# Pack Theory = leashed for life



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/121685-dunbar-why-pack-theory-just-complicates-things-6.html[/URL]

Leashed for Life I was interested in this old post you made, very well written and informative. I am writing a essay on the subject and was wondering if I could play devils advocate and put some questions to you.

I have read studies by mech,overall and books advocating the pack, dominance theory by Jan fennell and martin mckenna. So I am trying to saturate my self with a wide spectrum of views.

First of the 2 books by Jan fennell and martin mckenna advocates of being alfa in he pack had me shaking my head in disbelief the best quote I got from jan fennells book was on page 74 of the dog listener were she states.



> all the problems we encounter with our dogs are rooted in their belief that they rather then us, their owners, are the leaders of their particular packs


The logic behind her views is clearly based on wolf pack structure in one part of her book she mentions watching a video of wolfs in yellow stone park as inspiration although this is easy to knock now by some I dont think the basic logic is without reason it just seems the nature of people to attach to a belief and then to wrap everything around it.

On page 114 she makes made the following observation,



> nervous aggression can be can be conquered by making one fundamental change, removing from the dog is status as pack leader


her comment was referring to a dog that she later described on page 117 as



> perceptibly trembling


Evan with crazy rigid logic the method to deal with the dog was quite interesting and in my view nothing to with being being alfa she describes being aloof this is interesting as in doing this her body language would be predictable safe when the dog showed aggression to visitors the owners were told to leave the room which in its self despite flawed logic, is not much different to how many modern trainers have dealt with the same problem but I digress.

I can understand why many modern postive based trainers are so morally against alfa pack training systems, the logic is flawed and many methods using the logic can be aggressive and negative to dogs. But I wonder if advocates of this righteous cause may also be a little guilty of attaching them selfs to a cause and using studies selectively which support their own theory.Studies or articles by Karen Overall are often used to support the idea that dogs dont live in hierarchical packs or that there is no such thing as dominance ,

Dominance aggression in dogs: Part 1

But couldnt this article be selectively quoted to support either view ? Here is one statement from it.



> dogs and people both have social systems based on deference, not physical violence and control.


I think it is fair to suggest that Overall is a advocate of modern dog training might this influence her choice of words to describe a behaviour. In the last statement the politically correct term deference is used but could it be just as easy for someone to describe deference as submissive body language its very aim to avoid a conflict and reinforce a hierarchy, it most serve a purpose ? Are we to assume no aggression would take place if this ritual body language did not take place ?

Why are some articles and books coining catchy phrases like dogs are not wolfs to argue you cant relate any dog behaviour to the wolf, but then using the study of wild wolfs by{mech 1999] to explain a new softer view of how dogs co-operate as a family.Might it be possible to argue that both studies of captive wolfs and wolfs in the wild are useful ? could we gain insight from all studies ? Some might argue the studies of wolfs in a unnatural captive set up could perhaps relate more to introducing a new dog to the pack and how dogs may interact outside meeting strange dogs and the study of wild wolfs may bear more relation to a stable domestic dog pack were say a owner raises adults and their offspring without any changes ? In other words could their be more permutations to this ?

Much has been made of how dogs have evolved away from wolfs and have different traits
coppinger work is often referenced to explain how domestic dogs have are arrested in a juvenile state, were reproduction is not applicable ?What is ment by this ? Are we to believe to intact males have no interest in breeding ? That they never posture on greeting demonstrating relative strength, why do male dogs mark when they go outside ? Are we to believe fights between 2 posturing males has nothing to do with breeding ?

Studies by Dr. Frank Beach ARE used in this article by Melissa C. Alexander 
TO Support yet another variation of the theme against dominance or hierarchy but im not sure it does here is a excerpt.

ClickerSolutions Training Articles -- The History and Misconceptions of Dominance Theory

Dr. Frank Beach performed a 30-year study on dogs at Yale and UC Berkeley. Nineteen years of the study was devoted to social behavior of a dog pack. (Not a wolf pack. A DOG pack.) Some of his findings:



> Male dogs have a rigid hierarchy.
> Female dogs have a hierarchy, but it's more variable


African wild dog packs are also used to promote the co-operative family model as outlined by mech 1999 and although they co-operate I wonder of some observers are being selective with information.

This is a study of African wild dogs.
Rank and reproduction in cooperatively
breeding African wild dogs: behavioral and
endocrine correlates

http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/3/298.full.pdf

quotes from this.



> African wild dogs (Ljcaon pictus) live in cooperative packs with a clear-cut dominance hierarchy in each sex





> In a typical mating period, several males suffered bite wounds on the face
> and neck. In nonmating contexts, escalated fights were rare


{mech 1999]

Is widely used source to support the concept of the family in domestic dogs but it was interesting to note he did not consider pinning relating to dominance at all here are some quotes.



> In captive packs, the unacquainted wolves formed dominance hierarchies featuring alpha, beta, omega animals, etc. With such assemblages, these dominance labels were probably appropriate, for most species thrown together in captivity would usually so arrange themselves


I find this portion of the quote particuly interesting.



> With such assemblages, these dominance labels were probably appropriate, for most species thrown together in captivity would usually so arrange themselves


Could it be possible to describe a domestic dog pack as being nearer to this model then the family one observed in the wild ?Here is another excerpt.



> The only consistent demonstration of rank in natural packs is the animals' postures during social interaction. Dominant wolves assume the classic canid standing posture with tail up at least horizontally, and subordinate or submissive individuals lower themselves and "cringe" (Darwin 1877). In fact, submission itself may be as important as dominance in terms of promoting friendly relations or reducing social distance.


Maybe this is simply suggesting active fighting in a stable pack is not needed, but does it support that the pack has no hierarchy ?

And last but not least domestic dogs have evolved away from wolfs but also from each other in many traits some are defensive by nature LGD some like Labrador are usually friendly might each breed also have varying degrees of pack inclination.

Furthermore in a domestic set up were humans control resources breeding and interactions, is it possible that the very things that might highlight a pack hierarchy are removed, with the numerous different breed traits and controls people have on their environment interpretation can become even more hazy. When are some dogs simply guarding an object and when are some taking control ?

It would seem that hierarchy and dominance in the animal kingdom relates to breeding rights and the control of resources. ?


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2012)

Is the topic of your paper dominance between dogs or dominance between dogs and humans?

I didnt see him mentioned, but you might be interested in what Roger Abrantes has to say on the topic.



rheasmum said:


> Furthermore in a domestic set up were humans control resources breeding and interactions, is it possible that the very things that might highlight a pack hierarchy are removed, with the numerous different breed traits and controls people have on their environment interpretation can become even more hazy. When are some dogs simply guarding an object and when are some taking control ?


If the dog is guarding the object, then he is not in full control is he not? Or he fears losing control of the object. And again, you have to distinguish between dog/dog guarding and dog/human guarding. Additionally in dog/dog guarding you have to account for age and gender. Adults are happy to allow puppies to do things that they would not allow another adult to do.

And finally, why limit dog/dog, dog/human interaction to control? For me and my dogs its not about who is in control, its about how well we cooperate. I suspect if you were to ask them, dogs care far less about whos in control than we do.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

> I didnt see him mentioned, but you might be interested in what Roger Abrantes has to say on the topic.


Thanks I,ll do a online search and see what I can dig up.

what I should be doing in a essay exmamining the concept of pack theory, how it relates to pet dogs and owners. But perhaps im being sidetracked  I certainly dont see rank or pack having to do with training in the vast majority situations.

On the other hand I do believe dogs are pack animals with a hierarchy to a greater or lesser extent. Their seems so many variables from breed to breed,age,sex the environment not withstanding the biggest, how a individuals interpret what they see.

Both sides of the argument seem a little biased although old pack theory relating to training is bordering on idiotic and also negative.

New theory of training is good, scientificly sound and proven. But I get the sense in promoting this many trainers are using quite weak evidence to create a new model of the canine pack. All seem to rely on [mech 1999] im just not convinced the case is proven or that people promoting the new model are not just as biased in their views.

The problem I perceive in pushing for a thoery and staking to much in it, is it does not allow room for new understanding or everything new is moulded around a fixed opiniun if that makes sense


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2012)

rheasmum said:


> what I should be doing in a essay exmamining the concept of *pack theory, how it relates to pet dogs and owners.* But perhaps im being sidetracked  I certainly don't see rank or pack having to do with training in the vast majority situations.


In my (non professional) opinion, it doesn't. Taking "pack theory" and using it to relate to our pet dogs makes about as much sense as a new parent looking at how sociopaths in top security prisons interact and using that information to determine how they're going to interact with their children.



rheasmum said:


> On the other hand I do believe dogs are pack animals with a hierarchy to a greater or lesser extent. Their seems so many variables from breed to breed,age,sex the environment not withstanding the biggest, how a individuals interpret what they see.


I would say that dogs are SOCIAL animals with an intricate and complex system of communication that does include dominant and submissive gestures. 
However I would not say that their relationships are based on hierarchy even to the extent that they are with humans. For dogs social "position" seems to be entirely situational and contextual. The "top dog" in one context becomes the bottom one in another. It seems a very limited and inaccurate way to define social interactions among dogs.



rheasmum said:


> New theory of training is good, scientificly sound and proven. But I get the sense in promoting this many trainers are using quite weak evidence to create a new model of the canine pack. All seem to rely on [mech 1999] im just not convinced the case is proven or that people promoting the new model are not just as biased in their views.


Again, JMO, but I don't see much overlap between training a dog and examining pack theory (or lack of a pack theory). Training is about establishing a common language, humans understanding dog, dogs understanding human, and finding a common ground somewhere in the middle. My dogs know what I mean when I say "lets go" and I know what they mean when they whine and look at the door. Its all about establishing a common language and has little if nothing to do with establishing rank. Dogs comply when they understand what you are saying, not because you have established yourself as higher in some imaginary hierarchy.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

ouesi said:


> In my (non professional) opinion, it doesnt. Taking pack theory and using it to relate to our pet dogs makes about as much sense as a new parent looking at how sociopaths in top security prisons interact and using that information to determine how they're going to interact with their children.
> 
> I would say that dogs are SOCIAL animals with an intricate and complex system of communication that does include dominant and submissive gestures.
> However I would not say that their relationships are based on hierarchy even to the extent that they are with humans. For dogs social position" seems to be entirely situational and contextual. The top dog in one context becomes the bottom one in another. It seems a very limited and inaccurate way to define social interactions among dogs.
> ...


