Is A Dog That Isn't Listening Dominant?

[corvus]

Despite the fact that this is undoubtedly going to end in me being berrated by a lot of people and told that I don't have enough experience with difficult dogs, the question is burning in me and I must discuss it!

There are a lot of reasons why a dog might not listen to you. They may be distracted, frightened, hurt, didn't even hear you, or perhaps they are being deliberately naughty because they have found something more interesting. Is a dog that isn't listening to you a dominant dog, or displaying dominant behaviour? In my mind, if one of my dogs has found something more interesting than listening to me, then that's my problem and I need to give them a reason to find me interesting. If I never gave them a reason to find me interesting enough to listen to, then can we seriously say they are dominant just because there are things more intersting in life to them than people? Or to put it another way, is it their nature that they are not listening to me or is it my social status in their eyes?

This is hypothetical as my dogs are usually naturally interested in what I'm doing. I'm not going to bring any examples of dogs I know into it because it just confuses people.

But here's another hypothetical example. Say a dog is one of those independent types and has learnt that they can find funner things to do than hanging out with people. Now if someone asks that dog to, say, come back, the dog might decided that he has better things to do. Is this disregard truly dominance? Considering he knows not only that there are big rewards for ignoring you and very small consequences for ignoring you, why wouldn't he do what he wanted to do? Why would that be a dominant thing to do? Why should he be motivated to hang out and do boring stuff with the leader rather than go off and do fun stuff on his own?

It doesn't make sense to me. What is the purpose of dominance? How does choosing to disobey the leader serve the purpose of dominance?

[Are You Serious Jo]

I think you need to go back to basics and read more about dogs as there are many possible reasons for behaviours that are seen. Dominant animals get access to the best resources, but unless you know something about various breeds (not just anecdotes about dogs you know) then you can't understand what weight the different factors have on observed behaviour.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

The fundamental difficulty with these discussions is not experience. It's values. A lot of what is presented as fact is values based. Dogs on furniture is a good example. My dogs are not plotting a coup just because I let them sleep on the couch. I have no issue with people who don't want their dogs on furniture (providing they are giving them appropriate bedding), and I understand that sometimes a dog that needs to learn boundaries needs to be off the furniture. Ultimately tho' the furniture question is usually more about what kind of home you want to keep, not dog training.

Corvus is not alone in being wary about calling behaviours "dominant". My first Saluki, with whom I made a ton of mistakes, frequently shut down on me. It was a result of my inexperience exacerbated by my trainers' inexperience with independent breeds. I'm not slighting the trainers for that, dealing with a total novice with a Saluki bitch possessing old school Saluki temperament is not most people's idea of a fun time. I'm sure I was one of those people about whom trainers thought "good lord, totally the wrong dog, what was she thinking?" but that's the breed I love, so I struggled through it.

I never experienced it as my dog attempting to dominate me tho' others certainly did. If you observed her I'm pretty sure what you'd have read in my dog's face was "oh god, I'm sorry, I'm with stupid here and I just can't make her understand". Not "I'm the top bitch!" Someone who was very sighthound experienced looked at a video of us one day and said "she wants to do what you're asking, but you're so unclear she can't work it out". Bingo.

Plenty of others had read her as stubborn or untrainable. If I had a dollar for the number of times people said "you have to show her who is boss!" but who offered no practical insight at all I'd have enough cash to buy her a gold swarovski crystal collar. I still regret a couple of things that happened during that time, when I handed her over to people I shouldn't have. What did work was the right eye seeing what was going on and suggesting practical techniques to try that were nothing to do with all that alphabetising crap. Also, I researched like crazy and read whatever I could find about training independent breeds.

I've since seen "oh god, I'm sorry, I'm with stupid here and I just can't make him/her understand" on the faces of bright dogs in my classes. It bugs me that some of their handlers are probably going home and putting their feet up to watch Cesar Millan and will decide that the reason their dog blows them off is because it is "dominant" when the real reason is that the human is a seriously inadequate trainer. The former notion is far more palatable of course, and human psychology being what it is, people like someone else under them in the pecking order and don't like the idea that they might be incompetent. People forget that dominating a dog is really nothing to be proud of.

[Vickie]

There are a lot of reasons why a dog might not listen to you. They may be distracted, frightened, hurt, didn't even hear you, or perhaps they are being deliberately naughty because they have found something more interesting.

you missed a big one here...often dogs don't do what they are asked b/c they don't actually understand what is bing asked of them. People forget that dogs don't speak English.

