Pack Theory?

[Kelpie-i]

What's wrong with the good ol' water bottle It has assisted in solving many "annoying" problems for people and continues to do so regardless of how "outdated" it may be. It doesn't hurt or harm the dog and once the behaviour stops, everyone is happy! I can't see anything wrong with that.

I would be very interested in what is 'outdated' about the idea that for some people and some dog temperaments and pack-mixes that unclear leadership is not related to dogs being out of control, undisciplined and sometimes dangerous?

Yes, I too would be interested in hearing thoughts on this too.

PDTS, are you one of those in vogue Purely Positive trainers??

Edited August 16, 2007 by Kelpie-i

[Vickie]

PDTS, are you one of those in vogue Purely Positive trainers??

I am not PDTS, but I have known her for a number of years now & can assure you there is nothing "in vogue" about her. In fact I would say just the opposite in some cases...where some things she taught/told me many years ago are just now becoming "the only way". I have always found her to be a very balanced trainer, not purely positive, but mostly positive and willing to do what it takes to fix a problem with the dogs best interest first & foremost. One of the things I have always admired the most is her uncanny ability to be able to accurately assess each situation individually & come up with a successful tailored plan to suit.

Anyway, she is also pretty tough skinned & hardly needs me to stand up for her, but an objective opinion is always useful & I had to laugh when I read this question, so couldn't resist giving my view.

[Erny]

...where some things she taught/told me many years ago are just now becoming "the only way".

I have always found her to be a very balanced trainer, not purely positive, but mostly positive and willing to do what it takes to fix a problem with the dogs best interest first & foremost. One of the things I have always admired the most is her uncanny ability to be able to accurately assess each situation individually & come up with a successful tailored plan to suit.

Hi Vicki. What are the things you refer to that "are just now becoming the only way"?

If PDTS would never use a deterrent/punishment such as a squirt of water from a water bottle (which is one of the most mildest forms of punishment) what punisher would she find acceptable? I think this is why Kelpie-i asked if PDTS was of the "purely positive" (loose term) doctrine.

Most of the good trainers/behaviourist I know accurately assess each individual situation and tailor behaviour modification programs to suit the individual dog and person. That's not a new or even novel thing - although that's not to say they are necessarily a dime a dozen either. There are some instances where I might not use (eg) water squirt bottle (for whatever reason). But that's not to say I'd never use it. (Note: Using the squirt bottle as only one of a number of other possible examples.)

ETA: That PDTS has confused/entangled "punishment" activities with what can be regarded as "leadership" exercises (which pertain to setting boundaries/limitations) has served to confuse me, which is also probably why I can't identify where she is coming from. As Vicki you have attested, PDTS has achieved good results with the problem you had with your own dog/s, so I do not intend to be discrediting PDTS here. Simply :D by what she sometimes writes.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Erny

[TNT]

i'd never be able to use the squirt bottle with my two! they'd just try to catch the water!

[Erny]

TNT -

Some dogs are that way inclined - although they don't normally enjoy it when they don't get opportunity to 'play' with it. But maybe you could use your squirt bottle as a reward in release time (after an exercise has been executed) for a job well done! Especially in the hot weather :D.

[The Spotted Devil]

Pack theory tends to be regarded as inacurate/outdated by scientists, simply because dominance is implied by observing aggressive behaviour etc. Science is all about proof so scientists prefer not to ascribe emotions - this is not to say that the approach of the behaviourists/trainers is wrong - far from it IMO as many of you appear to get excellent results with your clients. In addition, the way you describe it to your clients (if done correctly) is probably a lot easier to understand because people tend to anthropomorphise and need to relate the dog's behaviour to their own emotions. I think often scientists and trainers will say the same thing but a scientist has to be very careful about definitions so will prefer to refer to situations that can be replicated and are not reliant on interpretation. The scientific evaluation of animal welfare is also very different from the average "animal welfare organisation" approach, and IMO much more reliable....but I'll leave that for another thread :D

I interpret what my cats and dog do all the time, and those I work with (and it works well for me)....but I am currently conducting a small study on cat behaviour in a shelter environment and it's just vital to remove all my emotion & preconceptions and simply observe the facts (e.g. body position, pupil dilation, tail movement) without any interpretation - that's what statistics are for. It's quite difficult actually!!!! Unfortunately there's not a lot of funding for companion animal behavioural research - all the money is in commercial animals.