The people that believe they have to be the pack leader would refuse to recognise what the dog is saying, because they are obviously making a play for domination and trying to control their humans!

To the OP: Jan Fennell has made a fortune out of spouting some really bizarre ideas, and is not well respected. If your dog pulls on its lead, she will tell you not to walk it then; dogs don't need to walk, apparently. In the wild, according to her, dogs do not walk, they play. How they manage to feed themselves that way is not a question she has answered.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

rheasmum said:


> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/121685-dunbar-why-pack-theory-just-complicates-things-6.html[/URL]
> 
> Leashed for Life I was interested in this old post you made, very well written and informative. I am writing a essay on the subject and was wondering if I could play devils advocate and put some questions to you.
> 
> ...


Rewards based trainers would not deal with the problem in this way, they would aim to classically counter condition the dog to react to people in the house with less hostile behaviour. Removing the owners from the room when the dog aggresses would only reinforce a behaviour. If it improves the behaviour, I would argue the behaviour is not aggression, but over-arousal and 'attention-seeking' if you will, for which removing the owners from the room is just a form of negative punishment.



> I can understand why many modern postive based trainers are so morally against alfa pack training systems, the logic is flawed and many methods using the logic can be aggressive and negative to dogs. But I wonder if advocates of this righteous cause may also be a little guilty of attaching them selfs to a cause and using studies selectively which support their own theory.Studies or articles by Karen Overall are often used to support the idea that dogs dont live in hierarchical packs or that there is no such thing as dominance ,
> 
> Dominance aggression in dogs: Part 1
> 
> ...


I think it is important to see the distinction between the scientific use of dominance and the colloquial use of the term. Dominance aggression may be used for situations in which a dog guards and controls a resource around another dog or owner, in which there is a consistent relationship. But there are more problems with this interpretation than there is benefits, despite it being feasible in some aspects. I don't think any serious animal behaviour believes dominance doesn't exist. It is, after all, just one way of interpreting an interaction. However, the concept has some prerequisite criteria that need to be fulfilled, which is usually the issue.



> Why are some articles and books coining catchy phrases like dogs are not wolfs to argue you cant relate any dog behaviour to the wolf, but then using the study of wild wolfs by{mech 1999] to explain a new softer view of how dogs co-operate as a family.Might it be possible to argue that both studies of captive wolfs and wolfs in the wild are useful ? could we gain insight from all studies ? Some might argue the studies of wolfs in a unnatural captive set up could perhaps relate more to introducing a new dog to the pack and how dogs may interact outside meeting strange dogs and the study of wild wolfs may bear more relation to a stable domestic dog pack were say a owner raises adults and their offspring without any changes ? In other words could their be more permutations to this ?


People use Mech's (1999) article to show that people that base dog behaviour on wolf behaviour have not obtained a biologically valid understanding of wolf behaviour in the first place!

Both studies, on captive and free-ranging populations of wolves, are useful. Put any animal into a situation with limited space and resources and inhibiting their chances to act normally (e.g. dispersal) will result in conflict. That conflict must be controlled, and from this point, it is more easy to apply something like the dominance concept, as more stable relationships will appear.

Domestic dogs, however, do not possess the same behaviour patterns as wolves. Whilst keeping a whole family of dogs together will most likely result in a social network with more conflict (siblings are not meant to stay together their whole life!), doing this is as unnatural as keeping wolves in a captive environment. Domestic dogs living with unrelated dogs will no doubt develop some stable social relationships. However, it is simplistic to assume we can thereby see these relationships on a hierarchical scale, as domestic dog behaviour is driven more by interaction with people than dogs. Resources, are too, not limited and humans care for dogs in a way that fighting for control and hierarchy should never come about. However, I am sure if domestic dogs were left in horrible conditions with only some food between them every day, a hierarchical relationship may form. Whether wolves are free-ranging or captive, their behaviour is driven by the same needs. Domestic dogs are wolves behaviour is not, and so we can't really compare them.



> Much has been made of how dogs have evolved away from wolfs and have different traits
> coppinger work is often referenced to explain how domestic dogs have are arrested in a juvenile state, were reproduction is not applicable ?What is ment by this ? Are we to believe to intact males have no interest in breeding ? That they never posture on greeting demonstrating relative strength, why do male dogs mark when they go outside ? Are we to believe fights between 2 posturing males has nothing to do with breeding ?


This is a largely unresearched area. I don't Coppinger advocates that reproduction is not applicable. I have studied under him and I really can't imagine him saying this! However, since dogs possess many behavioural traits that are akin to juvenile wolves (paedomophism), such posturing and interactions may be less obvious than in wolves.



> Studies by Dr. Frank Beach ARE used in this article by Melissa C. Alexander
> TO Support yet another variation of the theme against dominance or hierarchy but im not sure it does here is a excerpt.
> 
> ClickerSolutions Training Articles -- The History and Misconceptions of Dominance Theory
> ...


Again, I would argue that this study is quite biologically invalid due to the fact that domestic dogs are not meant to live together in one family all their life. As I understand it, this is what the study did. Male dogs, in this situation, are probably very serious about a hierarchy, to control breeding etc. Female dogs, on the other hand, are less so because they may rely on cooperation from other females to rear offspring. It's not so much that behaviour is a static thing, but the fact that behaviour can be driven by the ecological and social situation. Put any animal, even humans, into such a confined lifestyle (such as a county jail), and you will see very similar behaviour!



> African wild dog packs are also used to promote the co-operative family model as outlined by mech 1999 and although they co-operate I wonder of some observers are being selective with information.
> 
> This is a study of African wild dogs.
> Rank and reproduction in cooperatively
> ...


Again, you must look at the ecological conditions that drive behaviour and evolution in this species. For AWD (African Wild Dogs), a clear-cut hierarchy with the control of breeding rights the most important agenda has a specific purpose. Higher levels of fighting and aggression may correspond to their ecology, e.g. a lack of food availability.



> {mech 1999]
> 
> Is widely used source to support the concept of the family in domestic dogs but it was interesting to note he did not consider pinning relating to dominance at all here are some quotes.
> 
> I find this portion of the quote particuly interesting.


This obviously relates to what I was writing above. Putting any animal in a stressful situation will usually affect their behaviour and cause more conflict.



> Could it be possible to describe a domestic dog pack as being nearer to this model then the family one observed in the wild ?Here is another excerpt.
> 
> Maybe this is simply suggesting active fighting in a stable pack is not needed, but does it support that the pack has no hierarchy ?


Not necessarily. But the dominance concept, as defined in science, is not good enough IMO to account for all the different types of social relationships. Other theories, such as social network theory, may offer better conclusions.



> And last but not least domestic dogs have evolved away from wolfs but also from each other in many traits some are defensive by nature LGD some like Labrador are usually friendly might each breed also have varying degrees of pack inclination.


Different breeds may differ in small ways in social behaviour. However, to call this 'pack' behaviour is scewed. The essence of packing is cooperatively breeding and hunting, raising offspring, dispersal etc. Domestic dogs cannot be placed into this category so easily.



> Furthermore in a domestic set up were humans control resources breeding and interactions, is it possible that the very things that might highlight a pack hierarchy are removed, with the numerous different breed traits and controls people have on their environment interpretation can become even more hazy. When are some dogs simply guarding an object and when are some taking control ?
> 
> It would seem that hierarchy and dominance in the animal kingdom relates to breeding rights and the control of resources. ?


Since humans control domestic dogs, the need for domestic dogs to build strong social relationships with other dogs and 'pack' together are not as strong as bonding with humans. For me, this means that dogs who are placed to live together have a much reduced chance of getting on than with humans. Behaviour is driven by the needs of the environment, and when we look at the domestic dog environment, packing and hierarchies are not so salient as in wild canids.

Of course, placing dogs together that do not get on with each other may mean that more fighting occurs. Through that fighting one dof may consistently defer, which could be called a dominance-subordinate relationship. Multiply this relationship by 10 and you could have a hierarchy formed by a number of individuals. But this isn't natural for domestic dogs. Their ecological needs are far removed from this type of behaviour a lot of the time and the strongest selective forces are not concerned with social behaviour around other dogs, but their social behaviour around humans.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

rheasmum said:


> Leashed for Life I was interested in this old post... very well written and informative.
> I am writing a essay... & [wondered] if I could play devils advocate & put some questions to you.


R-M, 
thanks for the compliment re my post - that's very kind of U.

however, if U wanted my reply to this post, U'd have done well to post the link as a visitor's message 
on my member-profile, since i just saw this thread now - by sheer accident.  :laugh:

everyone else has done so well, :thumbup1: - there's really not much that i could add.

dominance between INDIVIDUAL dogs is a long-term status which only occurs in stable relationships - 
& quite a few of those stable-relationships are problematic: *given the choice,* pubertal dogs would 
disperse, not live with Mom, Dad, or their siblings; bitch-pups who grow-up & live with their dams have it 
especially hard IME, as every estrus for the daughter is a reason for her dam to hate her a bit more. 
:nonod: 


rheasmum said:


> I can understand why many modern [reward-]based trainers are so morally against Alpha[-type]
> "pack training" systems, the logic is flawed & many methods using [this, are] aggressive & [punitive] to dogs.
> 
> But I wonder if advocates of this righteous cause may also be a little guilty of attaching themselves to a cause
> ...


anyone who says that INTRASPECIES DOMINANCE doesn't exist in dogs is full of wind, frankly.

the crux of the matter is that dominance is RARE as a relationship in domestic dogs; typically, 
dominance is an EVENT - not a relationship, & certainly not a 'personality trait' or lifestyle. 
Referring to a _'dominant dog'_ is a misuse of the term - indicating a likely complete misunderstanding 
of what 'dominance' means, within dogs or between dogs, or indeed within any species.

dominance is also INTRA-species not INTER-species, so it doesn't involve human:dog relations, anyhow - 
& it's always & forever about *resources*. Humans control the resources - the house, 
the food, the car, the access to the outdoors, social-time with other dogs, social-time with US... 
we control it all - we feed, provide shelter from inclement weather, water... every need & want is OURS 
to control - when, where, how much, how often - it's all OURS.

teaching our dogs to defer to us, just as they defer to one another, is certainly simpler 
& much-less agonistic than DOMINATING OUR DOGS all over the landscape, :lol: - why bother? 
who wants to struggle tooth-&-paw to roll & pin a dog - or even a puppy - when we can teach the dog 
to roll-over & stay, on cue? It's so much easier, more pleasant, & less stressful to teach co-operation.

dogs are highly social; they read us exquisitely, they want to avoid conflict. 
Why, then, should we choose to create conflict? Dominance is rarely of any interest to us humans; 
if a pup or dog is being bullied, by all means, INTERVENE. But by & large, dogs use deference as the 
everyday social-paradigm, & it works very well - practically frictionless interactions are common.

i'd suggest we emulate dogs, & teach deference - also, we should practice it ourselves, regularly. :yesnod:


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

These are great detailed posts !! certainly a lot to mull on  hope people dont mind if I clarify some points and also do devils advocate on some issues raised, as im sure your all aware there are many diverging views on the matter.



