Why do most people on here equate "Aggression" with "Dominance"?!?

Awesome question.

The simple answer = people make the assumptions that all "bad" behaviour is dominance related, and that dominance = aggression, simply because most people know nothing about dogs, nothing about animal (specifically dog) behaviour, how dogs learn etc.

And I agree Milan has a lot to do with it. Jo Public knew nothing about dog behaviour and training until the media made Cesar Milan popular to the masses. This would be great if Milan actually knew what he was talking about - unfortunately for both dogs and owners, he doesn't.

1) Most behaviour issues have NOTHING whatsoever to do with dominance.
The dog pulls on the lead - it has never been trained how to walk on a leash in a way that people find acceptable.
The dog steals food - they are scavengers! This is completely normal behaviour.
The dog jumps up - it is attention seeking. It is also a learned behaviour as the dog knows that jumping up gets attention (good or bad).
Dog food guards - it is insecure and doesn't trust you with its most important resource.

Thanks to Milan an co. people now assume that every single behaviour is the dog trying to take over. Rubbish.

2) Most of the methods to combat so called dominance (and emphasise the owners position as "alpha" are a waste of time. This is because they don't actually relate to dog behaviour.

The old dominance theory (and it IS old - it was proven to be complete crap decades ago!) was based on a study of captive wolves. For a start, the assumptions made about wolf behaviour were extremely inaccurate. Secondly, dogs are not wolves. Selectively breeding dogs for thousands of generations has significantly changed them - dogs are more like wolf cubs than adult wolves. Your pet dog is no more a wolf than you are a chimp.

The idea that the alpha always eats first and all others wait there turn? Not true. Pups, and pregnant and lactating females eat first in a wolf pack. In domestic dogs its whoever gets their first, or eats fastest, or best defends their food. The pack leader always walks in front, subordinates are always behind? Ridiculous, to the point of being laughable. Do you seriously think a pack could bring down prey much larger than themselves if they were constantly worrying about who was in front of who? The alpha roll? Dogs don't roll eachother - rolling on the back and exposing belly and neck is a passifying behaviour, which a dog will display when threatened. Forcing a dog on its back and holding its throat are a physical attack on the dog.

3) In dogs at least the boundaries within any "heirarchy" are blurred. You don't generally get one dog that is always dominant and one always submissive - it varies according to the situation. One dog may eat first, the other may get the best sleeping area. It is affected by things like the dogs' confidence in various situations, learned behaviours, preferences and priorites (some prefer food treats some prefer toys) etc.

Th original concept of the wolf pack hierarchy is also flawed. It isn't a strict hierarchy, it is basically a family unit, similar in many ways to a human family. A the top - the "alpha" if you like - are the breeding pair. Below them you have offspring.

4) Even if you do believe that dogs follow a strict hierarchy - humans are not dogs! We can not possibly hope to be considered "pack" or "alpha" and we can not really communicate this idea in a way the dog will understand.

The closest thing we can do is to make sure we are in control. Resource control is essential for having a well trained dog, but has nothing to do with dominance.

5) As for aggression...

Okay, so even if you want to start looking at wolves - how often does the "alpha" attack the "omega", or the omega compete for leadership? Never!
Fighting occurs between the closest ranking members of the pack, for a better mid-rank position.
If you get into physical "dominance" battles with your dog you do NOT reinforce your position as boss. In fact you basically admit to the dog that you are not in control, and that he is of almost equal status.

Funnily enough - what do the experts recommend when getting a second dog? Mixed pairs tend to get on best, as opposed to same sex pairs. They recommend getting dogs of at least slightly different sizes, or different attitudes. Why? Because dogs that are the most similar in size, strength, confidence and attitude are the ones most likely to fight.

6) As we can not be dominant over dogs, nor can they be dominant over us. This is in no small part because under most circumstances the dog can not possibly control the resources. It can't choose when and where to go for a walk. It can't get toys out of a locked cupboard. Can't get out and open a can of dog food.