So...scientists prefer to refer to learning theory - non-associative learning (habituation, sensitisation, desensitisation) and associative learning (classical and operant conditioning) which can be experimentally replicated. In addition, animals have evolved to give and receive signals from their environment. Transferring this to learning, if the signal always leads to a response, the result is calmness. If the signal never leads to a response, the result is calmness. If the signal sometimes leads to a response, the result is anxiety (which may lead to conflict behaviours). I think that many of the issues owners have with their pets (dogs, cats, horses) is due to a lack of consistency. JMHO.

I hope that makes sense :D

[Erny]

I hope that makes sense :D

It did make sense (I think ) .... thank you TSD. Certainly a well written and thought provoking contribution. :D

Pack theory tends to be regarded as inacurate/outdated by scientists, simply because dominance is implied by observing aggressive behaviour etc.

But with dictionary definition of "dominance" being : "control; ascendancy" (or "dominant" being : having primary control, authority, or influence; governing; ruling) would scientific proof not be in the 'pudding' by observation of wolf-pack behaviour? IE The ultimate being that the "leader" (whose posturing etc. as well as the deferences of others in the pack to it, would also have been observed) DOES "influence/govern" the pack?

Now .... I hope I make sense. :D

....but I am currently conducting a small study on cat behaviour in a shelter environment and it's just vital to remove all my emotion & preconceptions and simply observe the facts (e.g. body position, pupil dilation, tail movement) without any interpretation - that's what statistics are for. It's quite difficult actually!!!!

I could well imagine the mental energy you would need to apply to put aside conscious thought so as to not to super-impose that on what you see. Would be a very interesting study though and I would be very interested in your findings.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Erny

[The Spotted Devil]

"I hope that makes sense "

It did make sense (I think ) .... thank you TSD. Certainly a well written, thought provoking and sensible contribution.

Phew! Thanks :D

"Pack theory tends to be regarded as inacurate/outdated by scientists, simply because dominance is implied by observing aggressive behaviour etc."

But with dictionary definition of "dominance" being : "control; ascendancy" (or "dominant" being : having primary control, authority, or influence; governing; ruling) would scientific proof not be in the 'pudding' by observation of wolf-pack behaviour? IE The ultimate being that the "leader" DOES "influence/govern" the pack?

There seems to be some movement on from the comparison of modern-day dog behaviour with wolf-pack behaviour due to domestication and selection for traits. I know of someone in the UK who works with the Wolf Conservation Trust and he was explaining that they were quite different (even in terms of digestive processes...thus the BARF argument also becomes interesting). But as for "dominance" - I can see what you mean but it is still an interpretation that an animal is "dominant". Certainly you can observe aggression within a pack by a scientist would refer to offensive aggression (defending a resource e.g. food, mate, territory) and defensive aggression (the 'fight' part of the 'fight or flight' response). Splitting hairs I know :D but that's what science is all about!

"....but I am currently conducting a small study on cat behaviour in a shelter environment and it's just vital to remove all my emotion & preconceptions and simply observe the facts (e.g. body position, pupil dilation, tail movement) without any interpretation - that's what statistics are for. It's quite difficult actually!!!!"

I could well imagine the mental energy you would need to apply to put aside conscious thought so as to not to super-impose that on what you see. Would be a very interesting study though and I would be very interested in your findings.

I am rather excited myself - I probably won't have the time to analyse all the data this year but my supervisor has suggested that I continue to collate everything with the hope of drawing some more conclusions out of it at a later date. Will keep you posted if you like. I'm also doing a Lit Review on the effect of early desexing on growth in dogs....will hopefully post in the breeders section when it's finished so that anyone can PM me for a copy.

Bloomin' quote thingies :D

[Erny]

There seems to be some movement on from the comparison of modern-day dog behaviour with wolf-pack behaviour due to domestication and selection for traits.

