Pack Heirarchy In Domestic Dogs

[Guest Reeda]

Hey everyone,

I went to a seminar on the weekend that was run by the Delta Society on Aggressive and Anxious dogs. One thing was brought up that I would like to get everyones opinion on. One of the lecturers is now saying that there is no pack structure in domestic dogs. They are too far removed from wolves to have it and there is no evidence of it. Apparently we are silly for having thought that and we must now change our way of thinking. We should also stop studying wolves to research domestic dogs.

After all these years of being taught that there is a pack structure and watching one with my own dogs, this was something that I found a little hard to swallow. I would be curious to know what you all thought about this topic.

Reeda

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: there is a small minority world wide that subscribe to this theory.

Some people like to think that if they re invent the wheel, they can sell people lots of new wheels.

If the new product does the same as the old, one would then ask, why re invent the wheel?

[poodlefan]

Is there a pack structure - HELL YES! How can there not be in a species that is inherently social and by preference lives in a group.

This theory is based on the observation that many of the original studies of wolves were based on animals in zoos that could not exhibit a full range of social behaviour. My understanding is that wolves in the wild have a pack structure in which only the alpha dog an bitch mate and raise pups and in which you may see other wolves take the lead in various roles - eg. the best hunter leads the hunt and the best fighter lead territory defence. So, there IS a structure, it just isn't as static and rigid as the early studies believed.

The existence of a pack structure obviously limited to dogs who are member of the one household.

I have disruptions to the pack structure of my dogs at the moment. Teenage alpha wannabe is testing the limits of his dominance... not fun. He's currently nicknamed the "granny basher" as he'll pick an old submissive female dog visitor and bully them unmercifully(before I step in). Like all bullies he's a wonderful judge of character and won't given any grief to a more physically or socially dominant dog.

Delta Society... hmmm. Doesnt do their credibility any good in my eyes. What was the suggestion for how we are now supposed to interpret dog social behaviour?

Edited November 26, 2004 by poodlefan

[Guest Reeda]

There was not a lot of discussion in regards to the pack heirarchy. I did mention to one of the other people there that I had a really hard time agreeing with that and she was almost shocked that I said that.

Their explanation was that people are overusing the "dominance" word when it is really aggression. There were a few descriptions of behaviours that are normally seen as "domincance" eg mounting, standing over another dog or grasping the scruff of another dog, and these are aggression issues.

I have seen these behaviours expressed by my dogs and the hundreds of other dogs I work with, and have seen what I believe to be blatant "dominance" issues and others that are just natural behaviour.

There are definantly issues as to the context the behaviour is in, but I believe to say there is no pack structure implemented in dogs, seems almost ignorant.

I do not think I got the wrong idea from what was being said. They definately said that because the dog is so far removed from the wolf, they do not have that pack instinct anymore.

I am glad that I was able to question this idea and not follow the lecturer almost blindly as it seemed most of the other attenders did.

[Poppy's mum]

Alawys owning a mixed bag of dogs, my experience is that the littlest rules the roost (when you are talking chi.s and others). Get to steal off everyone's plates, choose the best bed and tell people not to play too rough... anecdotal only I know.

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: you did not miss interpret what was being said Reeda, they often these days tell people that the "D" word doesnt exist in dogs.

Their explanation was that people are overusing the "dominance" word when it is really aggression. There were a few descriptions of behaviours that are normally seen as "domincance" eg mounting, standing over another dog or grasping the scruff of another dog, and these are aggression issues.

K9: the dog thats initiates the "mount" or the "stand over" rarely displays any aggression, so these acts are not acts of aggression at all.

The dog that is the victim of these acts "may" retaliate & this is where aggression enters.

True Alphas are passive, not aggressive, Betas (the Alpha wannabe's) are the aggressive dog in the pack, Omegas are happy to take guidance from leaders.

[MonElite]

If dogs dont have the pack structures I makes me think twice about humans.

I thought that we would be further removed from our origins than dogs removed from wolfes. If so we should not heave hiererchies, packs etc. But we do........

So IMHO so do dogs.

[Tilly]

I see a definate pack structure in our dogs.

