Is A Dog That Isn't Listening Dominant?

[poodlefan]

Corvus:

So to me, EVERY dog seeks to get what they want regardless of the wants of others, so every dog would be dominant.

Will every dog take try to take a bone from any other? It may seek to get the bone but many won't try to take it.

Can you take something your dog prizes from it?

[Are You Serious Jo]

Some social species need to maintain a group for survival, if you aren't strong enough to challenge the leader you find your place in the hierarchy because you needs the others to survive. Dominance is not about maturation, it is about gaining particular resources with the lest amount of conflict. All individuals are born differently, that is why you see dominance hierarchies in vertebrates.

"If they get cross with you for not following them, then I might agree that this is dominance."

A dog doesn't get cross if you don't follow them, it shows aggression if it is a dominant dog and it prevented by prevented by another dog or owner from having what it wants.

"Which is how sneaky strategies like behaving cutely come about."

Are you talking about selection here or behaviour, because I can't think of an example for this at all. A dog doesn't behave cutely, it has simply learned that a specific behaviour results in a specific response. Operant conditioning.

"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?"

Ummm, we do see this, alphas are regularly challenged in many species.

[Vickie]

Corvus:

So to me, EVERY dog seeks to get what they want regardless of the wants of others, so every dog would be dominant.

Will every dog take try to take a bone from any other? It may seek to get the bone but many won't try to take it.

and even if Dog A does seek to take a bone from Dog B, is it necessarily a "dominant dog"? Sure it may be dominant over Dog B, as far as bones are concerned, but doesn't mean it will be dominant over all other dogs or all other resources.

Surely the term dominance should only be used in comparative terms, most dogs will have some dominance over something. Looking at my 4, they each have different areas they dominate the others in. I could not call any of them dominant, although I think Noah comes close & most people seem to think he is.

I think where it gets cloudy is that some rare individuals seem clearly dominant over all others, whatever the resource and these are the ones labelled as dominant dogs. I am sure there is a valid need for these individuals in wild species of animals but not sure if there is such a need for this in the dogs we have in our backyards.

Doesn't mean every undesireable behaviour your dog exhibits is a quest for domination, "regardless of the wants of others". Lots of dogs pull to get to the park. Is that dominance? I doubt it. They're just pulling to get there, it continues b/c owner doesn't care, owner cares but doesn't bother to train, or most common, owner pulls back encouraging it.

I have one dog that counter surfs. Yes she "seeks to get what she wants"...and she gets it often enough to keep doing it. I don't for a second think it is dominance and it is not "regardless of the wants of others" 'cause I certainly don't want it. It works purely & simply, so she will continue until I & everyone in my house learn never to leave food on the bench.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Vickie

[SkySoaringMagpie]

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.

OK, perhaps I am missing something but I would still argue this is a skill based issue for the majority of people. People are usually not taught the basics of grooming training, and wisely don't wish to force the issue when they lack competence. Give people the skills, and a lot of them get over it.

For us, getting on top of grooming Faxon (our Afghan Hound) was about being shown what to do. Before we got some good mentoring he resisted like crazy, and was clipped off twice before we got on top of it. The truth is that we were hopelessly incompetent and correct tools and technique made an enormous difference to his willingness to submit to one and half hour brushing sessions. Things as simple as lying the dog down on a table or not flicking the wrist and yanking the hair - obvious to an experienced groomer, not obvious at all to a clueless pet owner.

[Kavik]

I think the nail clipping is an interesting point. I know how to clip nails but some of my dogs tolerate it better than others. I don't think I ever had a problem clipping Diesel's nails. Zoe resists a bit but I can do them without too many problems. Kaos though - very difficult to do! From the day I got him, he struggled and was very difficult to handle when doing his nails. He is getting a little better and if I am patient and only do a couple of nails in one sitting we can do them, but he will still at least once a session try to pull away and hide his front paws under his body. He is obviously not comfortable with it from his body language.