I have a set of CD's (audible only - not visual) that make mention of this as well. But until conclusionary study results are revealed then I do not believe that belief in the methodologies used today (in so far as they relate to "pack leadership") should be referred to as "outdated" as if it is a foregone conclusion.

I know of someone in the UK who works with the Wolf Conservation Trust and he was explaining that they were quite different (even in terms of digestive processes...thus the BARF argument also becomes interesting).

Given the theory (Coppinger I believe) that the domestic dog may not be the direct descendant of the Wolf, perhaps this is also a possible cause for the digestive system supposedly being found different. IE Maybe it isn't so much to do with domestication??? But then that would be cause for another topic in a different thread. :D

But as for "dominance" - I can see what you mean but it is still an interpretation that an animal is "dominant". Certainly you can observe aggression within a pack by a scientist would refer to offensive aggression (defending a resource e.g. food, mate, territory) and defensive aggression (the 'fight' part of the 'fight or flight' response). Splitting hairs I know but that's what science is all about!

I understand what you've written here ..... but yes, I do feel it is a case of "splitting hairs". But then I'm not a scientist. So I don't have to split hairs. They do, I guess ............. :D

I am rather excited myself - I probably won't have the time to analyse all the data this year but my supervisor has suggested that I continue to collate everything with the hope of drawing some more conclusions out of it at a later date. Will keep you posted if you like.

Yes please.

I'm also doing a Lit Review on the effect of early desexing on growth in dogs....will hopefully post in the breeders section when it's finished so that anyone can PM me for a copy.

I'll be on the list for that one too, if you don't mind.

Will look out for your thread telling us when it's done. :D

[The Spotted Devil]

Rational discussion and debate is very enjoyable. Thanks Erny

[Erny]

Ditto, TSD.

[Erny]

TSD - a further query, if you can help answer?

TSD:

There seems to be some movement on from the comparison of modern-day dog behaviour with wolf-pack behaviour due to domestication and selection for traits.

Do you know if there HAVE been any scientifically proven conclusions drawn from the studies in this "movement" that would give rise as to WHY "leadership exercises" as we know and understand them would not be of any good effect?

Edited August 19, 2007 by Erny

[The Spotted Devil]

TSD - a further query, if you can help answer?

TSD:

There seems to be some movement on from the comparison of modern-day dog behaviour with wolf-pack behaviour due to domestication and selection for traits.

Do you know if there HAVE been any scientifically proven conclusions drawn from the studies in this "movement" that would give rise as to WHY "leadership exercises" as we know and understand them would not be of any good effect?

No, I'm not sure Erny - but will get in touch with my UK friend and see what I can come up with

[Erny]

No, I'm not sure Erny - but will get in touch with my UK friend and see what I can come up with

Thank you. That would be appreciated.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Do you know if there HAVE been any scientifically proven conclusions drawn from the studies in this "movement" that would give rise as to WHY "leadership exercises" as we know and understand them would not be of any good effect?

I'm coming to this late in the thread, so apologies if someone has posted this already.

This website is a useful clearing house of information, and it includes some interesting points on wolf pack theorising.

From what I've been able to gather, some leadership things we do (NILIF style stuff for example) is backed up by current theory, and some things aren't (anything about controlling the animal with force for example).

[Erny]

Thank you for the link, Anita.

A couple of things that it talks about that I'd like to raise for discussion/thought :

It seems to use the following analogy for disproving/refuting "dominance theory".

Article :

"Dominance theory is so muddled that it often contradicts itself. For example, if a "dominant dog" is acting aggressively and the solution is through "calm-assertive" energy which makes the human the "dominant pack leader", wouldn't a dominant dog act calm-assertive intead of aggressive?"

Sounds all good and logical when you first read, but I think something has been missed here ....

IE : It tries to compare "calm-assertion" and "dominant aggression" to evident hypocrasy when in fact the correllation comparison should be "dominance aggression" with (the dog's perception of) "insubordination". Afterall, in the dog pack the leader will only exert/exhibit aggression after calm-assertive 'energy' has not been appropriately observed.

Article :

"There are non-adversarial ways to set rules and boundaries for your dog that don't involve force or intimidation. Most dogs willingly cede the leadership position, requiring nothing more than a simple Nothing in Life is Free program, especially if there have been few to no rules in place to begin with.

