Is A Dog That Isn't Listening Dominant?

[Kelpie-i]

Again, I agree. The dog might not listen because he is dominant, but not listening doesn't have to mean that he is dominant. "Not listening" can also merely be a training issue .... the dog has learnt that it doesn't have to listen.

Yes totally agree. This is exactly what I was trying to say.

I guess I am one of those people who hates to hear the word "dominance" used as an excuse for everything the dog does or doesn't do. It's almost anthropomorphic.

[Erny]

If he ignores what you said, then he has just gained control. Yes?

Depends. If I recalled and he ignored me, so I simply got in my car as I was going to do anyway and drove away ....... what "control" has the dog gained over me?

Revert back to the child/parent analogy. Say you ignore your parents request to tidy your bedroom (in reality I hope you don't ) and instead you leave the house and go visit a friend. Your parents continue to watch TV as they were doing before. Do you think you have dominated your parents? Or just defied them?

But then you come back and demand your Mum make you some dinner and serve it up to you. And she does (silly Mum ). Then I would consider that you have claimed dominance over your Mum .... or at least that might be your perception.

But if instead you came back and demanded dinner but your Mum did not comply (clever mum ), you might still be a defiant child, but not dominant.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Erny

[WoofnHoof]

I think you have to be very careful with a loaded term like dominance. It has a number of emotional connections to it, which in reality don't exist in the animal world. An animal does not strut around thinking "I'm the boss of you and you and you", they are entirely focused on smaller details in whatever situation they happen to be in. Words like defiance and dominance IMO have no place when dealing with animals because they evoke strong human emotions, if a person thinks that a dog is dominating them or being deliberately defiant I question whether that person is then able to make a rational and non-emotional evaluation of the behaviour. Each situation where an animal is not behaving the way we like is a finite situation to the animal, they are not linked in the dog's mind, and they are not necessarily behaviours which are dominant or submissive. The dog weighs up costs and benefits in each situation based on prior learning, observations of the behaviour of the handler, and instinct. It is not based on whether the dog thinks it's the 'boss' of you, it's whether it thinks it can get away with that particular behaviour at that particular time.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Does the DOG think he has influence or control over you?

If he ignores what you said, then he has just gained control. Yes?

If I try and call my dog off a hare in the back paddock and he doesn't respond, it's 3,000 years of breeding to hunt independently kicking in. IOW, the answer to your question is no, it's not personal. He does not give a shit about controlling me in that moment, he is only focused on the hare darting through the grass. That is more than fine with me.

I don't try to control things I don't wish to control and I certainly don't attempt to fight 3,000 years worth of desert Bedouin breeding. If I wanted perfect control and a dog that didn't hunt independently, I would not have selected a Saluki. I'd have a Cocker or something similar.

If I have a brain tho', I will have dog wire or chain wire fenced the paddock in question so that my Saluki's ability to control his environment is limited to what I am happy with.

[WoofnHoof]

Does the DOG think he has influence or control over you?

If he ignores what you said, then he has just gained control. Yes?

If I try and call my dog off a hare in the back paddock and he doesn't respond, it's 3,000 years of breeding to hunt independently kicking in. IOW, the answer to your question is no, it's not personal. He does not give a shit about controlling me in that moment, he is only focused on the hare darting through the grass. That is more than fine with me.

I don't try to control things I don't wish to control and I certainly don't attempt to fight 3,000 years worth of desert Bedouin breeding. If I wanted perfect control and a dog that didn't hunt independently, I would not have selected a Saluki. I'd have a Cocker or something similar.

If I have a brain tho', I will have dog wire or chain wire fenced the paddock in question so that my Saluki's ability to control his environment is limited to what I am happy with.

I agree with this, the breed of dog is incredibly important because just observing herding breeds you can see that they are significantly more focused on their handler than other breeds, while toys are focued on their owners but not looking for instructions as the herding breeds are. The more independent the breed has been bred to be the more independently they will be inclined to behave.

[Just Midol]

Depends. If I recalled and he ignored me, so I simply got in my car as I was going to do anyway and drove away ....... what "control" has the dog gained over me?

From my perspective, nothing. But you've lost control of him which is the key.

It might not directly be because the dog is dominant, but it is a dominant action in my opinion, as he is ignoring the control you have. Subordinate dogs should do what the Dominant dog tells it to do - that's how a social hierarchy works. If the dog doesn't listen to the pack leader then it isn't a Subordinate dog, if the dog fails to do so, then it is no longer a subordinate dog imo. Is there neutral territory where the dog is neither subordinate or dominant? IMO, yes, and that's a stage where the dog is fighting for the dominant position which is just as bad if not worse than being the dominant dog.