> Rewards based trainers would not deal with the problem in this way, they would aim to classically counter condition the dog to react to people in the house with less hostile behaviour. Removing the owners from the room when the dog aggresses would only reinforce a behaviour


Hi Rottiefan you have made a lot of great points, I cant remember were I saw the method of trainer removing the dog when it showed anti social behaviour in the house, i wonder if it was that Victoria Stillwell ? But if I recall it was the dog that was removed ? If the dog aggresses and the owner leaves why is the behaviour reinforced ?



> Dominance aggression may be used for situations in which a dog guards and controls a resource around another dog or owner, in which there is a consistent relationship


Could this behaviour also be shown by a insecure fearful dog ? How would you define the difference between dominant control and simply a natural defensive reaction to keep the object. Can you explain the significance of their be a consistent relationship?



> Put any animal into a situation with limited space and resources and inhibiting their chances to act normally


Is it abnormal behaviour or normal for the environment ? .



> Domestic dogs, however, do not possess the same behaviour patterns as wolves


Can you clarify this ? Because on the face of it both share a range of behavioural signals, prey motivation etc. Do you believe certain breeds are closer in their behaviour to wolfs then others?



> as domestic dog behaviour is driven more by interaction with people than dogs


Does this depend on the motivation and the breed ? Ive noticed dogs glued to their owners and many others very dog focused on other dogs in the local parks.



> Again, I would argue that this study is quite biologically invalid due to the fact that domestic dogs are not meant to live together in one family all their life.


 Can you clarify what you mean by this ? Do you mean using wolfs as the model ?



> Different breeds may differ in small ways in social behaviour. However, to call this 'pack' behaviour is scewed. The essence of packing is cooperatively breeding and hunting, raising offspring, dispersal etc. Domestic dogs cannot be placed into this category so easily.


But wouldnt their be a huge difference between a typical Kangal with high defensive nature little prey drive and say a Labrador ? Is that definition of packing related to observations of wolfs and other wild animals. Might it be the case that the average owner simply uses the term pack to mean a group of dogs that have a bond ? That can recognise and make distinction between its own family unit and outside dogs ? A group of dogs that may act together in some form. co-operation in the sense of hunting isnt available for most dogs or taught. Couldnt it be the case that if the environment allowed some breeds might hunt in co-operation like this ?



> Since humans control domestic dogs, the need for domestic dogs to build strong social relationships with other dogs and 'pack' together are not as strong as bonding with humans. For me, this means that dogs who are placed to live together have a much reduced chance of getting on than with humans


Could this be effected by the breed and the environment as mentioned before, ive always found my pack/family of dogs to be very oriented to other dogs and have also observed this often in outings between strange dogs. Does this depend on environment to a large extent ? I mean I dog household with a person that spends hours a day training and fulfilling its every need in terms of prey stimulation,food etc maybe very focused on the owner plus I can imagine a border collie being extremely focused on the owner in this sense more so then a kangal. Thanks for the detailed post hope you dont mind me picking your brain leashed for life also very interested in your observations if you dont mind I,ll pick your brain also


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

> dominance between INDIVIDUAL dogs is a long-term status which only occurs in stable relationships


Thanks for your input leashed for life, can you clarify what you mean by this. If I suddenly introduced 2 assertive males [assertive posturing upright in their body language tail raised etc] in a new home and they stoody up to each other and squared up wouldnt this seem like a dominance display ? And what about the same behaviour between 2 strange males I the park ? Why do some males do this why do some defer ? Why do all males mark outside their territory ?



> thecrux of the matter is that dominance is RARE as a relationship in domestic dogs; typically,
> dominance is an EVENT - not a relationship, & certainly not a 'personality trait' or lifestyle


Do you mean rare as relating to the canine human relationship or canine v canine ? Can you clarify why dominance is a event not a relationship ? If a dog is consistently aggressive to Control resources and consistently dominant/assertive in social interactions wouldnt this define a personality trait ?



> dominance is also INTRA-species not INTER-species, so it doesn't involve human:dog relations, anyhow -
> & it's always & forever about resources


Could a dog have a dominant personality which effects its interactions with other animals and people, not in the sense that a dog is going to fight a person over a female dog but in the same way very submissive dogs behaviour relates to the environment. With the submissive dog if the owner has some visitors in the house and one goes to quickly pet it making the dog show submission Isnt the dog relating to the person in terms of the pack maybe being driiven by instinct rather then say a logical concept of self awareness as a canine. If a puppy was raised with a goat and showed submissive signals when the goat adopted a certain stance could it be said the dog was relating to the goat as a dog simply by instinct ?



> teaching our dogs to defer to us, just as they defer to one another, is certainly simpler
> & much-less agonistic than DOMINATING OUR DOGS all over the landscape


Isnt deference just another word for a hierarchical type relationship without the aggressive connotations associated with being a old pack leader ? Is dominance for many owners just a more crude and aggressive way to assert ones self ?

Look forward to your insights leashed for life.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

For me one of the problems with "dominance" is that it's a very limited concept.

Of course "I am dominant" I control the issue of food, the timing and duration of walks yadda, yadda. So what? It hardly describes the communication between the three humans and two dogs in my household. I spend a certain amount of time each day figuing out how to get my dogs and sons to do as I want. I've never found "alpha rolling" anyone an attractive proposition so I use more rewards based methods and withdrawal of privilege methods. Positive and negative feedback as it were. Works for kids and dogs so far...

We're a pack if pack equates to family and we all tend to use the same methods to get what we want.

Tess, the young labradoodle has been training me to pull a chair out for her. I prefer to use a lap-top on the dining room table (because I am with the dogs) rather than use my desk in the study. Tess wants me to pull out the chair next to mine so she can sit on it. She started by looking at the chair and whining. I would pull out the chair when I'd finished what I was doing. Then she stepped up the cues as I was not responding quickly enough. She started to pull the chair out with her nose; just a short way. That got my attention much more quickly and since she'd broken my concentration she got the chair moved more quickly. Now, she moves the chair and if she's kept waiting she goes away (is negative reinforcement too anthropomorphic?).

Is she dominant because she has trained me to perform an action at her instigation? 

My children do the same. If they want me to do something, they ask, if they get what they want they offer positive reinforcement (hug, thanks, happy face etc). If they don't get what they want they use negative reinforcement (sad face, crying when young/moaning and grumbling when older, withdrawing etc). The fact that they ask argues that I'm dominant but misses a hell of a lot of communication. A sad child will usually have a concerned dog comforting them, too.

LeashedforLife has been helping me to manage Rex's dog aggression. So far it's been a matter of making Rex more comfortable and relaxed, reducing his anxiety/fear/anger.

There are more ways to run a pack than dominance theory would suggest. I would argue that Rex, Tess and my sons influence MY behaviour as much as I influence theirs' and I'm "pack-leader".


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

Totally agree Ozrex when i read Jan Fennell book it really came accross as unhinged its just seemed all wrong to fixate on bring tough alfa


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

newfiesmum said:


> The people that believe they have to be the pack leader would refuse to recognise what the dog is saying, because they are obviously making a play for domination and trying to control their humans!
> 
> To the OP: Jan Fennell has made a fortune out of spouting some really bizarre ideas, and is not well respected. If your dog pulls on its lead, she will tell you not to walk it then; dogs don't need to walk, apparently. In the wild, according to her, dogs do not walk, they play. How they manage to feed themselves that way is not a question she has answered.


When her first book came out she was answering questions at crufts, one poor woman had a rescue that kicked off at other dogs, she was told not to take her out of the house or garden for 6 months, yes months, establish herself as Alpha, then the dog would be fine. I hope the poor woman ignored her.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Jenny Olley said:


> When her first book came out she was answering questions at crufts, one poor woman had a rescue that kicked off at other dogs, she was told not to take her out of the house or garden for 6 months, yes months, establish herself as Alpha, then the dog would be fine. I hope the poor woman ignored her.


Which just goes to show that Crufts don't have a clue who they are interviewing. There was some bloke on there this year spouting about being pack leader; made me switch it off.

So how is solitary confinement going to get him used to other dogs?


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

newfiesmum said:


> Which just goes to show that Crufts don't have a clue who they are interviewing. There was some bloke on there this year spouting about being pack leader; made me switch it off.
> 
> So how is solitary confinement going to get him used to other dogs?


Don't know, but it would probably get the dog ripping up the house, biting the owner or barking or peeing.
When her books came out we saw a lot of clients who had spent weeks ignoring their badly behaved, often rescue dogs. By the time they came to see us they had often had enough, dogs that kicked off at all sorts outside, and one they had to ignore in the home, not really what dog ownership is about.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Jenny Olley said:


> Don't know, but it would probably get the dog ripping up the house, biting the owner or barking or peeing.
> When her books came out we saw a lot of clients who had spent weeks ignoring their badly behaved, often rescue dogs. By the time they came to see us they had often had enough, dogs that kicked off at all sorts outside, and one they had to ignore in the home, not really what dog ownership is about.


Before I knew any better, I did book one of her "Dog Listeners" when I was having so much trouble getting Ferdie into the car. She was going to charge me £180 to come and talk to me for two hours! I look up reviews on Amazon and nearly every one was on the lines of: I didn't buy a dog so I could ignore it! Needless to say, I cancelled.