[Vickie]

yep, the nail clipping is a good one. I have always been able to clip the girls nails easily. Zeus is uncomfortable with it but resigns himself & just stands there. With Noah, I used to have to do them a couple a day as it was all I seemed to be able to manage. After my "your dog is a biter" revelation day, I decided that he would stand there while I did as many as I wanted! I think he still hates it, but his resistance days are over. The first few times were hard, a definite battle of the wills, but we got through it & now I can do them all in less than 5 minutes.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Vickie

[Tonymc]

Corvus, comparing Human behaviour to dog behaviour never works and a supposed zoologist should be well aware of this.

Jdavis, I appreciate your relevant and factual posts.

Why would a dog follow a leader?Quite simple.Survival. Tony

[poodlefan]

Any dog behaviour that isn't aimed at controlling others isn't dominance to me.

I view dominance as a result, not an intent. When two creatures compete for resources or have competing demands, the animal that succeeeds in getting its needs/wants met is the dominant of the two.

There may be no confrontation or direct competition.

Dominant males mate more, dominant predators are more successful hunters, dominant species are those who compete more successfully in a particular environment.

It's not about intent or politics.

So, when a dog and a handler go wandering off with the lead between them, the individual that dictates the pace and direction of the walk is the dominant one.

I believe this can be situational but the motivation is having needs or wants met - over the needs or wants of others.

The method of domination might be aggression, or strength or social manipulation

We stuff it up by seeing dominance as some kind of threat to our egos and always deliberately intended. Yes, there are other reasons dogs to what they do but if they achieve their goals by ignoring or dismissing ours in the relationship, I would call that "dominant".

Lack of training, lack of bonding, miscommunication, lack of undertanding are probably issues that need to be weeded out before the "dominance" word gets tossed around but in the end I'd call any that dog succeeds in routinely manipulating its owners to get what it wants (regardless of method) as "dominant".

No doubt few will agree with this but the idea that the only dominant dogs are those that piss on your leg, tow you on lead and defend resources from you is too simplistic for me.

The toenail analogy comes down to this. If you know how to clip your dogs nails, have spent time teaching your dog to tolerate it and still can't succeed, the dog's successful avoidance strategies are working. This doesn't mean the animal needs to be alpha rolled but somehow it needs to be taught that it must tolerate it. Often the people who do that are professional groomers or vet nurses who start a whole new relationship on different terms.

The whole "never let your dog on the couch" idea is also far too simplistic for me. I leave it to Suzanne Clothier to put the couch into perspective. She says:

The issue with couches is not whether your dog gets on one, but whether it will get off it if you ask it to.

Edited March 1, 2009 by poodlefan

[corvus]

Corvus:

Will every dog take try to take a bone from any other? It may seek to get the bone but many won't try to take it.

No, but a dog that doesn't isn't necessarily deciding not to in respect for the dog that has the bone. That implies something quite personal that may or may not occur. The dog may be weighing the benefit of getting the bone against the cost. If it is a dog they know, this job is much easier for them as they have experience and a history with the dog. They might know that if they take the bone the other dog will give way or if they try to take the bone they will cop it. Whether the dog is the kind to give way or stand and fight is not just a matter of dominance and submission. It's a case of personal values, which change from moment to moment. Bones rate higher than the cost of conflict for some dogs and lower for others. If we looked at dog behaviour on a case to case basis like that, dominance doesn't have to come into it. But over time, we notice patterns and one dog tends to care more about getting what they want regardless of conflict than another dog. Perhaps. Is that dog dominant or does it just care more about resources and less about conflict in general? Are they the same thing?

and even if Dog A does seek to take a bone from Dog B, is it necessarily a "dominant dog"? Sure it may be dominant over Dog B, as far as bones are concerned, but doesn't mean it will be dominant over all other dogs or all other resources.

Surely the term dominance should only be used in comparative terms, most dogs will have some dominance over something. Looking at my 4, they each have different areas they dominate the others in. I could not call any of them dominant, although I think Noah comes close & most people seem to think he is.