This is all assuming the dog has learnt that there are consequences for ignoring the directions of the pack leader or dominant figure in the hierarchy.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Just Midol

[WoofnHoof]

Depends. If I recalled and he ignored me, so I simply got in my car as I was going to do anyway and drove away ....... what "control" has the dog gained over me?

From my perspective, nothing. But you've lost control of him which is the key.

It might not directly be because the dog is dominant, but it is a dominant action in my opinion, as he is ignoring the control you have. Subordinate dogs should do what the Dominant dog tells it to do - that's how a social hierarchy works. If the dog doesn't listen to the pack leader then it isn't a Subordinate dog, if the dog fails to do so, then it is no longer a subordinate dog imo. Is there neutral territory where the dog is neither subordinate or dominant? IMO, yes, and that's a stage where the dog is fighting for the dominant position which is just as bad if not worse than being the dominant dog.

This is all assuming the dog has learnt that there are consequences for ignoring the directions of the pack leader or dominant figure in the hierarchy.

I think that you are working off the perception that the social hierarchy is finite and clear, I don't believe it is. It has been shown that the social structures of wild animals are not as finite and strucutred as first thought, in fact many question whether any true hierarchy exists in the wild. It could quite feasibly be a human construct. In that we have decided that there is a hierarchy and it must be enforced, even the dog-dog interactions we observe are influenced by our own behaviours which the dog's interpret and incorporate into their behaviour.

[Just Midol]

Depends. If I recalled and he ignored me, so I simply got in my car as I was going to do anyway and drove away ....... what "control" has the dog gained over me?

From my perspective, nothing. But you've lost control of him which is the key.

It might not directly be because the dog is dominant, but it is a dominant action in my opinion, as he is ignoring the control you have. Subordinate dogs should do what the Dominant dog tells it to do - that's how a social hierarchy works. If the dog doesn't listen to the pack leader then it isn't a Subordinate dog, if the dog fails to do so, then it is no longer a subordinate dog imo. Is there neutral territory where the dog is neither subordinate or dominant? IMO, yes, and that's a stage where the dog is fighting for the dominant position which is just as bad if not worse than being the dominant dog.

This is all assuming the dog has learnt that there are consequences for ignoring the directions of the pack leader or dominant figure in the hierarchy.

I think that you are working off the perception that the social hierarchy is finite and clear, I don't believe it is. It has been shown that the social structures of wild animals are not as finite and strucutred as first thought, in fact many question whether any true hierarchy exists in the wild. It could quite feasibly be a human construct. In that we have decided that there is a hierarchy and it must be enforced, even the dog-dog interactions we observe are influenced by our own behaviours which the dog's interpret and incorporate into their behaviour.

Sort of. I believe the pack leader is always the pack leader. They just allow subordinate dogs access to resources first when they aren't interested in them. Like Gizmo, he is the leader here but he lets Lily do things first, that isn't because she is dominant over those things it is because he lets her have access to those things as he doesn't want them, I know in some homes subordinate dogs are food aggressive but I don't believe dominance and aggression are the same thing. I've read the "evidence" that social hierarchys are fluid and I simply have a different interpretation of that evidence.

I've yet to see any decent proof that social hierarchys don't exist, yet plenty that say they do.

This is all theory, no one is right and no one is wrong.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Just Midol

[Erny]

Depends. If I recalled and he ignored me, so I simply got in my car as I was going to do anyway and drove away ....... what "control" has the dog gained over me?

From my perspective, nothing. But you've lost control of him which is the key.

Relate to the wolf pack. Sometimes a young wolf will leave the pack to find a different territory and a mate. That has nothing to do with it being dominant over the Alpha of the pack from whence it originated.

It might not directly be because the dog is dominant, but it is a dominant action in my opinion .....

I don't think I agree with the above. I don't believe a dog who ignores a recall .... say, because (eg) he has the scent of a rabbit up his nose or due to some other distraction, is ignoring the recall as an act of domination. Because the dog doesn't comply to obedience commands does not necessarily go to follow that he controls you.

[Just Midol]

If the dog is ignoring you due to a distraction then it isn't trained. I know the phases go teach->train->proof but when I say train I am assuming all 3 stages are complete.

I have said a few times now that the dog is ignoring you simply because they don't want to comply, not because they are distracted.

If a dog leaves its pack to mate, then it's no longer a part of that pack so whether it is being dominant or not is irrelevant.