The dogs are all strong, confident, dominate entire males but they clearly have a pecking order in the household and we respect that order (eg feeding and patting the top dogs first).

[SlickQannik]

I can't say for my dogs - cause my puppy is still that, a puppy....but I can certainly vouch for cats. I have four cats and there is definately the dominate male thing happening. He eats before any of the others and then the dominate female eats...then the other male and female get whatever is left over. Although sometimes they all just dive on in at once. but usually there is definately a pecking order.

[Ci]

Well that lecturer should hang around more domestic dogs..............

I can't believe someone from a course like that would be allowed that kind of thinking???

That in itself would be one of the keys to whats going on with a dog that has aggression in some form. And what about all the stuff you are taught - you are number one - dog is lowest in your family etc etc etc.

And we were taught all about heirarchy in my dog training course.

I would be asking questions about this if I were you - if not him then someone else as it does seems a strange thing to teach.................

I know with just my lot - there is a definite pecking order happening.

Edited November 26, 2004 by Ci

[greyhoundangel]

Enters Tia our Alpha dog

It's funny watching my dogs eat, it is obvious to see the order...

I guess the real eye opener was when Tia had finished her dinner and walked away from her bowl, now with out a sound from Tia...Stanley the male whippet then slowly backs away from his bowl so that Tia can eat whatever he has left :D

Now if this was Johnny the male greyhound, Stanley would growl and even try to be aggressive with him...

Our order is:

Tia female greyhound

Stanley male whippet

Johnny male greyhound

Mel

[Guest Reeda]

The Lecturer is a well sort after Animal Behaviourist in Sydney. The other lecturer there didn't mention anything about the pack structure or what they thought of it. Apart from that section of the lecture, I got alot out of it in regards to aggressive and anxious behaviour.

It was good to see dogs that were displaying the obvious signs of anxiety etc. I have certainly been looking a lot closer to the dogs I care for this week.

I guess my major concern is that so many people are being told different things. The public is so misinformed at the moment, by negating all the other information that is out there, I think that just breeds confusion.

The speaker mentioned there is no need to feed animals after you, make them wait to walk through doors or ignore them when you first get home. They seem to almost be over humanising the dogs (can't think of the word, I think it starts with a.) I do not think dogs should be humanised and we need to speak to them in a language that they understand!!

[Ci]

I do agree about the last bit if you have no problems with your dog.

The only time that this would come into play is with a dominant dog that thinks they are in charge and are having behavioural issuses.

i.e. - reacting aggressively if you try and get them off your bed or take their food bowl away.

The average housedog who fits nicely in their family - wouldn't care who walks through the door first.

(But I do feed my animals in a certain order to keep the peace amongst their pack - in terms of the cat always gets feed first.)

It is hard when you are being taught so many things by so many people. I guess you have to use your common sense.

there is a very well known behaviouralist here in Melbourne that did some lectures in my course and I tell you - I though he had no idea. His answer to everything was drugs! And he was a rip off. Our trainers make more sense and solved more dog problems that it sounded lke he did.

Maybe ask why they think there is no structure in dog pack today and see what they answer is???

Edited November 26, 2004 by Ci

[Mags]

I have always observed a pack structure in my own dogs - if we don't call it pack do we call it peck order (as in chooks) because something is obviously there. I do agree that domestic dog social status can't be directly correlated to wolves but that doesn't mean they don't have there own social structure call it pack or whatever. Jo

[aatainc]

The theory that there is no dominance arose from this thinking:

-Anything negative is bad, only positives are allowed

-If you have "dominance" problems, then you require negatives to fix them

-Since negatives are bad, but dominance problems require negatives, then the easiest way to deal with this is to deny the existence of dominance.

Something like that.

the other issue is that these PURELY positive trainers who will not indulge the idea of correcting a dog in any circumstances will not have any success training a difficult/stubborn/wilfull/seriously abnormal dog. Therefore, they only choose soft submissive willing dogs in the first place. I've even known some to rehome more difficult dogs because they had no success training them and they didn't want to admit defeat and try some corrections. Therefore, these trainers only have soft submissive dogs, and therefore - in their world - there are no dominant dogs!!!