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

newfiesmum said:


> Before I knew any better, I did book one of her "Dog Listeners" when I was having so much trouble getting Ferdie into the car. She was going to charge me £180 to come and talk to me for two hours! I look up reviews on Amazon and nearly every one was on the lines of: I didn't buy a dog so I could ignore it! Needless to say, I cancelled.


Money well saved.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

rheasmum said:


> These are great detailed posts !! certainly a lot to mull on  hope people dont mind if I clarify some points and also do devils advocate on some issues raised, as im sure your all aware there are many diverging views on the matter.
> 
> Hi Rottiefan you have made a lot of great points, I cant remember were I saw the method of trainer removing the dog when it showed anti social behaviour in the house, i wonder if it was that Victoria Stillwell ? But if I recall it was the dog that was removed ? If the dog aggresses and the owner leaves why is the behaviour reinforced ?


The behaviour would be reinforced because aggression is a distance-increasing signal- the dog wants a stimuli to move away- and if the stimuli did move away, the aggressive behaviour would serve its function. In other words, that aggression is more likely to be used in the future, meaning the behaviour has been 'reinforced'. Technically, it is negative reinforcement, because some has been removed (negative) to reinforce (increase the likelihood of) the behaviour.

Could you find a clip of the behaviour? It all depends on whether the behaviour was aggressive or not.



> Could this behaviour also be shown by a insecure fearful dog ? How would you define the difference between dominant control and simply a natural defensive reaction to keep the object. Can you explain the significance of their be a consistent relationship?


Yes, I would argue that a dog that guards its resources feels threatened is probably feeling some sense of 'fear' or 'anxiety' about what may happen in that situation. But dominance is not a feeling or personality trait. When dominance is used to describe a relationship, it only implies that animal A has a dominant role over animal B (who is subordinate). It is irrelevant to dominance what the mechanisms of the behaviour is, i.e. what causes the behaviour, at least for initial observations of behaviour.

The significance of a consistent relationship is that dominance is more often than not described as occurring in consistent relationships. For a dominance relationship to exist, the relationship has to be consistent. In dogs, we more often see a lot of fluidity (as well as in many animals, making dominance a controversial topic), i.e. there is not a consistent relationship over a resource.



> Is it abnormal behaviour or normal for the environment ? .


I don't really understand your question. What I mean is that organisms adapt to their environment. If the environment is particularly stressful, e.g. captive living wolves, then more conflict and clearer dominance relationships may arise. However, this is abnormal behaviour in the sense that it is not how wolves live in their natural habitat.



> Can you clarify this ? Because on the face of it both share a range of behavioural signals, prey motivation etc. Do you believe certain breeds are closer in their behaviour to wolfs then others?


Reading what I wrote again, it wasn't very clear. I was referring to the differences between dogs' and wolves' motivations, shaped by their differing ecological niches. Of course, wolves and dogs share many behaviour traits. However, there are differences in their behaviour, which reflect their different niches. For instance, dogs' increased window for socialisation, increased level of barking. The effects of artificial selection can also be seen, in dogs' predatory motor patterns.



> Does this depend on the motivation and the breed ? Ive noticed dogs glued to their owners and many others very dog focused on other dogs in the local parks.


I would argue that this is more adaptation to the environment. Dogs adapt to their developmental environment and learn by experience, resulting in dogs with which show different behaviour.



> Can you clarify what you mean by this ? Do you mean using wolfs as the model ?


In any experiment on animals, we should really be investigating a behaviour as it would occur in a natural environment. But by investigating the social behaviour of dogs, keeping a dog pack together for a few decades is not really 'normal' behaviour. Dogs have evolved to a different way of life, and if we want to investigate their social behaviour, we really should look at dogs who live in a more normal environment, e.g. unrelated dogs who live with and/or interact with other dogs on a regular basis.



> But wouldnt their be a huge difference between a typical Kangal with high defensive nature little prey drive and say a Labrador ? Is that definition of packing related to observations of wolfs and other wild animals. Might it be the case that the average owner simply uses the term pack to mean a group of dogs that have a bond ? That can recognise and make distinction between its own family unit and outside dogs ? A group of dogs that may act together in some form. co-operation in the sense of hunting isnt available for most dogs or taught. Couldnt it be the case that if the environment allowed some breeds might hunt in co-operation like this ?


Many questions! I use "pack" in the scientific sense. Some owners use "pack" in the colloquial sense. If you want to describe your dogs as a pack, fine. If you want to describe their behaviour as "pack behaviour", then I don't think it's accurate. Differences between breeds may show differences in sociability with other dogs and humans. Whilst the environment has much to play in forming these behaviours, there seems that there is a predisposed 'map' in how sociable a dog may be. However, this is very complex. I think socialisation windows hold a lot of information, e.g. guarding breeds seem to have smaller socialisation windows than toy breeds, which may effect their sociability with other dogs and people when older. However, as we all know, this is not guaranteed and dogs adapt to the environment they are brought up in.



> Could this be effected by the breed and the environment as mentioned before, ive always found my pack/family of dogs to be very oriented to other dogs and have also observed this often in outings between strange dogs. Does this depend on environment to a large extent ? I mean I dog household with a person that spends hours a day training and fulfilling its every need in terms of prey stimulation,food etc maybe very focused on the owner plus I can imagine a border collie being extremely focused on the owner in this sense more so then a kangal. Thanks for the detailed post hope you dont mind me picking your brain leashed for life also very interested in your observations if you dont mind I,ll pick your brain also


Yep, dogs learn by experience. I would say that dogs are predisposed to attach to humans, and their social behaviours demonstrate this, e.g. attending to human visual behaviours, like pointing, and focusing on human eye-contact. A dog that spends a large amount of time with its owner also learns (through operant conditioning) that spending time with their owner is great- it is reinforcing.

Furthermore, a dog that learns spending times with other dogs is fun, also will find that reinforcing.

Hope that helps some. We all have much more to learn about dogs; these are just my opinions, formed largely from science.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

rheasmum said:


> ...both [wolves & domestic-dogs] share a range of behavioural signals, [predatory] motivation[,] etc.


please see the research done by Miklosi et al, on rearing domestic-k9 pups with college students as parent, 
vs rearing wolf-pups as singletons with a student-as-parent - starting at 21-days & bottle-rearing all pups, 
by the time the wolves were 16-WO, it was *impossible* to live with them like dogs - in the house.

there is a video-clip from the TV-special on UTube that shows one pup-raiser trying to block her wolf-pup 
from shoving his face into her tea, which is on a table in front of her - she fails, as despite her arm block 
& verbal disapproval, the pup leaps ONTO THE TABLE to shove his muzzle in her cup, & take her biscuit.

she points out that utterly unlike the dog-pups, the wolf-pups have zero interest in participating in 
human activities - each student reared a dog-pup in precisely the same fashion, *successfully - * 
resulting in behaviorally-normal, human- & dog-social adult dogs, as a test, before they were accepted 
as wolf-pup parents, & she points out the substantial differences very succinctly.

the wolf-pups were self-involved, self-directed, & uncontrollable; if they wanted something, they TOOK IT. 
if they wanted something U didn't want them to have & tried to stop them, THEY BIT U - they destroyed, 
ate, knocked down, soiled, etc, as they pleased, or they retaliated for interference.


rheasmum said:


> Do you believe certain breeds are closer in their behaviour to [wolves, sic] then other [breeds]?


more primitive breeds retain more of the wild-canid signals than highly-manipulated breeds; 
research has already confirmed this common-sense impression. IOW, a CKCS will show a very stunted 
grammar of emotional & communicative signals when compared to a Siberian or any other Nordic; 
a Pug isn't as adept at signals & has fewer signals to use than an Anatolian.


rheasmum said:


> ...wouldn't [there] be a huge difference between a typical Kangal, [a highly] defensive LGB[,]
> [with supposedly] little prey drive [vs] say, a Labrador ?


we can discuss this twiddly stuff forever & a day - IMO, suffice to say that wolves & dogs have been 
separate *breeding-popns* for over 100k years, per mDNA rates of change, & dogs have been 
*living with humans, co-evolving with them* for a minimum of 20k years. In that time, both 
domestic-dogs & wolves have changed - but dogs changed in response to deliberate human-choices, 
as well as accidental consequences of sheer happenstance.

domestic-dogs are not wolves - behaviorally they differ enormously, physiologically they are 
not anywhere near identical... despite the 'wolf on the hearthrug' romantic fantasies & the myths that 
spring from them. COMMON DNA is not the be-all & end-all of similarity - humans share 65% of dog-DNA, 
but i'd bet i can distinguish a newborn pup of any breed from a newborn human, even in bad light~! 
 Just as i could distinguish a neonate human vs a neonate chimp - despite a less-than-1% difference 
in the babies' DNA, the physiological & phenotypic differences, to say nothing of developmental differences, 
are vast.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

rheasmum said:


> [the] new theory of training is good, [scientifically] sound & proven. But I get the sense [that]
> many trainers are *using quite weak evidence* to create a *new model of the canine pack.*
> 
> All seem to rely on [David Mech, PhD - 1999 research]. i'm just not convinced the case is proven
> or that people *promoting the new model are not just as biased* in their views.


there is no NEW MODEL OF THE DOG-PACK - it's not a pack.  Dogs acting as a pack is a short-lived, 
activity-driven suite of behaviors - EX, a group of Coonhounds, set down for a night-hunt in the UKC: 
none of the dogs may know one another; they will, nonetheless, tolerate each other, signal a track, 
learn to listen to a dog who knows what s/he is doing & follow that dog preferentially, ignore the dummy 
who barks on a deer-trail, & they will act as a co-operative tho loose group to pursue the raccoon - 
HOWEVER, when the coon is treed & the dogs are called away, the pack-like behaviors evaporate, 
& U again have a collection of individuals.

dogs don't PAIR-BOND: the quintessential foundation of a future pack. No bonded mating pair, 
no pack - period.