The dominance discussion doesn't really interest me. If my dog doesn't do what I ask, it's either b/c they don't understand what I am asking or b/c I haven't made following that command worthwhile enough for them.

[The Spotted Devil]

There are a lot of reasons why a dog might not listen to you. They may be distracted, frightened, hurt, didn't even hear you, or perhaps they are being deliberately naughty because they have found something more interesting.

you missed a big one here...often dogs don't do what they are asked b/c they don't actually understand what is bing asked of them. People forget that dogs don't speak English.

The dominance discussion doesn't really interest me. If my dog doesn't do what I ask, it's either b/c they don't understand what I am asking or b/c I haven't made following that command worthwhile enough for them.

Great post Vickie The part I highlighted is just so, so true.

At the recent pet expo a 'trainer' (and I use that term lightly) from a boarding kennel approached me and, with no invitation, informed me that my dog was dominating me and could do with a good dose of "compulsion training". Then he gave me his card If I hadn't been on a commercial stand and being paid for my time he would have copped a whole lot more than a simple eye roll Oh, and then he apparently went back to the Dalmatian breed stand and told them how stupid Dals are - he didn't make many friends that day

Edited February 27, 2009 by The Spotted Devil

[Vickie]

Here's an example of what I mean.

Last night my husband stood at the door & said "OK, everyone let's go outside now"

None of the dogs moved, he got annoyed & repeated with a few extra words.

His first mistake, none of them actually knew he was talking to them. Second mistake, they had no idea what he was saying.

He thinks they are dominant.

Then my 10YO, rolls her eyes, gets up, says all their names & the word "come".

Surprise surprise, they all came. . It drives him crazy...but the reality is, he is the average pet owner with "dominant dogs".

I should also add, that if he actually uses words they understand, they will often still ignore him. They know that if he says "come" 3 times & they don't move, that he will give up, shake his head & walk away. There is rarely a consequence for them, positive or negative for obeying him.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Vickie

[The Spotted Devil]

OMG that sounds like my house......plus 2 cats and without the 10yo!

[Cosmolo]

What Vickie said OMG TSD- thats a great way to drum up business! I believe dogs can be dominant but i also believe there are very few truly dominant dogs in the world. My dogs are allowed on couch and beds and i am pretty sure they're not conjuring ideas of world domination when they do this.

[WoofnHoof]

Agree with the others here, I will try to keep this shorter than my post in the other thread :rolleyes:

I think that dominance is probably overused but it is possibly the catch-cry of the "quick-fix" training methods, you see it in the horse world as well, showing an animal who's boss is not the same as providing leadership and direction for the animal. I let my sibe run in front of me and have weight on the lead but he in no way dominates me, same with the furniture, if I want to sit where he is sitting he moves. My chi waits until I am practically sitting on him before he moves!

Vickie has really hit the nail on the head though, and I agree with you corvus that if a dog is ignoring you on a walk it's got bugger all to do with dominance and more to do with the more interesting things out there. Providing leadership is about giving the dog a reason to take his attention away from those other things, however this is challenging with breeds which are not as human oriented.

[corvus]

I think you need to go back to basics and read more about dogs as there are many possible reasons for behaviours that are seen.

This is exactly why I'm bringing this up, jdavis. I question why some people are telling me a dog that isn't listening is dominant period when I thought we all knew that dogs and other animals aren't simply a matter of this equals that. I am not interested in hearing that I need to go back to basics. I AM going back to basics by questioning everything I'm told about dogs. Just because someone more experienced than I am states something unprovable about a dog doesn't mean they are automatically right. You might notice I specifically didn't bring up any behaviour in dogs I have lived with because that is not my point at all. I'm not drawing conclusions but asking questions. Why don't you try giving me a compelling reason why I'm wrong rather than just saying I don't know anything about dogs, which was beside the point anyway?

Dominant animals get access to the best resources, but unless you know something about various breeds (not just anecdotes about dogs you know) then you can't understand what weight the different factors have on observed behaviour.

Well, I disagree because it's not hard to figure out what an animal wants by watching them. They give themselves away all the time. All you have to do is be objective and have eyes and go for the simplest answer that works. It sure helps to have a load of info and experience, but one thing I discovered when raising my hare was that sometimes info is just flat wrong and experience is sometimes over-rated if it has been seen through eyes coloured by incorrect information. I'm talking about simple, stated facts that turn out to be complete fabrications. That info would have been correct if the people that stated it had taken their lead from other animals that have similar lifestyles to a hare rather than animals that are closely related to hares.