Great point. That is basically what I'm suggesting.

I don't for a second think it is dominance and it is not "regardless of the wants of others" 'cause I certainly don't want it. It works purely & simply, so she will continue until I & everyone in my house learn never to leave food on the bench.

And this is what I was talking about when I mentioned cute behaviour (behaviour, not selection). I wholly agree with jdavis that this is just something that has worked in the past, but my point was, a dog that gets what it wants by resting its chin on someone's knee is no different to a dog that gets what it wants by staring and growling. They are both just behaviours that work. Or maybe they are both dominant behaviours, as poodlefan says.

"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?"

Ummm, we do see this, alphas are regularly challenged in many species.

Yes, we do. In a way. My point here was that I don't see why people think it is so wrong when their dogs disrespect them when they may well be doing exactly what they are programmed to do and don't see it as disrespecting at all, but just seeking to benefit themselves, which is something that everyone is driven to do. Just because we humans think we are being disrespected doesn't mean we are.

Tony, if they needed to follow a leader for survival, then why would the leader be challenged? Why do dogs quite happily live on the streets of many countries all on their own?

I am actually beginning to think alphas are not regularly challenged at all due to them not really existing as most social animals live in small family groups with the parents or older members at the top, but perhaps that's a story for another thread. Although I kinda already went there with the alpha thread. And that is ignoring primates.

We stuff it up by seeing dominance as some kind of threat to our egos and always deliberately intended. Yes, there are other reasons dogs to what they do but if they achieve their goals by ignoring or dismissing ours in the relationship, I would call that "dominant".

I think there's a lot of truth in that. I have pretty much given up on dominance, but that doesn't mean any animal in my house gets to do whatever they want. They get to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't clash with something that I want more, which is basically what many people see as dominant behaviour. Turns out there's a lot of things I care about more than my animals do.

[Are You Serious Jo]

I don't think you are getting what dominance is, hence why I said go do some background reading. It is too difficult to discuss a topic indepth if the person doesn't have a good understanding of the topic already. This thread is going in circles with the same thing being said to you over and over again. Example, dogs that live on the streets might appear to be living alone but they live alongside humans, who are their social contact. Alphas do exist and dogs don't have personal values.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

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.

i agree 100%. i have never had a problem clipping toenails, looking/touching ears, giving pills. in fact my dogs let me do anything to them. one reason is that i expect them to let me and another is that i don't cause pain when i do things.

i think the issue of dominance is confused when people take certain behaviours, usually out of context and say the dog is dominant. one behaviour doesn't make a dog dominant. it takes several behaviours some of which seem small, ie the clipping of toenails.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

OK, say the last time an owner attempted to clip nails they'd left it so long the quick was close to the tip and they cut through it? Then the dog ran into the dining room and bled all over the cream coloured carpet and the owner flipped out? Bad experience for the dog and owner which the dog will try and avoid next time. Attempting to escape something the dog is stressed about is not seeking or asserting dominance as far as I can see? It's just a flight response. Plenty of people and animals "disobey" to escape, not to assert authority.

I do know what "don't wanna, don't hafta" looks like as opposed to genuine fear. When ours hit 7 or 8 months and do the inevitable adolescent try-on we keep them on the grooming table until they calm down and what we intended to do is finished. It can be aggravating, my new bitch levitated off the table and smacked me square under the jaw a month ago - my fault, I should have picked it before it happened. I just kept her there until she calmed down and we had finished (blow drying ears, terrible torture) then rewarded her for being calm, complimented her on her pretty ears, and allowed her down. And then went into another room and swore, because I was really cranky but had to suck it up and to put on my "calm, persistent, patient, boss" persona while it was all going on.

I dunno, I suspect there probably is not much disagreement in this thread in practical terms, but the language is a trigger for values issues. In my experience, "Dominant" is a short-cut to people's brains turning off, ie, "if I am boss, my problems end" - a view which often accompanies a real lack of empathy.