there is a plethora of non-Mech research, much of it within the past 5-years alone, on dog behavior - 
all supporting the fact that dogs are not wolves, don't act like wolves, don't THINK like wolves, etc. 
query "canine cognition" on Google Scholar [ignore patents] - Miklosi is among the most active 
recent research authors, but there are plenty of others in the US & UK, too; Miklosi is IIRC Hungarian.
_"wolves R wolves, dogs R dogs, & primates R us."_ - my signature line since 2007. :lol:

the fact that dogs share SOME signals & behaviors [RG among them] with wolves, doesn't make the 2 
into twins, separated at birth - a dog dumped into wolf-country is more likely to be killed than adopted, 
_'Call of the Wild'_ notwithstanding.  Dogs & wolves are more like very-distant cousins, at best... 
not siblings, nor an ancestor / descendent relation, as MODERN WOLVES are not the root 
of MODERN DOGS - they are related & interfertile, but not "close" by any means.

that's precisely why wolf-hybrids infuriate me so intensely - the poor creatures literally don't fit, 
ANYwhere - they cannot be dumped to [theoretically] interbreed with wild-wolves, they don't make good pets, 
& as soon as they enter puberty, their temperament & personality undergo marked changes. They have no place - 
wolves belong in the wild; dogs belong in human-homes. Hybrids don't belong anywhere...  they're disasters.

i did the math on bite-statistics in the USA - despite representing only 1 to 2% of all "pet dogs", 
a hybrid is ELEVEN TIMES AS LIKELY to bite than the other 73-million dogs here. Hybrids kill more humans 
than ANY dog-breed or breed-mix - period.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

rheasmum said:


> If I suddenly introduced 2 assertive males [assertive posture, upright... body language, tail raised, etc]
> in a new home, & they stood up to each other & squared up, wouldnt this seem like a dominance display?


if U plunk 2 assertive intact-males into the same house, & NEITHER dog lives there, it's unlikely that 
there will be any fireworks - as neither dog has anything to defend, neither turf nor a space [bed, 
eating area, etc] that he is accustomed to think of as "his". However, if U plunked 2 assertive intact-Ms 
in a common space & threw a bone on the floor, i'd think U were an a$$hat & incredibly irresponsible - 
U have now provided a gratuitous reason to quarrel: a resource worth fighting for, & thus U have 
set the dogs up for conflict. 


rheasmum said:


> ...what about the same behaviour between 2 strange Ms [in] the park?


as usual, dog-owners need to KNOW THEIR DOGS - not just take them to a public area & turn 'em loose.
Posturing isn't fighting by a long shot - M:M displays don't normally result in bites, let alone fights; 
they are intended to reduce & avoid conflict, not to indulge in fights for the helluvit. 


rheasmum said:


> Do you mean [dominance is] rare [re] canine:human relationships, or canine [re] canine?


DOMINANCE IS AN *INTRA*SPECIES PHENOMENON. Dogs don't rank humans - 
& the number of dogs who show *any form of hierarchy* in pet-homes, even multiple-dog homes, 
is vanishingly few - after over 30-years working with dogs, i can say this with assurance. 

to boot, IF A DOG starts to behave in a dominating manner, i've yet to meet a pet-owner who will ignore 
the behaviors, & let the dogs continue to do their thing: they inevitably intervene, as they see the dog 
who is being bossy as an aggressor, & the dog who is appeasing as a brutalized victim. Ergo, dominant 
& subordinate relations die a rapid death at a very-early stage, IME.

as i said, we can dissect this forever... Either U want to see dogs as wolves in our homes, or U accept that dogs 
are behaviorally & physiologically distinct from wolves, & don't engage in open hostility & ritualized aggro 
to achieve their every social & personal goal. Pick one. ::shrug:: The evidence is plentiful that dogs 
are very different from wolves.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

Developmental Biology 9e Online: Evolution and Domestication: Selection on Developmental Genes?

Is one reference to the work of Dmitri Balyaev (google him, it's fascinating). He is one of the scientists working on the domestication of silver foxes in Siberia. It's a multi-generational study of breeding selection for tameness. It started with a mob of foxes bought from the fur farms. These were animals selectivly bred for fur and ability to survive in cages. Not tame at all; stick-your-hand-in-cage-and loose-it-not-tame. They selected the least aggressive and bred from them and continued over several generations. They now have pet foxes; happy-to-see-you-and-jump-on-your-lap-tame, animals that actively seek out human interaction as dogs do.

These silver foxes are NOT trained at all. They live in cages. The changes have been elicited by breeding selection alone.

The tame foxes show all sorts of interesting biochemical alterations (mainly in serotonin levels and corticosteroid levels). They also show altered phenotypes. This is partly due to expression of recessive genes (altered coat colour, texture, curly tails) and partly due to prolonged pedomorphism (retention of juvenile characteristics), broad skull, floppy ears etc.

The supposition from this is that man selected wolves for tameness and in doing so created pet dogs. The wolves are presumed to have been scavengers around people's homes and the selection would have occurred as men killed aggressive wolves and tolerated the "tamer" wolves.

Certainly the fact that wolves and dogs can interbreed and produce fertile offspring argues that they are the same species. Dogs are a very highly selected sub-set of wolves.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

Very intresting post ozrex !!


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

Thanks leashed for life uve given me a lot to study and make very convincing arguments.

I am not trying to say a domestic dog is a wolf there are clearly many differences not least in how they are raised the study you point to is very interesting. I was talking to friend a few days that happened to raise a wild wolf for year and half and she also mentioned the wolf would pace and would never settle inside, but she didnt mention aggression like taking things so I may ask her again about this.



> if U plunk 2 assertive intact-males into the same house, & NEITHER dog lives there, it's unlikely that
> there will be any fireworks


Is that a observation based on personal experience ? My scenario is relating to a person briniging 2 strange dogs into a house its expected their could be any number of things the dogs might guard, im not talking about simply placing 2 dogs in a empty shell of a house. Evan then you could get a fight in a confined space in my personal experience its highly likely. But I must admit im relating this to maybe more typically assertive breeds like Rotties lgd etc.



> as usual, dog-owners need to KNOW THEIR DOGS - not just take them to a public area & turn 'em loose.
> Posturing isn't fighting by a long shot - M:M displays don't normally result in bites, let alone fights;
> they are intended to reduce & avoid conflict, not to indulge in fights for the helluvit


Offcourse many posturing males wont have a life or death battle but in my experience many dominant males may certainly scuffle or worse. The reason I have given the example is i wondered what the motivation was to evan posture in the first place ? If relative status between the 2 dogs was not a issue.I think Both you and Rottiefan said dominance can only exist in a consistent relationship why do strange dogs nearly always in some-way express deference and or personal standing ? Im not trying to be differcult but there are several concepts that seem removed from what I see on a daily basis. On a logical standpoint a posture a dog adopts to another has a pupose if one dog approaches another head high, tail high showing all the signs of dominance and the other pins its ears back lowering its head I find it hard to believe their not in some-way expressing a certain hierarchy in the relationship. Now off course ive seen many fluid situations were dogs can show different behaviours one may guard a object, then another may offer different behaviour. But I wonder if this depends on the breed the environment and or the owners input and the dog in question. Although many pet dogs may have unfixed hierarchy in family home i could also point to many dogs through personal experience that do .

Also a point was raised that dominance is an isolated act this may be the case for some, but ive also experienced consistent acts by certain dogs a consistency not a flipping back and forth of relative status. For many years my friend has owned Rotties he purchased a male pup and introduced it to 2 older rotties, a male and female. And through out his whole life the new rottie male differed to the older male Evan when the Older male couldnt walk. The same dog was an assertive male outside the house, point I make is the relationship was consistent and there is no other plausible explanation but to say their was a hierarchy between the 2.

Ive also witnessed a Young male Rottie react to weakness of an older male labrador. Years ago I used to take male Rottie to a friends house he grew as a pup staying with the Labrador. As he got older bigger and stronger the old Labrador got weaker as the weeks passed we could sense a change in the relationship between the 2 until the Labrador avoided the Rottie and the rottie actively followed the lab in a very assertive way. Offcourse the situation was not allowed to continue but its clear to me the Rottie was in affect taking over. The same dog many years later met another large male Rottie being kept by another person they met outside both tentatively, postured then ignored each other when they got back to the house. The other rottie licked my Rotties mouth in a submissive fashion and more a less instantly my rottie started the same assertive following and harassing behaviour. Maybe it depends on the breed but I can only speak from my own experience to say that I have owned dogs with consistently dominant characters were hierachy seemed to matter.

I am not relating this in anyway with wolfs just describing what I have seen and making the most logical inference.

Regarding dominance not relating across species im not suggesting it does in a strict sense what I am proposing is that a dogs character be it submissive or dominant [assertive, confidant, posturing with other males] Can have a bearing on its behaviour with humans im not suggesting dogs make plays to become leader at all. But Evan in a simple example of a person reaching down and stroking a submissive dog if it rolls on its back it would seem that it is relating to the human in hierarchical type deference. If the dog did not link the human to a hierarchical pack/family why would it offer the behaviour. ???


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Submissive & *dominant* are, to reiterate,
NOT. _"a dog's character"._. If we cannot even define 
terms as shared concepts, we cannot discuss anything fruitfully. 

From now on, just assume I'll smile & respond, _"Yes, dear."_. :ihih:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

A dog is just as likely to roll-over NOT b/c s/he is displaying submission,
but b/c s/he enjoys the sensation of a belly-rub & has learnt that humans, 
presented with a belly, almost invariably pet or scratch it. 
Maybe s/he has an itch - a flea or skeeter bite - & a rub is soothing.
Dogs "use" humans as much as we "use" dogs for comfort. A dog lying 
across our feet on a cold night is warm & relaxing, as well as frankly
companionable.

Another likely option: this dog was taught ROLL-OVER as one of her / his. 
earliest learned [cued] behaviors, ergo it's a default: if U aren't sure what 
to do, this one has a very long & reliable history of being rewarded.

Equally probable, a dog who feels comfy & unthreatened will assume any
physically comfortable position, w/o regard for any underlying "message".

Often a cigar is just a smoke - not an oral / phallic symbology.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2012)

Nothing to add really other than what has already been stated.


rheasmum said:


> Offcourse many posturing males wont have a life or death battle but in my experience many *dominant males* may certainly scuffle or worse. The reason I have given the example is i wondered what the motivation was to evan posture in the first place ? If relative status between the 2 dogs was not a issue.I think Both you and Rottiefan said dominance can only exist in a consistent relationship why do strange dogs nearly always in some-way express deference and or personal standing ?