[WoofnHoof]

Sort of. I believe the pack leader is always the pack leader. They just allow subordinate dogs access to resources first when they aren't interested in them. Like Gizmo, he is the leader here but he lets Lily do things first, that isn't because she is dominant over those things it is because he lets her have access to those things as he doesn't want them, I know in some homes subordinate dogs are food aggressive but I don't believe dominance and aggression are the same thing. I've read the "evidence" that social hierarchys are fluid and I simply have a different interpretation of that evidence.

I've yet to see any decent proof that social hierarchys don't exist, yet plenty that say they do.

This is all theory, no one is right and no one is wrong.

But is Gizmo letting Lily do some things first because he is not interested in doing it at the time or are there other factors in play? I think that the influence of humans is far stronger in determining the presence of a hierarchy than first thought, and because of this I think that the hierarchies we see are not necessarily interactions between the dogs themselves but behaviours which are influenced by an external factor (ie us). As a result I don't think any perception of dominance can really ever be accurate. This paper suggests that the only strict hierarchies are found in captive environments which to me screams that they are nothing more than a by-product of human intervention and as such will not be understood until we understand exactly what the effects of our intervention are.

[WoofnHoof]

If the dog is ignoring you due to a distraction then it isn't trained. I know the phases go teach->train->proof but when I say train I am assuming all 3 stages are complete.

I have said a few times now that the dog is ignoring you simply because they don't want to comply, not because they are distracted.

If a dog leaves its pack to mate, then it's no longer a part of that pack so whether it is being dominant or not is irrelevant.

What is training other than the harnessing of an instinct for our own purposes? As such can the animal be truly said to be disobedient when it follows that instinct (even though it is not at our direction)?

[BJean]

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?

dominance imo is a dogs outlook, nothing to do with how much it is interested in you or whether it ignores you (as its owner) - that's training, the bond you have with your dog, and general breed aptitude for certain tasks.

I've found my most attentive, intelligent (and interesting) dogs to be the dominant personalities.

A dominant dog you wont pick from the way it interacts with me (or how obedient it is),

but how it responds to you as a stranger or known acquaintance, even familiar acquaintance

it may shoulder you, jump on you, shepherd your movement to keep you out of an area it considers 'theirs', or rather, 'not yours'.

it will tolerate you but in its mind you're just a guest, an object of interest

a dominant dog wil seek and maintain eye contact with you, if left in the room on your own you may find you really can't move from a certain area, the dog will impose on your personal space, may continually jump up on you, get in your face - if you were to try to remove it from a favourite / preferred area, bed, corner etc it would growl at you, challenge 'your challenge'. (after all you're have no influence in its world's function so who are you to assert what you want?)

Edited March 1, 2009 by lilli

[Just Midol]

Sort of. I believe the pack leader is always the pack leader. They just allow subordinate dogs access to resources first when they aren't interested in them. Like Gizmo, he is the leader here but he lets Lily do things first, that isn't because she is dominant over those things it is because he lets her have access to those things as he doesn't want them, I know in some homes subordinate dogs are food aggressive but I don't believe dominance and aggression are the same thing. I've read the "evidence" that social hierarchys are fluid and I simply have a different interpretation of that evidence.

I've yet to see any decent proof that social hierarchys don't exist, yet plenty that say they do.

This is all theory, no one is right and no one is wrong.

But is Gizmo letting Lily do some things first because he is not interested in doing it at the time or are there other factors in play? I think that the influence of humans is far stronger in determining the presence of a hierarchy than first thought, and because of this I think that the hierarchies we see are not necessarily interactions between the dogs themselves but behaviours which are influenced by an external factor (ie us). As a result I don't think any perception of dominance can really ever be accurate. This paper suggests that the only strict hierarchies are found in captive environments which to me screams that they are nothing more than a by-product of human intervention and as such will not be understood until we understand exactly what the effects of our intervention are.

I have huge issues with that paper. Probably shouldn't go into it now.

But comparisons to wild wolf packs is irrelevant. Comparisons to captive wolf packs are the only comparison tools we have.

Of course the behaviours and pack structures are influenced by us, but why does it matter? How does it change what they are doing? IMO, it doesn't. If it is a by-product of human intervention how does this change what it is?

That paper is very, very flawed in my opinion as well. It is very generalised, ignores the fact that many breeds have had their pack drives virtually stripped from them and some have very strong pack drives retained (such as our own breed, the sibe).

Using papers like this to justify your argument is useless though. For every paper you present that claims pack structure doesn't exist I can produce one that says it does, same for dominance.

I failed to see how human intervention and external forces changes anything regarding dominance and dominance theory.

