper, "is particularly misleading." Mech notes that earlier papers, such as M.W. Fox's "Socio-ecological implications of individual differences in wolf litters: a developmental and evolutionary perspective," published in Behaviour in 1971, examined the potential of individual cubs to become alphas, implying that the wolves would someday live in packs in which some would become alphas and others would be subordinate pack members. However, Mech explains, his studies of wild wolves have found that wolves live in families: two parents along with their younger cubs. Wolves do not have an innate sense of rank; they are not born leaders or born followers. The "alphas" are simply what we would call in any other social group "parents." The offspring follow the parents as naturally as they would in any other species. No one has "won" a role as leader of the pack; the parents may assert dominance over the offspring by virtue of being the parents.

While the captive wolf studies saw unrelated adults living together in captivity, related, rather than unrelated, wolves travel together in the wild. Younger wolves do not overthrow the "alpha" to become the leader of the pack; as wolf pups grow older, they are dispersed from their parents' packs, pair off with other dispersed wolves, have pups, and thus form packs of their owns.

Further along in the above article, the author continues with this:

However, the outmoded idea of the "alpha wolf" still has some legs in a real-world area: dog training.

Just as, more than six decades ago, Schenkel extrapolated his wolf studies and applied them to domestic dogs, so too have many carried the notion of the "alpha wolf" over to dog training. Certainly, just as parent wolves hold dominance over their cubs and human parents hold dominance over their children, owners hold dominance over their dogs. Until my pup gets himself a credit card and a pair of opposable thumbs (and stops dissolving into delighted wiggles every time I tell him what a good little man he is), I'm pretty much the boss in our relationship. But some trainers take the idea of pack rank to the extreme; dog owners are given a laundry list of rules of how to maintain alpha status in all aspects of their relationship: Don't let your dog walk through the door before you do. Don't let her win a game of tug. Don't let him eat before you do. Some (famous) trainers even encourage acts of physical dominance that can be dangerous for lay people to execute. Much of this is a legacy of those old wolf studies, suggesting that we're in constant competition with our dogs for that pack leader position.

But, you might ask, mightn't domestic dogs behave much like wolves in captivity? Despite being members of the same species, wolves (even human-reared wolves) are behaviorally distinct from domestic dogs, especially when it comes to human beings. Take the famous experiment in which human-socialized wolves and domestic dogs are both presented with a cage with food inside. The food is placed inside a cage in a way that makes it impossible for either wolf or dog to retrieve it. The wolves will inevitably keep working at the cage, trying to puzzle out a way to remove the food. The dogs, after a few seconds of struggle, will look to a human as if to say, "Hey, buddy, a little help here?" Even if the hierarchical ranks were some innate part of lupine psychology, dogs have behaviors all their own.

For a summary of the problems with dominance theory from the honest to goodness true experts on dogs (veterinary behaviorists),
here is the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior position paper on dominance theory. Some snippets from the position paper:

Most unruly behaviors in dogs occur not out of the desire to gain higher
rank, but simply because the undesirable behaviors have been rewarded.

Despite the fact that advances in behavior research have modified our understanding of social hierarchies in wolves, many animal trainers continue to base their training methods on outdated perceptions of dominance theory.

While we can get ideas of the types of behaviors to study in dogs based on what we know about wolves, the best model for understanding domestic dogs is domestic dogs. Dogs have diverged significantly from wolves in the last 15,000
years. Ancestral wolves evolved as hunters and now generally live in packs consisting most often of family members (Mech 2000). Pack members cooperate to hunt and to take care of offspring. In a given year, generally only the alpha male and alpha female mate, so that the resources of the entire pack can be focused on their one litter. Dogs, on the other hand, evolved as scavengers rather than hunters (Coppinger and Coppinger 2002). Those who were the least fearful, compared to their human-shy counterparts, were best able to survive off the trash and waste of humans and reproduce in this environment. Currently,
free-roaming dogs live in small groups rather than cohesive packs, and in some cases spend much of their time alone (MacDonald and Carr 1995). They do not generally cooperate to hunt or to raise their offspring, and virtually all males and females have the opportunity to mate (Boitani et al. 1995). Marked differences in social systems, such as those just described, inevitably lead to notable differences in social behavior.