Youre using dominant to describe the dog (see bolded above). Dominance is not a descriptor of a dogs personality type. It is a descriptor of a relationship between two dogs.

Dogs who do not know each other posture in order to communicate. The conversation does not always have to be about deciding who is top dog, in fact is rarely is. Just because a dog is posturing does not mean he is higher ranking". By the same token just because in one context cedes space or resources to another dog does not mean that dog is a low ranking dog.

Those dominant and submissive gestures dogs show are all part of a conversation between dogs that serve all sorts of purposes from hey do I know you? to wanna play? to youre making me nervous to back off, I dont like your type to all sorts of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with rank or dominance or resources.

IOW, dogs are wonderfully adept at communicating and their relationships are wonderfully complex and intricate and cant be factored down to one simplistic descriptor like dominance.



rheasmum said:


> Im not trying to be differcult but there are several concepts that seem removed from *what I see on a daily basis.* On a logical standpoint a posture a dog adopts to another has a pupose if one dog approaches another head high, tail high showing all the signs of dominance and the other pins its ears back lowering its head I find it hard to believe their not in some-way expressing a certain hierarchy in the relationship.


Except what you see is going to be clouded by the philosophy you have adopted to explain dogs relationships. Thats why most scientists spend a lot of time learning how to clearly and accurately record observations without trying to define or explain anything. If you believe in dominance/pack theory, then that is what you will see when you observe dogs. But if you simply observe dogs without trying to prove or disprove any hypothesis, then you may see something else entirely.

I have a dog who will use calming signals and submissive gestures to gain a resource. And he gains resources this way. Its not that unusual of a phenomenon either. The dog will lower himself, ears back, lick lip, and inch up to another dog and take a resource (toy/bone). By your definition the dog is being submissive yet he manages to gain a resource. See what I mean?



rheasmum said:


> Also a point was raised that dominance is an isolated act this may be the case for some, but ive also experienced consistent acts by certain dogs a consistency not a flipping back and forth of relative status. For many years my friend has owned Rotties he purchased a male pup and introduced it to 2 older rotties, a male and female. And through out his whole life the new rottie male differed to the older male Evan when the Older male couldnt walk. The same dog was an assertive male outside the house, point I make is the relationship was consistent and there is no other plausible explanation but to say their was a hierarchy between the 2.


Again, you are going about your observations backwards. You are starting with a theory and then are setting out to get the data/observations to fit in to the theory instead of the other way around. FIRST you make observations, THEN you formulate a hypothesis. 
It does not surprise me at all that you are seeing what you expect to see based on what you believe. Have someone like me observe the rottie and I may see something entirely different.



rheasmum said:


> Regarding dominance not relating across species im not suggesting it does in a strict sense what I am proposing is that *a dogs character be it submissive or dominant [assertive, confidant, posturing with other males] *Can have a bearing on its behaviour with humans im not suggesting dogs make plays to become leader at all.


 To the bolded, again, dominance is not a personality trait.



rheasmum said:


> But Evan in a simple example of a person reaching down and stroking a submissive dog if it rolls on its back it would seem that it is relating to the human in hierarchical type deference. If the dog did not link the human to a hierarchical pack/family why would it offer the behaviour. ???


PERFECT example of how youre observations are very clouded by your preconceived notions of the nature of dogs.
I have a dog who rolls over as an attention getting device. He will roll over and bat his paws in the air and everyone laughs and rewards him. 
What of the dog who has an itch on his back and rolls in the grass? The dog who likes belly rubs? The dog who has been taught roll over? There are oodles of reasons a dog may roll on to his back for a human that have NOTHING to do with the dog showing deference or even appeasement to the human.

Speaking of communication between dogs. Do you see any dominance in the video below? 
The black dog is a juvenile at this point (not 2 years old), the dane an adult, new rescue who at this point has only been with us a few weeks.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

& i'd love to watch the video, but my %$#@ phone 
can't or won't show it- I'll have to wait till Monday 
& a hotspot.

I can't quote a post, nor copy / paste, either - drabbit.
Even reading a thread is awkward, as it takes forBloodyEver
to load one, what with the graphics, ads, frames, etc.

Is there a TEXT-only mobile version of PF-uk?


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

> Youre using dominant to describe the dog (see bolded above). Dominance is not a descriptor of a dogs personality type. It is a descriptor of a relationship between two dogs


.

Maybe in a scientific sense but I do believe the word dominant can be used as a way of describing a dogs personality type, You could use the word assertive if it pleased its just a way of describing consistent behaviours.



> Dogs who do not know each other posture in order to communicate. The conversation does not always have to be about deciding who is top dog, in fact is rarely is. Just because a dog is posturing does not mean he is higher ranking". By the same token just because in one context cedes space or resources to another dog does not mean that dog is a low ranking dog.


I agree they are communicating. I dont think its reasonable to suggest clear submissive signals and clear assertive dominant signals have no bearing on a individuals dogs perceived standing.



> Those dominant and submissive gestures dogs show are all part of a conversation between dogs that serve all sorts of purposes from hey do I know you? to wanna play? to youre making me nervous to back off, I dont like your type to all sorts of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with rank or dominance or resources.


Are you really suggesting no Hierarchy is being communicated at all  dog lays on his back im no threat to you I accept your higher position dog postures tall making him self big  im big and powerful the signals are obvious.



> Except what you see is going to be clouded by the philosophy you have adopted to explain dogs relationships. Thats why most scientists spend a lot of time learning how to clearly and accurately record observations without trying to define or explain anything. If you believe in dominance/pack theory, then that is what you will see when you observe dogs. But if you simply observe dogs without trying to prove or disprove any hypothesis, then you may see something else entirely


I actually think its those clouded by philosophy of modern dog training who try to mould all behaviour to support their beliefs. Who ever makes a study and notes behaviours is then free to summarise in their own words, their own interpretation and beliefs shape this for example Mech didnt feel pinning was a dominance behaviour because he is a scientist do we suspend common sense ? No !



> Again, you are going about your observations backwards. You are starting with a theory and then are setting out to get the data/observations to fit in to the theory instead of the other way around.


Not at all thats what I feel your doing, I see behaviour and use words to describe it.



> FIRST you make observations, THEN you formulate a hypothesis.
> It does not surprise me at all that you are seeing what you expect to see based on what you believe. Have someone like me observe the rottie and I may see something entirely different.


Why do you assume what I am saying is wrong have you considered the possibility that what I am saying is just contrary to your model of understanding and that maybe its your model that is wrong ?



> To the bolded, again, dominance is not a personality trait


I think it can be a descriptive and accurate term to describe a dogs personality. You may choose the word assertive if you like ?



> Originally Posted by rheasmum
> But Evan in a simple example of a person reaching down and stroking a submissive dog if it rolls on its back it would seem that it is relating to the human in hierarchical type deference. If the dog did not link the human to a hierarchical pack/family why would it offer the behaviour. ???
> PERFECT example of how youre observations are very clouded by your preconceived notions of the nature of dogs.
> 
> ...


Sorry I disagree in my view your guilty of the very thing your suggesting I am lol. Im not talking about other behaviours of play or trained responses its about common sense. AS a fact dogs do show deference to human beings in their body language. If they didnt in anyway relate to humans in hierarchical way, I cant see how this is possible.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

I dont believe hierarchy is being expressed in that video the great dane is throwing out umpteen calming signals and is a little uneasy/unhappy with the attention the other dog wants to play. Many dogs have interactions like this and its these type of interactions which I feel modern behaviourist base their views on. Its just as easy to find videos were status is being expressed give me one second.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

playing with pup holland - YouTube


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

One dog in this video is the more assertive.of higher standing and the other dogs knows also 

CRMV0023 - YouTube


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

So, how about those *Pirates?*
Great game, huh? :laugh:


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

domestic dogs may have evolved away from wolfs, But they still have a desire to reproduce isnt this the very driving force of dominance ?

it would seem to me its being argued dogs never show submissive or dominant body language in response to a human being, this is the bit im having trouble with,

Lets remove the possibility of a dog wanting to scratch or performing a party trick. Is it being argued that the same body language readily linked to hierarchy displays in wolfs now have different meanings for dogs ? That they have evolved away from a wolf so much that the body language has different meanings.?


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2012)

Rheasmum, there is a clear definition of dominance already established and agreed upon among scientists who study animal behavior.
You seem to be rejecting this definition and want to continue to use the term in a colloquial sense. This makes for essentially an impossible conversation because were not speaking the same language if you will.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> Rheasmum, there is a clear definition of dominance already established and agreed upon among scientists who study animal behavior.
> You seem to be rejecting this definition and want to continue to use the term in a colloquial sense. This makes for essentially an impossible conversation because were not speaking the same language if you will


For the purpose of study they have defined how they use the word, the average person uses it relating to assertiveness. As I said before maybe I can use the word assertive if thats helpful ?

rule; control; authority; ascendancy.

Animal Behavior . high status in a social group, usually acquired as the result of aggression, that involves the tendency to take priority in access to limited resources, as food, mates, or space.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2012)

rheasmum said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> For the purpose of study they have defined how they use the word, the average person uses it relating to assertiveness. As I said before maybe I can use the word assertive if thats helpful ?


No, its not helpful, because you are extrapolating hierarchy from assertiveness and the two are unrelated.

I guess my question to you would be why do you care so much? Dominance, rank, hierarchies, social structures, yes they ALL exist. No one is saying they dont. But when it comes to domestic dogs, canis familiaris, these things encompass such a small part of the whole that it seems, well, silly to put such emphasis on it. The huge majority of dog/dog interactions have nothing to do with establishing rank and non of dog/human interactions do, so why so much focus on dominance?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Common terms are NOT "FOR THE SAKE OF THE STUDY" - 

They are defined & used across the science of behavior all the 
same, so that ethologists, research fellows, biologists, trainers, 
CAABs, vet-behaviorists, et al, can *communicate* accurately,
using a shared language.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

> I guess my question to you would be why do you care so much? Dominance, rank, hierarchies, social structures, yes they ALL exist. No one is saying they dont. But when it comes to domestic dogs, canis familiaris, these things encompass such a small part of the whole that it seems, well, silly to put such emphasis on it. The huge majority of dog/dog interactions have nothing to do with establishing rank and non of dog/human interactions do, so why so much focus on dominance?