If the dog is ignoring you due to a distraction then it isn't trained. I know the phases go teach->train->proof but when I say train I am assuming all 3 stages are complete.

I have said a few times now that the dog is ignoring you simply because they don't want to comply, not because they are distracted.

If a dog leaves its pack to mate, then it's no longer a part of that pack so whether it is being dominant or not is irrelevant.

What is training other than the harnessing of an instinct for our own purposes? As such can the animal be truly said to be disobedient when it follows that instinct (even though it is not at our direction)?

Not seeing your point.

[Tonymc]

Quote from Midol.

Using papers like this to justify your argument is useless though. For every paper you present that claims pack structure doesn't exist I can produce one that says it does, same for dominance

I agree. Tony

[WoofnHoof]

I have huge issues with that paper. Probably shouldn't go into it now.

But comparisons to wild wolf packs is irrelevant. Comparisons to captive wolf packs are the only comparison tools we have.

Of course the behaviours and pack structures are influenced by us, but why does it matter? How does it change what they are doing? IMO, it doesn't. If it is a by-product of human intervention how does this change what it is?

That paper is very, very flawed in my opinion as well. It is very generalised, ignores the fact that many breeds have had their pack drives virtually stripped from them and some have very strong pack drives retained (such as our own breed, the sibe).

Using papers like this to justify your argument is useless though. For every paper you present that claims pack structure doesn't exist I can produce one that says it does, same for dominance.

I failed to see how human intervention and external forces changes anything regarding dominance and dominance theory.

If the dog is ignoring you due to a distraction then it isn't trained. I know the phases go teach->train->proof but when I say train I am assuming all 3 stages are complete.

I have said a few times now that the dog is ignoring you simply because they don't want to comply, not because they are distracted.

If a dog leaves its pack to mate, then it's no longer a part of that pack so whether it is being dominant or not is irrelevant.

What is training other than the harnessing of an instinct for our own purposes? As such can the animal be truly said to be disobedient when it follows that instinct (even though it is not at our direction)?

Not seeing your point.

My point is that although we utilise instincts and direct them, do we really have that much control over them? Do does the dog have enough control over instincts? Say you have your high prey drive dog who you train in drive, a prey comes along and the dog's instinct kicks in to chase the prey, the dog is not necessarily choosing the prey over your wishes, since you are essentially triggering the same instinctive response. I question whether it is really fair to expect a dog to be able to determine which instinct it should follow when they are equal or almost equal in strength.

As far as human intervention in dominance theory goes in my opinon it means everything, since we influence the behaviour how can it be truly the 'dog's' behaviour? I would not use a wolf pack structure as a model since the village dog structure (or lack thereof) appears to be a closer model to the behaviour of dogs devoid of human influence. We have to look beyond the human influence because of course that will vary so much depending on who is influencing the pack and their own behaviour towards it.

Far too many variables to really be able to objectively identify dominance IMO.

[Kelpie-i]

Beautifully put tkay! :rolleyes:

[Just Midol]

My point is that although we utilise instincts and direct them, do we really have that much control over them? Do does the dog have enough control over instincts? Say you have your high prey drive dog who you train in drive, a prey comes along and the dog's instinct kicks in to chase the prey, the dog is not necessarily choosing the prey over your wishes, since you are essentially triggering the same instinctive response. I question whether it is really fair to expect a dog to be able to determine which instinct it should follow when they are equal or almost equal in strength.

If a prey item runs past it's a distraction. I've said about 50 times now that my comment only applies when something is NOT a distraction. I really can't be bothered discussing this if everyone keeps picking and choosing which parts of my comments they want to read.

We don't use instincts for everything, only certain behaviours are trained by developing a dogs instincts. Not all, even so, my GSD is a high drive dog and I fully expect him to control his instincts, if he doesn't he is punished for it. It doesn't take them long to realise that they listen to me, not their instincts. This is so far off topic that I can't be bothered though.

Having the expectation that a dog has impulse control is not something so far fetched that they can't do it. We do have control over them and it is demonstrated by many of the top trainers every single day. That is what seperates a good trainer from a great trainer. I've quickly learnt that the not being able to do x with y breed is a load of shit, and something lazy owners and trainers use to justify their dogs poor training.

As far as human intervention in dominance theory goes in my opinon it means everything, since we influence the behaviour how can it be truly the 'dog's' behaviour? I would not use a wolf pack structure as a model since the village dog structure (or lack thereof) appears to be a closer model to the behaviour of dogs devoid of human influence. We have to look beyond the human influence because of course that will vary so much depending on who is influencing the pack and their own behaviour towards it.