(Note that the AVSAB position paper was published in 2008. So the date they list for the split between dogs and wolves is more recent than the 27,000 years ago that the newest research indicates.)

[toedtoes]

The simple truth is that people lack COMMON SENSE. Common knowledge is only good if everyone accepts it and follows it. But people don't accept or follow common knowledge (I don't need to obedience train my dog because she's little; If I beat my dog, he will grow up mean and protect me and my family; my dog doesn't need to be on a leash because she's a nice dog; your dog won't bite me because he's a nice breed; and on and on). They ignore common knowledge and lack common sense.

[Farmerjon]

We don't allow our dogs to approach other dogs. We get off the path and let them pass. If the approaching dog is off leash we will get in front of our dogs. We don't want any surprise attacks. And we don't want people or dogs to be frightened by our dogs.
Camping and dogs should be pleasant experiences.

[Lantley]

Interesting informative topic. However the OP said it in his opening statement that allowing the 2 dogs to meet nose to nose was a mistake.
From the there the whole scenario went down hill. Unfortunately the OP was left holding the bag. Nevertheless the dogs should have not been allowed to get that close to each other. It seems there was some aggression between them which is always bad and not permissible in a CG setting.
I think we can all gain something from the OP's experience. and consider it a lesson learned.

[Deb_and_Ed_M]

Sporn harness

DonNH wrote:

I need to work more with him more on not pulling, as his first reaction is to pull hard to try to meet the other dog.

We just bought a condo in FL that is super dog-friendly; and most of the dogs we encounter are very well-socialized. Social butterfly Jimmy (35 lbs) will pull if he's near a friendly dog who's saying "Hi buddy! - let's play, ok??"

But my back isn't all that great nowadays, so even his puny pull is too much at times. I bought a Sporn Harness, which is easy to put on and seems comfy when he's wearing it - but it really DOES make them not pull.

[Deb_and_Ed_M]

I definitely think we need Dog Experts. I see too many people who simply can't "read" their dog's body language - and then when something happens, they do the WRONG reaction which further reinforces the bad thing to start with.

Example: I was just taking my dogs (Aussie and Cattle Dog) out the door (on leashes, of course) for a potty break, when we got charged by a loose Yorkie with a badboy attitude. I saw his owner a couple RV up the street, put my guys in a sit/stay - and I yelled "Call your dog or he's going to get hurt!" because the Cattle Dog was ready for action. I stepped in front of my dogs to punt the Yorkie if needed - but he stopped (I'm sure I was giving off a lot of bad juju....LOL!), still ignoring his owner completely. She finally got to our site, scooped him up in a huff, and then snarled something about MY aggressive dogs. Who were still sitting/staying, although the hackles on the Cattle Dog were raised so high he looked like a Stegoaurus....

So the lady managed to reinforce everything the Yorkie was doing wrong. It was OK to not listen; and her reaction indicated that he was right - MY dogs were clearly a threat. (smack my head) I didn't say anything - figured sooner or later little Mr Bada$$ was going to try to tear up the wrong dog....

[Dog_Folks]

Scottiemom wrote:
I agree that children need to be taught to NOT approach dogs.
Dale

Absolutely. All children should be taught bite avoidance. (There is no such thing as "bite-proofing")

They also should be taught anti-drowning techniques.

This would much more useful in life than passing some "standardized" test.

[Scottiemom]

I agree that children need to be taught to NOT approach dogs. Last weekend the campground was FULL with lots of kids running around in packs with no adult supervision. When we were out walking our dogs, I had a group of six little kids (oldest probably about 8-9) and they all rushed our dogs with the oldest one screaming, "Let him smell your hand first." Now my two Scotties are not typical Scotties with the normal temperament. . . they actually get along well with people and one really LOVES attention. The other is a bit skittish but neither will bite. She shied away a bit and I told the kids they should always ask permission first, but it was too late. They were already "hands on." No problem with my current dogs, but they were of the opinion it was okay to approach ANY dog as long as you let him "smell your hand first."

Dale

[Dog_Folks]

4X4Doger: Now there is some information we can agree upon!!!