(Pinnacle - is this what you were alluding to in one of your earlier posts whereby you state that we would avoid real dominance issues in the (approx) 2 year old dog appearing if we don't apply too many limitations beforehand?)

What the article has not addressed is how and why the dog was able to attain dominance status in the first place.

The simplicity of the article's statement (above) is lost though because it does elsewhere prescribe to the application of non-forced 'limitations'. This is certainly not anything new. Not on the bed; not on the couch; eating before the dog; and such like are all limitations without "force". The article does not look favourably upon use of the "alpha roll" technique, but again, that's not something new and it has been looked upon without favour by many trainer/behaviourist for quite a number of years.

The article also makes frowning reference to leash corrections not having a desired effect when it comes to the human re-establishing leadership status. I have always been an advocate of training the dog (won't enter the "leash correction -vs- negative punishment" debate here as it will only serve to lead me and most likely this thread completely off-track .... besides which, effect or affect much depends on the individual dog) as training forms a component of established leadership in that it is a regular measure whereby the human can demonstrate calm-assertion/government (hope no-one objects to those words :wink:). But I have never asserted that obedience training on its own will bring about "leadership". In my view, leadership 'starts at home' and it is commonly unlikely (very generally speaking) that a dog will heed to its owner unless the owner has first earnt the right to govern. Moving on on this point however, the article suggests that "... [leash corrections] puts the [growling] dog ... in problem situations and communicates a lack of control onthe part of the owner rather than leadership."

This last part is more an example of faulty training/behaviour modification, IMO. Yet it uses this possible example of faulty handling to support its hypothesis that the "dominance theory" is flawed. I can identify here where the connection they have made between one to the other is inappropriate.

The article references further to "force" as including punishment "... such as verbal corrections, corrections with choke chains, prong collars, or shock collars, jerking on the leash or jabbing a dog in the neck with your fingers. ... However, while this may immediately suppress the symptoms of the problem behaviour, the use of force does nothing to positively change the behaviour long-term."

Not sure why the many people of 'new-age' advocation so frequently and seemably conveniently omit recognition that many trainer/behaviourists who might well use some element of "force" such as described above, do not use "force" alone nor even agree that "force" is what teaches the dog in problematic situations. Rather, if they read fully they would recognise that it is what other things are done in between the moments that (appropriate) "force" brought about suppression of the undesireable behaviour, that assist in the learning process.

Another part of the article that I question is :

Article :

A dog's primary need for survival is not, in fact, exercise. If a dog were to spend all of its time and energy exercising, it would have nothing left for establishing and protecting territory, hunting-scavenging, or raising young. Exercise is accomplished through these actions, not instead of.

In essence, I agree with the above. The problem is that the lifestyles of our domesticated dogs generally do not dictate that it exercises to find its food or protect its territory (not to the extent that a dog in unprotected territory might). Nor do the most of our dogs raise young. Consequently I believe that physical exercise for physical sake IS necessary more than people might think. Don't get me wrong - I very much believe in mental exercise too and do not wish to do away with any perception of its importance. But I don't believe that physical exercise should be abandoned for mental exercise (nor for that matter, vice-versa).

I have taken up physical exercise to simply "blow away the cob-webs". After exercise I have felt more relaxed and my mind is more clear and replenished with energy to matters of thought. So I would not like people to discount the virtues of straight out physical exercise - but to reiterate and for clarification, the necessity for mental stimulation must also be observed and met.

I do agree with the article where it goes on to say "... walking a dog on a short leash, at the owner's pace (which is much slower than the dog's natural pace) and without the ability to sniff and explore the environment, provides the dog with very little in the way of exercise. Even if the dog's primary need were, in fact, exercise, this sort of walk doesn't provide enough to satisfy their needs."

Well ..... the above are merely my thoughts on the article that Anita kindly provided link to. I hope the explanations of my thoughts and considerations to elements of the article made sense and I'd welcome anyone else's contribution if they'd care to share here.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Erny

[Muttly]

this continues to be interesting NILIF type regime rather than flooring dogs is what I was referring to

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I hope I get the formatting right with this, if I don't - I'll try and fix it! I'm also going to break it up into a couple of separate posts because otherwise it gets awful long!