Again, most behaviours people assume are dominance are anything but. If the dog is physically aggressive then he is either reacting to a situation (eg fear aggression, resource guarding etc) or he is competing. As above - the "a

This is too juicy of a question...thank you for asking. No, aggression and dominance are NOT the same thing, but, they can go together in a dog sometimes. 98% of the times, on the questions asked here about dog issues, it is NOT dominance.
People here have no idea what a truly dominant dog is or what is capable of, and when you combine that with aggression....

Now, as far as people training their dogs...in my opinion most people are not capable of training their own dogs, they do not have the time, patience, will or stomach and cannot read behaviors which is why you see the questions you spoke of in here earlier.
I am aware of the article you quoted from...the "academic" has no idea what she is talking about when it comes to serious dogs. These notions may apply to weak nerved, weak tempered dogs, but, when it comes to serious dogs, she would get hurt if she followed her own advice. No, I do not and have never advocated "alpha rolls", that is stupid, but, I have and will always advocate body language and handler behaviors that get the message across and work.
Dominant dogs do exist, not everywhere and not everyday, people CAN, by their inability and humanizing ways of treating dogs make them more dominant then they should ever be, training should always be the key to behavior issues, but, it needs to be the correct type of training, not the new fangled stuff that antagonizes dogs and teaches them how to be neurotic.
I could write for ever on a question like this, but, I think I got my point across. Hope I helped!

ADD: Dominance is part of a dog's temperament, therefore it is genetic in nature. The pseudo-dominance that is being spoken of here has nothing to do with real dominance.
Pseudo dominance can still hurt someone, especially if they have no idea how to effectively deal with a dog, but real dominance will get you killed if you do not know how to deal with it.
No, not all dominance is bad, I like dominant dogs...just not stupid ones!!!

rotflmao..darlin',the twinkies here can't tell which end bites,let alone WHY.
They think....er,whatever passes for thinking....that 8wk.old pups are "aggressive".Oh,correction...6 wk.olds,they wike em too young & made by BYB crooks.They think color breed gender ...anything...makes all the difference. They think Instant Lassie exists..That anything other than a comatose obese neurotic lump....under10lbs,of course...is aggressive dangerous dominant & scary as hel*!

Two different subjects. I feel your pain. A dominant dog doesn't have to be aggressive and an aggressive dog doesn't have to be dominant. People just don't understand that. A shy and timid dog can become aggressive if its scared. A dominant dog can be very peaceful.

Most people on here equate "Aggression" with "Dominance because not every one on YA! knows as much about dogs as other people do. If you want an accurate answer, ask a breeder or animal behaviorist don't get on YA!'s

People shouldn't listen to everything everyone has to say on YA!'s....Many people are followers of the media cult or Cesar Mellians Methods...

I do believe that people tend to use "dominance" as an explanation for everything (even if it is simple lack of training). I don't necessarily think that people equate it with "aggression"...I think that they equate it with any overt behavior the dog displays (counter surfing, jumping up, barking at strangers) whether it applies or not.

I think this is because there was apparently no such thing as dog training until Cesar Millan got a TV show. "Dominance" has become a buzzword.

ADD: Don't Litter - I disagree. "Dominance" or dominant behavior in a dog is a personality trait. It is genetic. It doesn't mean the dog is in control - YOU decide that. But a dominant personality is a dominant personality regardless. I have dogs in my kennel who are dominant, pushy pains in the a**. They know I'm the boss, but it doesn't change their temperament.

ADD2: Don't Litter - What you're describing is attempted leadership in the face of a vacuum...not true dominance. A dog that doesn't have the mental stability and confidence to be dominant will *never* be dominant; it will just be the leader by default. If another dog (or confident, capable human being) were to come into the situation and demand authority, the weak-nerved or submissive dog would quickly and willingly abdicate.

What Greek said. Most of the dogs on here are weaker dogs, not dominant ones. And at best exhibit dominant behavior because of a complete lack of leadership or rules. But dominance and aggression go hand in hand. Aggression (from websters) includes: A forceful action intended to dominate. Isn't that what dominant dogs do? Dominate? Therefore aren't dominant dogs aggressive? It doesn't have to mean that they bite, or are vicious, it means they're forward, direct, pushy, and use strong body language. All of those things are aggression. A dog who would walk up and take food out of your hand (against your will, LOL) is a dog showing dominant and aggressive behaviors.