I think dropping the term "dominance" has cost the positive training movement dearly. Just because I believe that my dog is dominant doesn't mean that I have to treat him badly or even train with corrections. They don't seem to believe this.

Also, by telling people that they can let the dogs sleep on the bed, go through doors first etc - they are allowing more behaviour problems to creep in - which means that it's more likely that harsh corrections will be resorted to to fix these problems. Much better to keep the dog off the bed and have a good trainign relationship than to allow him on the bed but have to correct him constantly in training because he doesn't respect you.

ImO anyone who says that dominance heirarchy doesn't exist has their head in the sand.

[V.A.H.]

No pack structure?? What rot!! ;)

Tell that to all the dog woners who have trained a dog successfully to some sort of obedience!! It means the dog recognises the relationship with a human above their own station.Isn't that what we see the mother dog do, teach them to respect a HIGHER order rule??

What about dominance and food aggression in a litter when quite young??

Just imagined I suppose?Like my bitch bought when older still 8yrs later, trying to dominate the leader here, by ae and seniority of place--isn't that a try to take over, ie pack behaviour if undesirable?

There are so many examples i just have to say--My respect for the Delta org and its work dropped very low on reading that :D

[Tralee]

Hey Reeda.

The a word is anthropomorphic which is the tendency to project human characteristics on to animals, inanimate objects or God for that matter.

Its hard to tell what the lecturer was on about without a copy of the transcript.

I suspect you may have picked up on a case where he meant something like; in these situations or given these particular conditions. Otherwise he would have to posit a completely new paradigm.

But to the question of the hypothesis that dominance in dogs does not exist, you have to remember that it is only a suggestion at this stage.

IMHO I would challenge the lecturer since although he may dismiss dominance, he would then have to exclude submission as well. You can't have one with out the other. There is definately a posture in dogs that appears to be a dominance-submission pairing.

Animal behaviourists first observed a pecking order in Chickens and then generalised it to all animal groups.

Sure it's anthropomorhic but it is undeniable that something is happening in animal groups, eg. gorillas and such, whether they would say it is dominance if they could talk we don't know.

The important point is it has helped in the management of our animals and untill something better comes along; and I don't see your lecturer having offered anything that is more helpful, it will have to do.

Edited November 28, 2004 by pewithers

[Staff'n'Toller]

I'm disappointed to hear that a lecturer coming under the 'delta' banner would say something like that, I haven't done any delta courses (I've done others).

Anyways, I can see a definite pack structure in my group, and I have seen it dramatically changing over the past couple of years, as one of my dogs gets older, and now has an illness, I can see the youngest female now taking over.

It's very interesting...

Mel.

[Ci]

I don't think "postivie" trainers have dropped the word domanince at all!

They believe that if you use postive methods of training in the beginning or from the word go that you will get a much better result from the dog as you are motivating them to react rather than terrifying or hurting them into doing it.

All postive trainers that I have worked with have all used and been aware of having to use negative punishment to fix problems in a said dog if postive has not worked or the dog's threshold has been risen so high that it is the only thing that the dog understands because of damage done before they even saw the dog.

They will not use "unnecessary" methods on a dog if it is going to do more damage than good.

A trainer is a trainer that works with whatever will work on the dog and in the dog's best interests and has the ability to change and adjust and think outside the square.

Edited November 28, 2004 by Ci

[Steve K9Pro]

Ci:

I don't think "postivie" trainers have dropped the word domanince at all!

They believe that if you use postive methods of training in the beginning or from the word go that you will get a much better result from the dog as you are motivating them to react rather than terrifying or hurting them into doing it.

All postive trainers that I have worked with have all used and been aware of having to use negative punishment to fix problems in a said dog if postive has not worked or the dog's threshold has been risen so high that it is the only thing that the dog understands because of damage done before they even saw the dog.

K9: I dont know any trainer that doesnt use positive motivation, Im talking about those who are purely positive, or at least say they are.

They will not use "unnecessary" methods on a dog if it is going to do more damage than good.

K9: & I dont know anyone who does this either?