If dominant animals get access to the best resources, then isn't that rather dependent on what resources the individual is interested in? If one dog wants an old bone and another dog doesn't feel like chewing on old bones right now, then how can you conclude that the dog that gets the bone is dominant?

Good point, Vickie, I did miss out on a big one! That's what you get for writing these things past your bed time.

[Are You Serious Jo]

The reason I said it was because I get the impression you need to read more on the subject to fill you in than can be posted on here. People can only write so much on a forum.

"If dominant animals get access to the best resources, then isn't that rather dependent on what resources the individual is interested in? If one dog wants an old bone and another dog doesn't feel like chewing on old bones right now, then how can you conclude that the dog that gets the bone is dominant?"

It is not as simple as that, some species have a strict adherence to the dominance hierarchy they have formed at the time, and some species are more fluid. The reason some animals have strict hierarchies is that most resources are limited in nature, or the dominant individuals want to have exclusive access to matings as well as resources. It is all about fitness.

"Well, I disagree because it's not hard to figure out what an animal wants by watching them."

That is why we do controlled experiments, because people often misinterpret behaviour. I can easily show this in dogs, what people think their dog is doing or thinking is often completely wrong because they either don't have enough knowledge on dog behaviour, or are anthropomorphising. You might be thinking I know what my dog wants because it is walking from A to B but that ignores other things going on that you might have missed. Different breeds have different behaviours based on what they have been selected for, so this needs to be considered, then the individual dog's personality, the background of the dog. It is not as simple as is my dog being dominant or not.

[corvus]

The fundamental difficulty with these discussions is not experience. It's values. A lot of what is presented as fact is values based.

Yes, I think you're right! The thing that started this train of thought was people saying that a dog that wasn't paying attention to the person on the other end of the leash was dominant, when they told me themselves a variety of reasons why the dog might be behaving that way and I didn't really think that any of them were related to dominance. It seems to me that we think that because we don't like being dragged around by a dog they should respect that and if they don't then they are dominant. Why should they respect it, though, if they haven't been given many reasons to and plenty of reasons not to? Why should they respect it if they have been given these reasons but they fail to outweigh the dog's desire or compulsion to pull like a freight train anyway?

I've since seen "oh god, I'm sorry, I'm with stupid here and I just can't make him/her understand" on the faces of bright dogs in my classes. It bugs me that some of their handlers are probably going home and putting their feet up to watch Cesar Millan and will decide that the reason their dog blows them off is because it is "dominant" when the real reason is that the human is a seriously inadequate trainer. The former notion is far more palatable of course, and human psychology being what it is, people like someone else under them in the pecking order and don't like the idea that they might be incompetent. People forget that dominating a dog is really nothing to be proud of.

I don't pretend to be a great trainer and I have seen that look on my dog's face. He wants me to tell him right now exactly what I want and is frustrated when I can't find a way to do just that. I would if I could! I usually tell him to do something he knows to make us both feel better and just try to be consistent in the way I talk to him. :rolleyes:

I think a lot of people are probably not very good trainers, but the dogs can make up for our problems if we give them the opportunity. Kivi knows two quite different commands for pretty much everything because OH naturally does it differently to me. When I look at the way he does it compared to the way I do it, there are so few similarities in the details that I find it quite cool that Kivi figured it out anyway. But we're not going to help them figure us out by getting frustrated that they can't read our minds and then turning it into a problem with them and their attitude rather than us and our attitude. Maybe if people realised how much better at interspecific comminication dogs are than us they would look at it differently.

[corvus]

It is not as simple as that, some species have a strict adherence to the dominance hierarchy they have formed at the time, and some species are more fluid. The reason some animals have strict hierarchies is that most resources are limited in nature, or the dominant individuals want to have exclusive access to matings as well as resources. It is all about fitness.

It is not as simple as is my dog being dominant or not.

That's exactly my point!

Ha ha, jdavis, you're agreeing with me! :rolleyes:

You can't lay these laws down and say when a dog does this it is being dominant. Like you say, there is heaps that we can miss. Like a dog that is baring its teeth but the ears are flat the tail is tucked and the body is low and there's no direct eye contact. Or for a different example, when an otherwise very submissive dog is dancing around on your lap cheekily barking at a normally dominant dog on the ground. What bothers me about the dominance theory applied to dogs is that it doesn't really make room for the complexity of interactions between individuals. With social animals that have to learn how to get along, there are an awful lot of concessions to keep the peace, which I guess is where this fluidity comes from. But equally, there are a lot of ways to get what you want without direct confrontation. You might say that a dog that comes and lays down next to another dog and licks them and smothers them in appeasement gestures until they get up and leave the good bed to the submissive dog is actually dominant. He got access to the best resource in this case without any dominant behaviour.