Kind of Right. Kind of Wrong.

Dominant Aggressive does not mean necessarily that the dogs "aggressive" in the violent way. It just equates the behavior with being something that only an alpha dog could get away with.

I am agreeing with most of what you are saying as far as YOUR ideas go; however, the academic you are quoting is a little off base. It sounds like she is trying to make a name for herself, and none of the primary research articles I have read in the Journal of Animal Behavior / Ethology really have concrete evidence to support her assumptions.

It is actually quite the opposite.

I didn't learn this on tv. I, myself am an academic.

It is extremely difficult to construct "good" experiments when dealing with animal behavior. There are more bad ones than good ones.

If you wonder why Ian Dunbar is such a good trainer... He is a veterinarian and Researcher first... He just put his studies finding into practice.

I like your thought process though, and you are right "canine" behavior is complex; however, people tend to think of them as being far more domesticated than they really are. Their innate behaviors parallel those of wolves, and it is by this metric that we can identify a dominant aggressive behavior in the pack... Such as being allowed to sleep high up on the couch... Much in the same way the alpha leader of a pack would be sleeping on the highest point possible etc.

I agree that people need to stop believing everything they see on television. It would be nice if everyone could train their dogs effectively, but that would mean we would need to train people. And most people are lazy. Thats why they get their information from television...


Thank you for your thought provoking post.

What makes you think dominance isnt always a bad thing? Thats anything but. A dominant dog, is a dog who thinks its in control, which is not ok in my book. Yes, dogs like this need training. But what makes you think typical training is always going to solve the problem? Cesars methods get right down to the core of the problem, he treats all his cases the way, it would be treated in a pack of dogs, minus an actual bite. Yet its natural in a pack of dogs to correct such a problem themselves, God forbid a man actually incorporates those same pack methods, and he gets the who dog community on his case.

Loki- I disagree. Dominance is not always genetic. Yes ive seen naturally dominant breeds such as the Boxer. But, Dominance is something that a dog becomes simply if no one else takes that role. Dogs dont view us, as family, or friends, they view us as a pack, and when no one takes that leadership role, any dog will try to take it for themselves. Even a submissive dog, will take the opportunity to become dominant.

Blame Cesar Milan. Everyone is now so focused on dominance and being the "alpha."

I have an aggressive/ reactive dog and never once did my behaviorist mention anything to do with dominance.

I agree. Dominance is natural in animals and humans alike.
Some have likened it to "pecking order", which is where all members have a certain status within a group. Adding more members creates an adjustment, one which often causes a bit of chaos, but asserting dominance is a normal thing that happens before calm will be restored.

I also agree that people should partake in the training of their own pet. If unwilling to do the hands on you might as well get a pet rock, they after all require little to no training!

I think dominant behavior can lead to aggression, but you are right when not every dog that is aggressive is dominant such as a people shy dog could be aggressive toward people but not dominate.

I think in a lot of situations with people that have aggressive dogs could have prevented it by training it correctly and also by leadership skills.

But you are correct there is a difference!

EDIT: I agree with Curtis M and Garett F!

What I tend to see is simply misidentification of dog behavior. Most people don't know basic dog behavior. Even if we have had our own dogs for years it doesn't mean we can positively identify aggression or dominance in another dog. Those that claim aggression or dominance in their own dog may or may not be accurate. Let's face it not everyone who has a dog knows anything about how to raise or keep a healthy dog. Every dog is different and will behave differently. The "entertainment show" you speak of, if I have the same one in mind that you do, the host has been sued on more than one occasion for abuse of dogs. I personally believe that if one is to have a dog, they need to do their research just like any other animal. I work at a zoo on the weekends in animal care and we tell people all the time that want snakes as pets to do their research otherwise the outcome could be heartbreaking and disastrous. Just because a dog is more readily accessible doesn't mean that advice has any less power. People need to know the potential of any animal they choose to share their home with and know that all behavior will depend on the individual animal not how it is raised or cared for. I agree with you on being able to differentiate between aggression and dominance but I truly feel we need to know animal behavior and what to expect from animal potential.

1