Pack Structure For Domestic Dogs

[lanabanana]

I understand a lot of people follow a "pack heirarchy" type set up with their dogs but I was reading an article the other day that said this does not really apply to domestic dogs, particularly the use of alpha rolls and other similar forced submission techniques (I dont use any of those anyway), and so I just wondered what others opinions were on Pack Leadership.

The article stated that most behaviour attributed to dogs thinking they were the pack leader is actually the behaviour of an adolescent dog who is unsure of his standing within the pack - I find this very interesting. It went on to say that the "pack leader" or dominant dog is more likely to share his food, sleeping spot, bone etc and they are generally never aggressive being able to control the pack with just a glance. Where us the unsure member is more likely to defend his food etc etc

I found this particularly interesting as it seems a lot of people do tend to assume that some (not all) aggressiveness (depending on what it is) is a dominance thing where as this article was basically saying it was not, it was an insecure dog who didnt know where he fit but was def not dominant.

I will see if I can find the article again to post a link.

Not sure fully what my thoughts are here yet, I have never really followed the pack leader type thing anyway but I havent been the opposite either, but I just found it really interesting.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I have wondered whilst musing about this if perhaps this is why my big dog is sooo tolerant of my little dog. He knows he is higher than her and is happy to put up with her - because oddly, she does stop with just one look from him.

Edited October 3, 2010 by lanabanana

[huski]

You'll probably get more responses if you posted this in the training forum, but here's my opinion... I believe in pack structure but I do think it's fluid and I don't agree with myths like the alpha roll technique. An alpha dog in reality does not alpha roll other pack members, the lower pack members will approach them and submit willingly with no force from the alpha. IMO, a 'true' alpha does not need to be forceful, because the other dogs respect and trust them and look to them for guidance. If you need to use intimidation and force then you are not the alpha, and I don't want my dogs learning that the way to win is through force, intimidation or aggression. You just have to watch Cesar Milan's show to see how often he is bitten when using these types of methods.

I also believe that some dogs can be rank (dominant) aggressive but they are quite rare and the majority of aggression is fear based.

It went on to say that the "pack leader" or dominant dog is more likely to share his food, sleeping spot, bone etc and they are generally never aggressive being able to control the pack with just a glance. Where us the unsure member is more likely to defend his food etc etc

Totally agree with this part

I think it's really important to provide leadership to your dog. I don't think that should mean that you are forceful or intimidating, but that you are someone your dog respects, trusts and looks to for guidance. You set the rules and control the resources. You dictate what behaviour is and isn't acceptable. I don't think trust and respect can be developed by pinning your dog to the ground and growling in it's face, but it is a great way to get bitten

[lanabanana]

LOL totally agree...I am always horrified when I hear of people alpha rolling their dogs.

I was just saying to a freind a few weeks ago "why do you do that" and she responded "so the dog knows I am boss". I said to her, they dont know you are boss, they just know that sometimes you come up and abuse them by rolling them over, if you were the boss the dog would come up and roll of its own accord.

She thought I was talkign rubbish of course, as she did when I told her rubbing the dogs nose in the wees does not teach it anything apart from the fact that wees feels horrid up ya nose

[spottychick]

I agree with husky.

People have no idea do they lanabanana!!

[Nekhbet]

The article stated that most behaviour attributed to dogs thinking they were the pack leader is actually the behaviour of an adolescent dog who is unsure of his standing within the pack

so they disproved the pack theory with more pack theory? Or did they simply try and disprove that dogs can actually be dominant.

As for 'alphas' never needing to get physical. Uh huh. See how some alpha dogs put others in their place especially dogs that are more closely matched.

And alpha rolls? Stupidity because people do not know how to use them or the context they should be for. If you think you can take on a 30 odd kg muscle ball with massive teeth and that it is a great idea then you go do that ... tell me how the scars heal up. They do ocassionally have their uses, at least the scruff and pin does, but with expert knowledge and technique not for random people to go rolling thier dogs.

Not all aggression is dominance based, some of it is. Some of it also comes down to genetic and environmental factors as well. Sounds like just another wishy washy article.

[Scarlet]

I also believe that some dogs can be rank (dominant) aggressive but they are quite rare and the majority of aggression is fear based.