Controlled behavioural experiments with dogs are hard because dogs are so into people and I reckon they have to be pretty focused on something else for you to be confident you haven't influenced what you are observing. Contrary to what everyone seems to think, I don't draw conclusions based on one or two observations of my own dogs. I build up a picture over time by watching every dog I see. We used to play a fun game on another board I was on where people would post photos or videos of dogs interacting and we would try to figure out what we were seeing and the reaons behind it. It was an eye opener for how hard it is to interpret a snapshot of behaviour, especially with bigger groups of dogs, but nonetheless most of the time we were able to agree on something. I really don't think it's that hard as long as you don't carry any preconceptions into it, although having said that background knowledge can certainly be an advantage.

But anyway, it's all beside the point. Is there a time you could pinpoint, jdavis or anyone else, where a dog that isn't listening to you IS behaving dominantly? I can offer an example that might be seen that way. When you ask a dog to do something you know they know very well and they stand there and bark loudly at you instead. Although I haven't decided if I would call this dominant behaviour or not, as sometimes they do it in a manner that downplays the obnoxiousness. They'll put their head on a funny angle so they aren't quite looking right into your eyes and the ears will be in a playful orientation rather than forward and the tail might even wag, which I have heard is sometimes a signal of conflicting feelings. If they were staring right at you with tail up and ears forward and maybe even grumbling, then yeah.

[poodlefan]

*sigh*

Since it has been suggested that much of these discussion is values based, why don't we start with a definition of "dominance".

Quite simply, I believe "dominance" in the context we are talking is "the power to make decisions" I see it in terms of "leadership".

If a dog takes the stance that it determines where and when it will go or when it will come then it is making those decisions. It's not necessarily plotting to rip its handlers throat out but its displaying its belief that it can do what it likes, when it likes. Dominance is not lnecessarily inked to aggression. Some of the most dominant dogs I know would be more aptly described as 'stubborn'. A dog that can quietly and cooly get what it wants is going to be far more successful than an aggressive one. True Alphas are rarely aggressive.

I'm not talking about inadequate training here, even if people do want to use dominance for an excuse. If a dog knows what "come" is and can do it without distraction then when it gives you the finger and does its own thing, the distraction is not the primary issue. The issue to me is that the dog thinks it has a choice and it exercises it.

Some dogs are naturally more dominant than others. Others have learned that no negative consequences come from disobeying cues or that no positive consequences come from obeying. The result is a dog that blows you off and does what it likes. Example, dog is wandering towards item of interest. You call, dog looks at you and then turns and goes the way that interests it.

I don't tend to talk much about "dominance" but more about respect. It is possible that you may not realise you have a dominant dog if you never insist it does something it doesn't want to do.

Does that help explain my position?

Edited February 28, 2009 by poodlefan

[Are You Serious Jo]

It is not as simple as that, some species have a strict adherence to the dominance hierarchy they have formed at the time, and some species are more fluid. The reason some animals have strict hierarchies is that most resources are limited in nature, or the dominant individuals want to have exclusive access to matings as well as resources. It is all about fitness.

It is not as simple as is my dog being dominant or not.

That's exactly my point!

Ha ha, jdavis, you're agreeing with me! :rolleyes:

If you already knew about it why ask then? You did ask what benefit is there to being dominant?

But anyway, it's all beside the point. Is there a time you could pinpoint, jdavis or anyone else, where a dog that isn't listening to you IS behaving dominantly?

Sure, dog I know that is owned by someone who is clueless and dog completely dominates her. Dog sneaks out through door and runs off and he refuses to return to her. If dog sneaks out past one of us who have a clue (we don't let him dominate us) he comes back when called. Dog does not display the same behaviours with us as he does with owner because we have relegated him below us.

[Vickie]

I don't tend to talk much about "dominance" but more about respect. It is possible that you may not realise you have a dominant dog if you never insist it does something it doesn't want to do.

Great point! I had that in Noah many years ago. I went to do some training with someone I consider to be a very good dog trainer. Within 10 minutes she said to me "this dog is a biter". I was shocked & totally objected saying he had never bitten. LOL, she said "that's because, when he is uncomfortable, he gives you a warning (via eye contact or physcially struggling), you take notice of the warning & back off. He doesn't need to bite."