I totally agree but my process of learning isnt blindly accepting all thats said but exploring subjects. Im certain the methods you describe for dog training are right, effective and the old method of establishing your self as a leader to train is idiotic.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

> Common terms are NOT "FOR THE SAKE OF THE STUDY" -
> 
> They are defined & used across the science of behavior all the
> same, so that ethologists, research fellows, biologists, trainers,
> ...


Offcourse how would it work otherwise, but if i see I dog roll on his back when meeting another im going to stop using a perfectly good word to describe the behaviour because in science a dog can only be dominant in a consistent relationship. As far as im concerned if 2 dogs meet in this fashion common sense dictates its identical to how hierarchy is maintained so the dog is relating to the other in this mode. Clearly the dog does not care about the scientific definition some inbuilt genetic disposition is driving the dog to offer appeasing signals. Dogs can and do also offer the same behaviours to people. Why ?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Dogs also SELF-HANDICAP when they play with younger / older / smaller, 
etc dogs - when U see an adult-dog lie down to jaw-wrestle with a young pup,
whose whole body is only as big as the grown-up's head, U'd call that 
*submission*?

The rest of us call it appropriate play.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> Dogs also SELF-HANDICAP when they play with younger / older / smaller,
> etc dogs - when U see an adult-dog lie down to jaw-wrestle with a young pup,
> whose whole body is only as big as the grown-up's head, U'd call that
> submission?
> ...


So do I but how does randomly picking another scenario in anyway counter the argument that dogs can also offer submissive behaviour to avoid conflict,

Deference =

1. 
respectful submission or yielding to the judgment, opinion, will, etc., of another.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

> Dominance, rank, hierarchies, social structures, yes they ALL exist. No one is saying they dont.


are you leashed for life ?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Rheasmum, I am not the expert that LFL or Ouesi is by any means, but whenever a puppy comes along near my dogs, the puppy will go straight on to his back, and is so obviously saying "play with me". Why do you imagine that interpretation would change to "I'm no threat" when he gets older?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

rheasmum said:


> Offcourse how would it work otherwise, but if i see I dog roll on his back when meeting another im going to stop using a perfectly good word to describe the behaviour because in science a dog can only be dominant in a consistent relationship. As far as im concerned if 2 dogs meet in this fashion common sense dictates its identical to how hierarchy is maintained so the dog is relating to the other in this mode. Clearly the dog does not care about the scientific definition some inbuilt genetic disposition is driving the dog to offer appeasing signals. Dogs can and do also offer the same behaviours to people. Why ?


If I see a dog being "submissive" as you put it to a human, he is usually cowering in fear and I know that dog has been ill treated. If he lays on his back for a human, he wants fuss, tummy tickles. As to the dominant behaviour you say you have seen a dog offer a human, I would say where? I have never seen such a thing.

One of my dogs always greets a strange dog with what you would call the "dominant" posteuring of tail up, head above the other dog. The next thing that usually happens is that the strange dog and my dog will be running about playing. Sometimes the strange dog will snap, out of fear, and my dog will immediately back off.

So, he's introduced himself and the other dog has said "no thanks, mate. I don't like you; you're too big." Fair enough, end of conversation. I see nothing dominant or submissive in either dogs actions.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rheasmum, I am not the expert that LFL or Ouesi is by any means, but whenever a puppy comes along near my dogs, the puppy will go straight on to his back, and is so obviously saying "play with me". Why do you imagine that interpretation would change to "I'm no threat" when he gets older?


I think there are lots of variables Tbh many puppies use this as a submissive way to elicit attention. I want to play and im also no threat.

One Great Snark! (slow motion dog to dog meeting) - YouTube

one dog defers to the other thiers a reason for all the signals


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

> One of my dogs always greets a strange dog with what you would call the "dominant" posteuring of tail up, head above the other dog. The next thing that usually happens is that the strange dog and my dog will be running about playing. Sometimes the strange dog will snap, out of fear, and my dog will immediately back off.
> 
> So, he's introduced himself and the other dog has said "no thanks, mate. I don't like you; you're too big." Fair enough, end of conversation. I see nothing dominant or submissive in either dogs actions


I dont see it like that for me the dogs have already communicated relitive standing, your dog has social skills and listens to the other dog.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Back before Galileo, people would look up at the sky and see that the sun moved very slowly across it, moving from one side to the other in the course of a day. They knew, because the Bible told them, that the earth was the centre of the Universe and they had proof of this by watch the sun moving across the sky.

Did it ever once occur to them that the sun wasn't going anywhere, that it was the earth on which they stood which moved? No, they saw what they wanted to see and when Galileo had the effrontery to question that, he was charged with heresy and imprisoned, barely escaping with his life.

I am afraid I think you are doing very much the same thing, seeing precisely what you want to see.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

CRMV0003 - YouTube

example of what i would describe as a dominant pup he wants attention does,nt feel the need to appease the other dog. Many pups will fear to do this because older dogs may rebuke them. He grew to be very dominant and has always been consistent.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

> No, they saw what they wanted to see


Which is very much the case there are so many trainers are against the Hierarchy model of training they choose to fight any idea that a dog can be dominant or submissive in character because they feel its a threat to beliefs its quite absurd. Would the pup I just showed you be the same as a pup rolling on its back certainly not.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

it might be in fashion for some to believe dogs dont in anyway care about Hierarchy or being top dog but its certainly not true of all dogs


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

rheasmum said:


> CRMV0003 - YouTube
> 
> example of what i would describe as a dominant pup he wants attention does,nt feel the need to appease the other dog. Many pups will fear to do this because older dogs may rebuke them. He grew to be very dominant and has always been consistent.


All I see in that video is a confident puppy wanting to play with two adult dogs, and the adult dogs obliging him. He started off by chasing the red setter; the setter returns for more, so he is not afraid. The Akita then joins in; they seem to be having a nice game, no rough and tumble just a pleasant, fairly calm game of chase me.

Where is the dominance in that video? There is none, not from any of the dogs involved, and I think it rather sad that anyone should see it as anything else.



rheasmum said:


> Which is very much the case here so many trainers are against the Hierarchy model of training they choose to fight any idea that a dog can be dominant or submissive in character because they feel its a threat to beliefs its quite absurd. Would the pup I just showed you be the same as a pup rolling on its back certainly not.


I am quite amazed that you would say that, when it is so obviously what you are doing. How can you possibly see dominance in a confident pup trying to make friends?

You appear to be missing out on the sheer joy of watching the friendly interaction between three dogs who have never met before. That is so sad.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

I spend many hours just watching dogs and enjoying doing so, to make an observation that a puppy is dominant,assertive what ever word is acceptable does not in anyway detract from that enjoyment . Its clear to me that the way the pup moved in a straight line up to the setter with his head raised trying to lead the interaction he was very assertive [a clear sign of dominant dog],,the observation has been proven to be correct. I,d rather be able to read a dog then see general behaviours.



> I am quite amazed that you would say that, when it is so obviously what you are doing. How can you possibly see dominance in a confident pup trying to make friends?


Because i have eyes  not to see it Would be the height of ignorance and a potential danger when owning a large breed.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

140lb dog comes over slabbering at the mouth posturing awww look he wants to play ,,,As an owner of a newfie you simply dont need to have any awareness of such things. I on the other hand have to read dogs daily to make sure they are not pressured to much or that they dont put them selfs in danger. Its about being responsible and not having my head in the clouds.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

> Where is the dominance in that video? There is none


 :mad2::mad2::mad2:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

rheasmum said:


> I spend many hours just watching dogs and enjoying doing so, to make an observation that a puppy is dominant,assertive what ever word is acceptable does not in anyway detract from that enjoyment . Its clear to me that the way the pup moved in a straight line up to the setter with his head raised trying to lead the interaction he was very assertive [a clear sign of dominant dog],,the observation has been proven to be correct. *I,d rather be able to read a dog then see general behaviours.*
> 
> Because i have eyes  not to see it Would be the height of ignorance and a potential danger when owning a large breed.


The puppy in the video is confident, you might call him assertive. Assertive does not equal dominant. I see not sign of the setter nor the Akita submitting to him in any way, merely welcoming a new puppy into the park.

I would rather you were able to read a dog as well, but obviously you cannot.

Because I see what is there, and not what I would theorise is there, does not make me ignorant. Rather, I do not spend my time looking for dominance instead of enjoying my dogs.

As the owner of two newfoundlands, a giant breed, I am extremely careful that they never frighten another dog. They are both extremely friendly and playful and other dogs are quite happy to play with them, once they have sized them up and realised they are no threat.

But obviously I have ruined my dogs and turned them into dominant monsters because I am not looking for mythical pack behaviour on every interaction.

There is no point in continuing this argument, since any one with a different opinion to you is obviously ignorant.

How dare you?

I am still waiting for evidence of this dominance over humans which you spoke about earlier. Can it be that you subscribe to the daft idea that a dog who has his willy out is trying to dominate his humans? Or perhaps it is when he puts two paws on your lap, or controls the walk by pulling ahead?

My God, I feel so sorry for any dogs you own.

I am now going to take my two dominant beasts for a run so they can terrorise and dominate all the other dogs they see


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2012)

rheasmum said:


> Which is very much the case there are so many trainers are against the Hierarchy model of training *they choose to fight any idea that a dog can be dominant or submissive in character *because they feel its a threat to beliefs its quite absurd. Would the pup I just showed you be the same as a pup rolling on its back certainly not.


One more time. 
There is an established definition of dominance among scientists. Dominance defines a RELATIONSHIP between individuals, it does not define the individual's character. Dominance is not a personality trait. Period, full stop.

Dominance is about resources and it is between individuals with an established relationship. Dominance is not achieved until one individual consistently defers to the other.

You can't talk about dominance between two dogs who have just met even if there is a dispute over resources, because there is not an established relationship. 
You can't talk about dominance between individuals of different species - especially between dogs and humans, because we are NOT competing for resources. I certainly hope no one is competing with their dog over food and mating rights!!

You can't change the scientifically accepted and agreed upon definition to suit your needs!

I love, love, love Newfiesmum's analogy of "seeing" the sun circle the earth. If you have dominance on the brain then yes, that is exactly what you will see when your dogs interact.