Thank you for the link, Anita.

A couple of things that it talks about that I'd like to raise for discussion/thought :

It seems to use the following analogy for disproving/refuting "dominance theory".

Article :

"Dominance theory is so muddled that it often contradicts itself. For example, if a "dominant dog" is acting aggressively and the solution is through "calm-assertive" energy which makes the human the "dominant pack leader", wouldn't a dominant dog act calm-assertive intead of aggressive?"

Sounds all good and logical when you first read, but I think something has been missed here ....

IE : It tries to compare "calm-assertion" and "dominant aggression" to evident hypocrasy when in fact the correllation comparison should be "dominance aggression" with (the dog's perception of) "insubordination". Afterall, in the dog pack the leader will only exert/exhibit aggression after calm-assertive 'energy' has not been appropriately observed.

I'm not going to defend the article there because while I think there is a great deal to be gained in learning to "speak dog" with one's posture, movements and actions, ultimately I'm still of the school that I'm a human. So arguments about what dogs would and wouldn't do as a way to convince me what I should do have their limitations.

Individual dogs have different escalation ranges and different tolerances for a start quite apart from the fact that I don't intend to pee on our dominant dog's favourite tree outside! Also a dog and I don't solve problems in the same way, something for which I'm sure my staff are very grateful. Sure, if I want to solve problems with a dog, I need to give very clear signals, and it helps if those signals are signals the dog already understands.

Where I do agree with the article, and perhaps this is because of the breeds I own, is that I still fail to see where the human needs to escalate to more aggressive tactics. The heaviest punishment ours get is a time out and that happens rarely. Our dogs are sighthounds and none of them have mounted a serious challenge to either of us - perhaps it's the breed, perhaps it's how they were raised, maybe a bit of both. They do the "toe over the line" thing from time to time - eg, bobbing sits and leash pulling, but we've found that being very fussy about what we choose to positively reinforce means we don't have to take more aggressive measures to get them back in their boxes.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Not sure why the many people of 'new-age' advocation so frequently and seemably conveniently omit recognition that many trainer/behaviourists who might well use some element of "force" such as described above, do not use "force" alone nor even agree that "force" is what teaches the dog in problematic situations. Rather, if they read fully they would recognise that it is what other things are done in between the moments that (appropriate) "force" brought about suppression of the undesireable behaviour, that assist in the learning process.

Well, they want to stop people who aren't pro trainers attempting the kinds of things Cesar Milan does without the benefits of his speed, confidence and experience and I can understand that. I do think that physical and verbal correction is rarely correctly applied in the way you describe, and that when it is not correctly applied, the likelihood that learning for dog or handler will happen is pretty minimal.

Plus what people who are clueless do to their dogs can be truly Orwellian, and if the harm can be minimised by suggesting alternative approaches I'm all for it. Unfortunately you're not going to minimise harm by saying to novices "you're unlikely to be competent enough to do correctional training effectively, so do this instead where it will matter less when you inevitably stuff it up"

Yes, it is also true that if someone doles out treats to their dog without any reason and gives a mix of confusing signals, the dog will not learn either. That can be dangerous in some situations, but generally speaking I think there is a higher risk of escalating conflict or damage if you use force incorrectly than if you use rewards and praise incorrectly.

Personally, and this is where I get, if not "new-age", then at least martial arts woo-woo, I think that whenever I use force or physical punishment against another living being I need to be careful of the effect on myself, as well as the effect on the subject of the force. The exceptions to that are things like training in a boxing or martial arts class where everyone is an adult and agrees they're going to be hitting each other and is happy to cop it.

For most people, correction is also reinforcing to the corrector, not just the subject of their correction. Why do serial naggers do what they do? Not because it works well and helps build relationships, that's for sure. I have seen stuff on the show circuit that would put anyone off using a leash correction for life and lot of it is about the ugly side of unconscious self-reinforcement in humans.