Far too many variables to really be able to objectively identify dominance IMO.

Still fail to see what your point is.

Why is the village dog relevant? Why is it relevant studying how dogs interact without humans? If anything the one we should be comparing our dogs is to the captive grey wolf packs - to me that is the real logical comparison, same species and similar living conditions. The fact is our dogs are influenced by us, all that matters is how they behave with us. I don't care if my dogs would have a pack structure if I let them run wild. I only care if they have a pack structure when they are with me, and they do.

I honestly can't see the point your trying to make. Even if you did somehow convince me that there is no pack structure in domestic dogs and dominance does not exist it wouldn't change how I train my dogs, it's all semantics.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Just Midol

[WoofnHoof]

The semantics is important from an ethical point of view. Is it ethical to punish a dog for not controlling it's instincts? How realistic is it to expect a dog to control it's instincts? And by instincts I don't only mean drives I mean natural aversions to things, even something as simple as running into the rain can go against the very basic instincts an animal has.

I don't know enough about the top dog trainers to know whether or not their methods are ethical to me, but an example of someone who most people consider to be a top horse trainer is Guy McLean, he does fantastic work with horses but his methods are to keep working the horse until it stops resisting, is this entirely ethical? Is it fair on a prey animal to wear down it's natural aversion to having tarps tied to it's tail? I don't know and I'm not saying that it is or it isn't but it's an imporant question that should be asked when we are talking about obtaining high levels of obedience and expecting/asking animals to disobey the instincts that have been built into them.

The village dog is relevant because we need to know how dogs would normally interact without our influence, that is the only way we can understand the essential nature of the animal. If your pack structure at home is determined by your behaviour, then it becomes largely irrelevant because you can alter your behaviour and ulitimately change the pack structure. We know we can do this because we can change how we behave towards one dog and it influences how the dogs interact between themselves.

[Just Midol]

The semantics is important from an ethical point of view. Is it ethical to punish a dog for not controlling it's instincts? How realistic is it to expect a dog to control it's instincts? And by instincts I don't only mean drives I mean natural aversions to things, even something as simple as running into the rain can go against the very basic instincts an animal has.

Ethics are personal though, and not relevant to a discussion on dominance.

I don't know enough about the top dog trainers to know whether or not their methods are ethical to me, but an example of someone who most people consider to be a top horse trainer is Guy McLean, he does fantastic work with horses but his methods are to keep working the horse until it stops resisting, is this entirely ethical? Is it fair on a prey animal to wear down it's natural aversion to having tarps tied to it's tail? I don't know and I'm not saying that it is or it isn't but it's an imporant question that should be asked when we are talking about obtaining high levels of obedience and expecting/asking animals to disobey the instincts that have been built into them.

When people start discussing ethics in training I usually tune out. As long as the dog isn't abused, I don't care how or why it is trained.

The village dog is relevant because we need to know how dogs would normally interact without our influence, that is the only way we can understand the essential nature of the animal.

Why do we need to know that? Our dogs are influenced by us so knowing how they'd behave without us is useless information that benefits no one. Knowing how they behave and pack structure works in our homes, in a captive environment is far more useful than knowing how some random scavangers live.

If I knew my sibes wouldn't stick together as a pack in the "wild" then how does that benefit me? What benefit does it bring to my training? I only care about how they interact with my influence, as that's all that is relevant. ETA: I do find such information interesting though.

Besides, imo, if we dumped a family of sibes out and a family of cavaliers they are going to behave completely different. We've altered the domestic dogs instincts and behaviours, so even comparing to the village dogs is useless as very few of our dogs even resemble them.

Not to mention I don't even know what type of dog you're refering to as the "village dog"

If your pack structure at home is determined by your behaviour, then it becomes largely irrelevant because you can alter your behaviour and ulitimately change the pack structure.

Yaha. I don't know of a single person who thinks pack structure isn't altered by our behaviour.

We know we can do this because we can change how we behave towards one dog and it influences how the dogs interact between themselves.

It's obvious we have an influence on the packs in our homes, it's not new. I don't know of a single person in the dog world (but I don't know that many) who thinks we have no influence over the pack hierarchy in our homes, that's pretty much the entire point of the dominance theory, that we have to ensure our dogs know we are the leaders of the pack.

In wild grey wolf packs, the alpha or dominant dog is based on parentage. In a domestic/captive situation it isn't. So if someone is keeping a wolf a a domestic or captive environment which information is more important to them? The info on wolves in captivity or the info on wolves in the wild?

• 
  

You've still not given me a single reason to demonstrate why we need to know how a dog would react without our influence.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Just Midol