Dogs are very adept at communicating with each other. Part of that communication does indeed include dominant and submissive gestures, but those gestures do not define the dog. 
I gave an example of how dogs use submission to GAIN a resource. Riddle me that one  
L4L has explained how dogs will often self handicap, especially when playing with puppies - again, does not make the adult dog submissive in nature any more than it makes the pup dominant in nature, because *dominance is not a personality trait*!!


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

> Dominance defines a RELATIONSHIP between individuals, it does not define the individual's character. Dominance is not a personality trait. Period, full stop.
> 
> Dominance is about resources and it is between individuals with an established relationship. Dominance is not achieved until one individual consistently defers to the other.


Surely thats a technicality im not a scientist nor are the vast majority of owners the term dominant is based on the meaning in the English language, to control to assert etcetc.

Its not helpful to say a dog is not being dominant in its body language when meeting another strange dog , because science sais it relates to a established relationship, and evan more unhelpful to say the body language most have a completely different meaning.

If a dog behaves in a consistent way to be assertive around other dogs and control resources its more then reasonable to say he/she has a dominant personality.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

> The puppy in the video is confident, you might call him assertive. Assertive does not equal dominant. I see not sign of the setter nor the Akita submitting to him in any way, merely welcoming a new puppy into the park.


Another dog does not need to submit to lessen the fact that one dog can carry its self in a forward,assertive or dominant way.



> I would rather you were able to read a dog as well, but obviously you cannot.


If you say so.



> Because I see what is there, and not what I would theorise is there, does not make me ignorant. Rather, I do not spend my time looking for dominance instead of enjoying my dogs.


I use words to describe a dog character its frankly absurd to suggest this means I cant enjoy observing dogs.



> As the owner of two newfoundlands, a giant breed, I am extremely careful that they never frighten another dog. They are both extremely friendly and playful and other dogs are quite happy to play with them, once they have sized them up and realised they are no threat.But obviously I have ruined my dogs and turned them into dominant monsters because I am not looking for mythical pack behaviour on every interaction


.

Newfies have zero drive, you dont need to be aware of much.



> There is no point in continuing this argument, since any one with a different opinion to you is obviously ignorant.How dare you?


Nope I have taken on board what everyone has said it has certainly furthered my understanding and agree 90% of whats been said, but I wont blindly accept your observations on dog behaviour when you havent got a clue what your talking about.



> I am still waiting for evidence of this dominance over humans which you spoke about earlier. Can it be that you subscribe to the daft idea that a dog who has his willy out is trying to dominate his humans? Or perhaps it is when he puts two paws on your lap, or controls the walk by pulling ahead


?

Newfie perhaps you need to re-read my posts and quote what I said directly because im not sure what your talking about ? Is that why your getting so excited ?



> My God, I feel so sorry for any dogs you own


.

Lol on the basis that I make a valid observation about assertive behaviour ludicrous !



> I am now going to take my two dominant beasts for a run so they can terrorise and dominate all the other dogs they see


I would be annoyed its outrageous maybe you need to call the RSPCA !


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2012)

rheasmum said:


> Surely thats a technicality im not a scientist nor are the vast majority of owners the term dominant is based on the meaning in the English language, to control to assert etcetc.


You want to talk about the science - the behavior and ethology of dogs - without using the scientific terms? Okie dokie...



rheasmum said:


> Its not helpful to say a dog is not being dominant in its body language when meeting another strange dog , because science sais it relates to a established relationship, and evan more unhelpful to say the body language most have a completely different meaning.


Do you not understand that the meaning of language is dependent on context? 
Imagine I say to another woman, "nice dress". 
I might really mean that is a nice dress, or I might mean it sarcastically if said with a sneer or if my history with that person was not good. I might mean that the person should offer to lend me the dress. 
What if I were to look someone in the eye? Again, could be an aggressive gesture, could be a respectful gesture, could even be a sexually suggestive gesture. 
So how can you say, without context, that a dog rolling on to his back is a submissive gesture?



rheasmum said:


> If a dog behaves in a consistent way to be assertive around other dogs and control resources its more then reasonable to say he/she has a *dominant personality*.


 See above about creating your own definitions. Either you want to discuss this with a common, shared, agreed upon language, or you don't. If you don't, you're wasting my time. Correction - I am wasting my time


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

I had planned to stay out of this one but there is something I have been contemplating this week that seems relevent...

So much discussion about training / management of dogs' behaviour is brought back to the same debate about "dominance"; about whether or not dogs live in a structured hierarchy and whether they may be competing for status.

The question I've been pondering lately is "Does it matter?"

There are 2 reasons I don't believe it does:

1) Regardless of whether dogs, or any other species for that matter, are social / solitary / cooperative / competitive etc they still learn by the same basic principles. 
R+, R-, P+, P-
Behaviours that are in some way rewarding to the individual get repeated. Behaviours that are not, do not. 

Whether or not dogs are hierarchical is somewhat beside the point - you can be an assertive owner, follow all the "pack theory" rules, and still have a canine delinquent on your hands. Likewise there are plenty of people getting excellent behaviour from dogs despite doing almost the exact opposite.

2) Why is it dogs seem to be the only species with which we worry about this? 

Thousands of animals of various species are trained without concern for if the species is a social one at all, far less what sort of social unit it would naturally live in. 

People have trained everything from goldfish, chickens and birds of prey, through livestock species, cats and rabbits, up to the "higher" species like aquatic mammals and great apes. Some have used controversial methods based on P+ and R- others, especially more recently, have used R+ particularly clicker training. The question of dominance rarely comes into it - yet for some reason when it comes to dogs some people assume it is the be-all-and-end-all.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

> So much discussion about training / management of dogs' behaviour is brought back to the same debate about "dominance"; about whether or not dogs live in a structured hierarchy and whether they may be competing for status.
> 
> The question I've been pondering lately is "Does it matter?"


good post Colette but this is not the issue of the thread, the thread meandered to a discussion of wether domestic dogs have any hierarchical type behaviours, I believe they can and its aptly demonstrated by many dogs in interactions with other dogs. I am not suggesting people use old pack alfa type training ive already said this absurd. There are instances were a dogs character can have a bearing on how it relates to the world ie it does matter if you have a very dominant outgoing 130 lb male opposed to a submissive afflictive one this is not to say the principles of learning are different. If you have a 130lb assertive male of my breed for example it has a drastic effect on how he will deal with visitors opposed to submissive dog. A dogs personality does effect how it interacts with the world.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

I agree that a dogs genetics (breed, line etc), as well individual personality and prior experiences, all affect his behaviours and indeed how he can be best be trained in a practical sense. 

But its only the details of the practical application that vary - the principles (R+ etc) remain the same.

Within any species there will be differences between individuals, or between sub-species / populations (in a similar way to differences between dog breeds). Yet the individual's position within a hierarchy is not something people worry about when training other species.

A solitary species can be trained in the same way (generally I mean, not in terms of details) as a social species. 
The lowest ranking member of a group of animals is trained the same way as the highest ranking. 
You don't tend to hear trainers saying they had to use a different method because they had a particularly "dominant" chimp or chicken or zebra; yet its something frequently discussed when it comes to dogs.

I think what I'm trying to say is this...

Desired behaviours can be rewarded, unwanted behaviours can be managed so as to remove the reward or they can be punished, both good and bad associations can be made by pairing circumstances or behaviours to either pleasent or unpleasent events.... these things can all be done, whether the dog is deemed to be dominant, submissive, assertive, confident, shy, or whatever else.

Hope that makes sense...


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

certainly makes sense to me


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Why Won't Dominance Die? | Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors

Are Dogs Pack Animals?

If not dominance...how do we explain the development of social behaviour?


----------



## Andromeda (Nov 21, 2010)

Something to watch:

Video: The Dominance Myth | Watch Through a Dogs Eyes Online | PBS Video


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

have u linked articles that support your view 
Thanks anyway im sure its interesting reading


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

I feel like posting up some links on alfa training just so everyone is not brain washed  rrr:


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

The video explains the current groovy thinking but is incomplete, its not logical to suggest the arrangement of a wild wolf pack is more relevant then wolfs kept in captivity because domestic dogs are kept in captivity. It does not make sense on the one hand to say domestic dogs have no behavioural link to wolfs then to use the new studies of wolf packs in the wild as the foundation of the new theory.

I,d be interested in EEG scans and more studies of different breeds.?
Do guarding breeds have higher testosterone then other breeds?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

"Alpha" Wolf? - YouTube


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2012)

Rheasmum you may want to check FB, there is this guy on there, Jason Currie, who has posted essentially your entire OP in this thread on several CO groups and claiming it as his own work.

Or... wait... youre not Jasons OH after all, youre Jason. Who was banned from here.

Oh dear, Im so confused!


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

My name is Sara, jason is my Boyfriend so i hope that clears it up for you


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

were both touched that you take so much personal interest searching on fb and alike


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

rheasmum said:


> My name is Sara, jason is my Boyfriend so i hope that clears it up for you


Well, that clears up a lot of questions. He wouldn't believe anyone had an opinion other than his, either.

GO AWAY


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

my impression that this was a time-sucking POT-STIRRER, rather than a genuine query, 
was sadly accurate.  Thanks for the info, Ouesi.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

My impression is that this is your play ground you have a little clique and dont like anyone who has the cheek to disagree, why change the subject to a personal nature to start negative spin on things !is the aim to start bashing ? If you cant deal with the subjects or people not fitting into your clique maybe just refrain from commenting. Your comments regarding my boyfriend are baseless non of you know us personally. You like being on this board puff out your chests and massage your egos. By the way their was absolutely no justification in my boyfriend being blocked many of you acted like play ground bullies and the some of the moderators are simply,,very clicky with some of the older posters. My account was blocked on 2 occasions just for asking moderators to deal with the bullying and distasteful nature brought to some of the threads. And I wouldnt be surprised if this post alone would merit another suspension !! actually surprised it took this long for ouesi to start personal badgering. Its much easier to do that then deal with the subjects.


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

Oooo why is it suprising the CLIQUE has returned to bash, leashed for life watch your name calling dont assume we will never meet !!


----------



## rheasmum (Apr 5, 2012)

**** bag self righteous pompous fool !! sorry as its acceptable to revert to juvenile name calling I thought I,d join in !!


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

I am closing this to sort out the argument that seems to have taken over any topic on this thread.


----------