She told me she could get him to try to bite her in a couple of minutes...and she did. There was no fear, pain, or cruelty. All she did was physically move him, he warned, she persisted, he tried to bite. I will never forget that day. It was a huge eye opener for me & totally changed my relationship with him & all subsequent dogs.

[poodlefan]

Vickie I do think the concept of dominance is over used - and usually as you suggest as a scapegoat for poor training techniques but there are dogs that very successfully manage their owners as you have explained.

I recall Jan Fennell describing a powerful large dog in her book that she told its owners was extremely dominant. When questioned as to why a dog that had never displayed aggression could be such a thing she explained that he had carefully taught everyone else to give him exactly what he wanted.

But dominant dogs are out there and, as you highlight, until you really thwart them, you don't know how strongly they will reassert what they believe to be their leadership.

[poodlefan]

I'll give you a very simple test of how much of a choice your dog thinks it has in life - clip its toenails.

If your dog is older than 6 months and you still can't clip its toenails, who do you think is controlling that situation? I think dominance can be situational and dependent on distractions but I am constantly amazed by the number of people who cannot perform basic husbandry tasks for their dogs and its usually because the dog refuses to tolerate it.

Dogs learn very quickly where the thresholds are for individual people in terms of how easily they will let the dog win. Vickie's example is a classic one.

Forgot to answer this Corvus:

It doesn't make sense to me. What is the purpose of dominance? How does choosing to disobey the leader serve the purpose of dominance?

Dominance serves to ensure you get what you want regardless of the wants of others.

If you choose to disobey, you aren't recognising the role of that leader - you seek or assert dominance. Dominants lead, they are not led.

Edited February 28, 2009 by poodlefan

[corvus]

Thanks poodlefan, that makes it pretty clear.

I guess what I'm thinking most about is the grey area. Where a dog may not control you in everything but sometimes where it matters most to the dog they do what they like. Being very fond of independent breeds, I wonder where you draw the line if there is one. It seems to me that the whole point of dominance in dogs hinges on them getting what they want when they want it, but as I described in an earlier post, dominant behaviour is not the only way to win at that game. And really isn't it dependent on what an individual values?

The way I see it, every dog is out to get what they want when they want it. Every animal I have met has the same aim in life, even when that gets tangled up in wanting conflicting things. Ultimately one has to decide what conflicting thing they want more: avoiding confrontation or getting what they want, for example. Which is how sneaky strategies like behaving cutely come about. But if I am right and every animal is driven to look after their own affairs first (which is what we are told in population genetics), then why wouldn't we regularly see this drive clash with giving others respect, even a leader? What motivation is there to follow a leader beyond them knowing more about your environment than you do? You might get to a point where you are an adult and quite confident about your environment and suddenly the motivation to follow isn't as strong. There are other things in the world, you are an opportunistic creature and there may be big payoffs for you if you venture out on your own and find something cool. I guess that this point generally conincides with adolescence when people start saying they are seeing dominance problems. But is this behaviour dominance or just an individual naturally weaning themselves off their parents' guidance? Although in dogs it is a bit more complicated than that as they never really grow up.

So to me, EVERY dog seeks to get what they want regardless of the wants of others, so every dog would be dominant. The difference is in how far they are willing to go to get what they want and how insistent you are to get what you want. This could explain jdavis' observations about this dog that dominates one person but not another. The dog may be no different to my sooky spineless Lapphund as dominance isn't a requirement for learning that something works on one person but not on another.

I really appreciate your posts poodlefan as they give me something to think about, so don't take this the wrong way, but I put to you that a dog that chooses to disobey is serving the UNIVERSAL drive to get what they want when they want it and disregarding a leader is neither here nor there in the need to serve themselves first. They are leading only themselves. If they get cross with you for not following them, then I might agree that this is dominance. In the meantime, you have a selfish animal with an inate desire to be led, yet an equally inate desire to do what is rewarding, ignoring for a moment that it is not really expressed as a desire as such.

I was going to say something about relationships and communication but I've forgotten. Maybe it will come to me later.

Sorry jdavis, I didn't set out to trick anyone into agreeing with me, but sometimes when everyone habitually disagrees with you it helps to pose a different question and then people can say what they really think rather than just disagreeing because it was you that wrote it. In theory, anyway. Sometimes I think people end up arguing against themselves in arguing against someone they normally disagree with.

[Just Midol]

Corvus, just for fun. Can you find me anything which demonstrates when a subordinate dog in a wolf pack has roamed away from the main pack? Can you provide anything which shows this happens? Dogs follow the leader, to me, it is as simple as that. UNLESS we teach otherwise.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Just Midol