Some of it is people demonstrating to all watching that they are a tough trainer in control of their big utility group dog which is hilarious in a sad kind of way, because if the dog had some respect for them, they wouldn't need to yank it around like a hero. Some of it is nerves (popping dogs in the ring who are gaiting fine). Some of it is venting spleen, like people who reef a dog who doesn't win. Some of it I find impossible to explain, like a woman who was reefing her dog over and over and repeating "heel" over and over. If she had bothered to take a look, she'd have seen it was desperately heeling beautifully hoping she'd notice and stop yanking the chain.

So, from my point of view, while I agree that it is possible to do it correctly, I think that in many people (NB - not all!!) there is a high risk that dishing out positive punishment on an ongoing basis reinforces unpleasant and/or unproductive human behaviours. It doesn't mean I'll never do it, but it does mean when I do I've decided that this is the only thing that will work and I'm being mindful that I'm dishing out a correction to an animal that doesn't have a choice about whether to stay or go.

I have also noticed that I generally only consider using verbal and physical corrections when I am low on energy or frustrated or angry. When I'm not, I'll always opt for positive reinforcement or occasionally, negative punishment like a time out for truly undesirable behaviour. Asking myself if I have the necessary frame of mind to dish out a positive punishment mindfully and calmly is usually enough to give me cause for pause.

[BJean]

Not sure why the many people of 'new-age' advocation so frequently and seemably conveniently omit recognition that many trainer/behaviourists who might well use some element of "force" such as described above, do not use "force" alone nor even agree that "force" is what teaches the dog in problematic situations. Rather, if they read fully they would recognise that it is what other things are done in between the moments that (appropriate) "force" brought about suppression of the undesireable behaviour, that assist in the learning process.

Well, they want to stop people who aren't pro trainers attempting the kinds of things Cesar Milan does without the benefits of his speed, confidence and experience and I can understand that. I do think that physical and verbal correction is rarely correctly applied in the way you describe, and that when it is not correctly applied, the likelihood that learning for dog or handler will happen is pretty minimal.

Plus what people who are clueless do to their dogs can be truly Orwellian, and if the harm can be minimised by suggesting alternative approaches I'm all for it. Unfortunately you're not going to minimise harm by saying to novices "you're unlikely to be competent enough to do correctional training effectively, so do this instead where it will matter less when you inevitably stuff it up".

Yes, it is also true that if someone doles out treats to their dog without any reason and gives a mix of confusing signals, the dog will not learn either. That can be dangerous in some situations, but generally speaking I think there is a higher risk of escalating conflict or damage if you use force incorrectly than if you use rewards and praise incorrectly.

Training theory is that only and aspects from each school of thought shoud be used as tools to rearing / training a dog.

The sole use of rewards and praise will not correct a dog really pushing the boundaries;

in some aspects I regard the 'new age' aversion to correction, as a form of humanising dogs and an incomplete application of the 'benevolent leader' role.

Yes a majority of aplha dogs lead benevolently and "do not need to stoop to physical domination to proove their points"

but if their point is not taken, they will respond with a physical reprimand to ensure that it is.

Maybe dogs are not bothered by 'violence' so much because unlike humans they are not plagued by it.

RE: OP:

How important is pack theory to you? How far do you enforce it? Or is it something that you will only pursue further if the dog starts 'pushing the wrong buttons'....

Do you believe that MOST dogs are happy to be the 'happy mediums' and there are only a small handful that want to be the absolute subordinate and absolute alpha??

ETA: Another big question - do you believe in alpha rolling??? Think it works???

Pack theory is important to me as my dogs are very pack orientated - as breeds they can also be predisposed to being dominant and aggressive.

I don't enforce pack order between the dogs - that's up to them -

a rank orientated dog however I will constantly consider how I interact with.

I think once dogs are happy with their place in the scheme of things then it may not be obvious intially as to any particular order -

I also think that how a dog views hierachy is influenced by its breeding/genetics.

Re Aplha rolling:

New dogs that I am unsure about, particularly a rank driven male, I ask to drop on command (dog rolls over on its own accord). If I have a dog that stares at me head on, dead calm and ignores what I ask - an Alpha roll will not address leadership or discipline issues. This dog is intelligent, self-assured and thinks it outranks me - I am not going to show it is wrong by force - I will lose.

(I'm outweighed and overpowered )

Edited August 22, 2007 by lilli