It went on to say that the "pack leader" or dominant dog is more likely to share his food, sleeping spot, bone etc and they are generally never aggressive being able to control the pack with just a glance. Where us the unsure member is more likely to defend his food etc etc

Totally agree with this part ;)

I think it's really important to provide leadership to your dog. I don't think that should mean that you are forceful or intimidating, but that you are someone your dog respects, trusts and looks to for guidance. You set the rules and control the resources. You dictate what behaviour is and isn't acceptable. I don't think trust and respect can be developed by pinning your dog to the ground and growling in it's face, but it is a great way to get bitten :p

Agree with this too.

I have always had multiple dogs and found that there has always been a pack structure. The dominant dog rarely fights for his place and does use body language and LOOKS to put the others in place. My current bitch is an expert at this!

In my experience the dogs usually sort it out themselves and it rarely comes to a physical challenge, though maybe I have been lucky.

I believe I've always been the leader and a glance from me can work wonders sometimes too

I have never hit a dog though I will admit to yelling in frustration the odd once or twice.

The alpha roll sounds stupid, dogs know when you are not happy with them without having to roll them!

[aussielover]

I honestly don't think dogs see us as other dogs.

They have to respect us and follow our instruction of course but I don't believe we should attain "dominance" over them in the same way another dog would.

Some dogs engage in dominant humping but i'm yet to see any trainer recommend that as a method of establashing dominance

I think all dogs are different and some may require a firmer hand than others.

For some dogs an angry voice is enough, some respond better to time outs/removal of attention and some do require physical correction (eg. ecollar, spray bottle etc).

Some dogs will never challenge an owner even if they are allowed up on furniture or beds anytime and are basically allowed to do what they like.

Some dogs will challenge if they are even allowed to walk through a door first.

[Erny]

The article stated that most behaviour attributed to dogs thinking they were the pack leader is actually the behaviour of an adolescent dog who is unsure of his standing within the pack

so they disproved the pack theory with more pack theory? Or did they simply try and disprove that dogs can actually be dominant.

As for 'alphas' never needing to get physical. Uh huh. See how some alpha dogs put others in their place especially dogs that are more closely matched.

And alpha rolls? Stupidity because people do not know how to use them or the context they should be for. If you think you can take on a 30 odd kg muscle ball with massive teeth and that it is a great idea then you go do that ... tell me how the scars heal up. They do occasionally have their uses, at least the scruff and pin does, but with expert knowledge and technique not for random people to go rolling their dogs.

Not all aggression is dominance based, some of it is. Some of it also comes down to genetic and environmental factors as well. Sounds like just another wishy washy article.

I agree with Nekhbet.

Whichever way I've seen, read or heard the arguments put up by those who for whatever reason seem to have some insatiable urge to disprove the dominance (or hierarchy) theory, their arguments still only use the hierarchy theory just in different 'non-hierarchial' words. They are speaking the same speak as "pack order" or "dominance/submissive" or "hierarchy", but they are saying it using many more non-technical words. It comes back to the same thing though whichever way they describe it. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet ..... "

And it is not about thinking dogs see us as dogs. Nor about those people who do see the essence of hierarchy, dominance/submission, pack order thinking that we think the dogs see us as dogs. It is about thinking of communicating in ways dogs can most easily understand and get the message we want them to get.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Erny

[Staranais]

And it is not about thinking dogs see us as dogs. Nor about those people who do see the essence of hierarchy, dominance/submission, pack order thinking that we think the dogs see us as dogs. It is about thinking of communicating in ways dogs can most easily understand and get the message we want them to get.

Yes, I totally agree. I think dogs do understand the idea of hierarchy, and most do better when they have a leader who protects them, communicates clearly to them, & who makes things very black & white. .

The only issue I have is when people think that "being dominant" over the dog is a substitute for actually motivating their dog, and that if you're dominant, the dog shouldn't need to be rewarded. Or when people automatically assume that whenever their dog does something that they don't like the dog is being dominant. Or when people believe that if you don't follow certain rigid rules around the house (eat first! never let the dog lean on you! never let the dog walk ahead of you!) that your otherwise well adjusted dog will invariably become dominant and take over the household.