Dog "experts" are measured by experience and results only. There are not many "degrees" because there not many mainstream colleges offering them. A degree has no indication of every day skills. I have a college degree that is mostly worthless in today's society.

There are some "certification" programs for dog trainers, mostly offered on line or by for profit "schools." I doubt their real value.

4X4Dodger said: "So I find it a bit curious that some have the attitude that somehow one persons ideas on dog behavior (sic) are automatically superior to mine or anyone elses(sic) for that matter."

Wow can't agree more, but that statement is true with many people, everywhere. It is very common on forums. "It is my way or you are wrong" seems to be a common attitude.

4X4Dodger said: "Don't we have enough DNA level experience by now and enough Common knowledge..lore (sic) if you like to suffice for managing this relationship?

Again, we agree IF there is common sense being used. Unfortunately common sense is not so common.

Dog trainers, house cleaners, and most service companies, exist not because people do not have the basic, or instinctive skills to complete the task at hand or the desire to gain the information needed. Rather, people choose, for whatever reason, to pay someone else to complete the task. And thankfully these people exist because that is how I made a very comfortable living my entire life. (Service businesses.)

Now don't get too comfortable. There are many other areas we still strongly disagree. :B :B That is O.K. and keeps life interesting.

Best of Luck to you.

[Go_Dogs]

"So I pose this question: Is there really any need for Dog Experts? Don't we have enough DNA level experience by now and enough Common knowledge..lore if you like to suffice for managing this relationship?"

Common knowledge???? I have seen SOOO many people that have no business; driving, using tools, having children, owning dogs, etc. Yes, the world could use a lot more people with some common knowledge!

It is not a given that because you acquired a dog, that you have some kind of innate, genetic knowledge of proper dog behavior!

[dturm]

So I pose this question: Is there really any need for Dog Experts? Don't we have enough DNA level experience by now and enough Common knowledge..lore if you like to suffice for managing this relationship?

When I see the results of so many poor judgements and lack of knowledge about canine behavior demonstrated over and over based on ignorance or bad information and old perceptions, YES there needs to be experts.

[4X4Dodger]

Dog Folks wrote:
4X4Dodger said: "First I prefaced my remarks with "With all due respect" and pointed out that I DID NOT know your background...So your prickly response is curious."

My "prickly response" was based upon your implied notion that I was not an expert when you made this statement: "most true animal/dog experts agree that dogs, like many other mammals due indeed have and need friends." As I disagree, by default, I am not an "true expert." I take offense to that. I suspect that you cannot substantiate that statement with any verifiable science and as such, is your opinion.

I still maintain that if there is an established pack with more than one dog, and some humans nixed in, the pack members do NOT need any more "friends."

If I was too thinned skinned, then I apologize to you and my fellow members here.

We have diametrically opposed life experiences and opinions on parts of this subject. (In other areas we actually agree.)

I am not going to change your mind nor are you going to change mine, and that is perfectly O.K. Further debate on this subject is pointless.

Happy camping my fellow camper.

Well just for the sake of good relations I will assume you are what you say you are. And I am not trying to change your mind. But if anyone can tell me with any degree of surety or point to a set of standards that makes one a "Dog Expert" than I am all ears. Short of a degree in Animal Behaviour I am not sure there are any.

Now I will never claim to be a "Dog Expert". But I have lived with dogs almost continually since I was 7 or 8 years old.(I am now 62) I have observed them closely in every possible situation. I have trained many to be excellent canine citizens that get along well with all other dogs, children, adults and animals. Most have been under voice control with no need of a leash, even in the close proximity of other dogs or animals. So I guess I feel that I am as qualified as anyone to have an opinion on dog behaviour. So I find it a bit curious that some have the attitude that somehow one persons ideas on dog behaviour are automatically superior to mine or anyone elses for that matter.

Having said that consider this please: Dogs have been living with man for about 16,000 years. There is evidence they have for far longer, as long as 20,000 years but this is less sure. In any event Man and Dog have been living in close quarters, sharing food, warmth and companionship for literally millions of generations. So I pose this question: Is there really any need for Dog Experts? Don't we have enough DNA level experience by now and enough Common knowledge..lore if you like to suffice for managing this relationship?

I think we do.

[Karfae69]

[DonNH]

Edit: double post