Or worse, OMIGOD, the world thinks my dog is dominant and I am a weenie, I Must Show Them Different By Putting The Smack Down. Looking at how some people deal with public noncompliance from their dogs bothers the hell out of me and I include some things I've done in the past in that. If egos are to be tweaked in the service of dog training, I will always try and get people to show me "smart" not "dominant".

For anyone who is reading who is totally stuck on how to conquer the nail clipping thing, there is a really good clipping nails program in one of the recent Whole Dog Journals. The principles apply to other grooming roadblocks as well.

[Just Midol]

If someone injures there dog when clipping the nails and a fear response is created then it is a completely different scenario, and I don't even know why you bought that up as an example.

[m-j]

Is a dog that isn't listening to you a dominant dog, or displaying dominant behaviour?

Personally I don't think so, it isn't in a dogs "makeup" to take orders, just not to do things ie dogs don't tell other dogs to do things, just not to do them. So I going to feel justified in using a human example of children who don't listen are they being dominant/defiant I don't think so. If they are being defiant they listen and then tell you to put your order where the sun don't shine. Dogs may disobey a cue (that they generally respond to well) simply because it has worked for them before because as an owner we haven't been consistant and what they want to do at that particular moment is just a heck of a lot more interesting.

Lack of training, lack of bonding, miscommunication, lack of undertanding are probably issues that need to be weeded out before the "dominance" word gets tossed around but in the end I'd call any that dog succeeds in routinely manipulating its owners to get what it wants (regardless of method) as "dominant".

I agree except with the bold writing, I would call it clever and an opportunist

Just thoughts

cheers

M-J

Edited March 1, 2009 by m-j

[Kelpie-i]

I tend to agree with you m-j, opportunistic and clever to a "T".

[The Spotted Devil]

I tend to agree with you m-j, opportunistic and clever to a "T".

A vet I know said she wouldn't own a Dalmatian in a pink fit! When I asked why, she replied: "I don't want to live with a dog that is smarter than I am"

[Just Midol]

Meh.

Dog knows what I expect, dog chooses to ignore me. Dog is being dominant.

It's that simple for me. Dominance is control & power. If the dog feels he has control or power over me (by ignoring me) then it's a dominant action. I correct it & put the dog in his place.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

If someone injures there dog when clipping the nails and a fear response is created then it is a completely different scenario, and I don't even know why you bought that up as an example.

Because it is very common for people to screw up their first time grooming attempts, far more common I'd argue than dominance issues are. They leave it too long to handle the puppy, they don't get it used to the tools before using them, they don't ask anyone to show them the proper technique, and when they finally get around to it they go way too fast. The first time the dog even sees the brush or the clipper or whatever it is 8 months old and it completely freaks out. You don't have to cut the quick to get this result.

Then the owner freaks out because they didn't think it would be so hard and if they are responsible they ring a groomer (who will quietly on the phone at the prospect of dealing with another completely green dog) or if they are irresponsible they just leave the dog to turn into a matted clicky-clawed mess.

Edited to make the eyerolly work

Edited March 1, 2009 by anita

[Kelpie-i]

I tend to agree with you m-j, opportunistic and clever to a "T".

A vet I know said she wouldn't own a Dalmatian in a pink fit! When I asked why, she replied: "I don't want to live with a dog that is smarter than I am"

Hmmmm, I know of a few dogs like that..

Quickie....when you call your cat and it ignores you, is that dominance? Do you alpha roll your cat for scratching you?

Just interested that's all.

[m-j]

Dog knows what I expect, dog chooses to ignore me. Dog is being dominant.

So if a cue you have given the dog will cause it more pain than you have used to correct your dog with in the past, the dog is being defiant therefore dominant in your mind, not avoiding an unpleasant experience and opting for the lesser of the two evils in the dog's mind?

cheers

M-J