Actually, that was a few issues.

[corvus]

I honestly don't think dogs see us as other dogs.

I used to think that. Earlier in the year I was given the task to build the basics of an ethogram for behaviour dogs use in communication with other dogs and whether they do the same to us. I was quite surprised to discover that when I looked at it strictly from a behaviour by behaviour perspective, dogs direct heaps of body language they use to communicate with other dogs to us as well. I think maybe I was wrong. I guess I would say tentatively that dogs don't see us as other dogs per se, but they do communicate to us as if we were another dog, and adjust their behaviour to best suit us. I think it's good to remember that most behaviour is learnt. However a dog may treat us to begin with, over time it will drift to behaviours that have a history of working.

As far as pack structure goes, I find the more I look at it the more it seems like learnt behaviour. Consider human groups as an example. Each group has different dynamics, but we learn who the people that will always fight to have their own way are, and we learn how to avoid conflicts with different people. Sometimes we avoid conflicts by making a show of backing off whenever they get that look in their eye, or sometimes we might avoid conflict by giving the look ourselves. And always in the background is the weighting of getting into conflict against not getting our own way. I question why it would be any different in dogs.

However, like in humans, I expect we get bold personalities in dogs. Take my Erik for example. He's not content to just accept that he doesn't get what he wants this time. He will try to find a way to get his way. He is bold and proactive and persistent. Chances are he'll eventually try threats and aggression if he gets thwarted a lot, even though he's a well socialised dog and he knows that threats and aggression are risky. Kivi avoids those risks like the plague, but Erik doesn't. If I were to let him push and then get his way, and then again, and then I suddenly noticed what was happening and next time he pushed I didn't give way, I could be in trouble. Not because he's a dominant dog so much as because he is a fast learner and he's very persistant and his assessment is that the risk in this scenario is low. Chances are, he will push back at me harder than ever in an extinction burst. If I get freaked out and give way again, then he's learnt that now he has to push harder. He's only dominant in that he's winning access to a contested resource. That's the definition of socially dominant. If I gradually change the rules, say I get him sitting for something else he wants that he doesn't push for, and then start generalising it to other things, then bring it into the scenario where he pushed in the first place, then it takes the contest out of the situation. Suddenly both of us are getting what we want. There's no contest, so there's no social dominance in that interaction.

So I think it's personality and learnt behaviours. Different personalities tend to produce different behaviours, and different social groups allow for the perpetuation or proliferation of different social behaviours. Some dogs care more about getting what they want than others. When dogs live together they get a history of interactions to help them predict how they should behave in the next interaction. I don't call it pack structure because to me it's not very structured. It seems much more fluid to me than structured.

[poodlefan]

There is a difference between physical and social dominance.

Sadly, not all dog owners know the difference.

[Erny]

I used to think that. Earlier in the year I was given the task to build the basics of an ethogram for behaviour dogs use in communication with other dogs and whether they do the same to us. I was quite surprised to discover that when I looked at it strictly from a behaviour by behaviour perspective, dogs direct heaps of body language they use to communicate with other dogs to us as well.

Of course they do. And why wouldn't they? I mean to say that this is of no surprise to me and really, if people thought about it logically, it should present no surprise to them either. After all, most people try to communicate to dogs in "human ways" ..... and we're the ones who are meant to be the smarter species, so there's no amazement that any other species of animal would or should not try to communicate with us in their own mode of communication.

To me that's a no brainer.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Erny

[spottychick]

I used to think that. Earlier in the year I was given the task to build the basics of an ethogram for behaviour dogs use in communication with other dogs and whether they do the same to us. I was quite surprised to discover that when I looked at it strictly from a behaviour by behaviour perspective, dogs direct heaps of body language they use to communicate with other dogs to us as well.

Of course they do. And why wouldn't they? I mean to say that this is of no surprise to me and really, if people thought about it logically, it should present no surprise to them either. After all, most people try to communicate to dogs in "human ways" ..... and we're the ones who are meant to be the smarter species, so there's no amazement that any other species of animal would or should not try to communicate with us in their own mode of communication.

To me that's a no brainer.

Yep!

[lanabanana]

The article stated that most behaviour attributed to dogs thinking they were the pack leader is actually the behaviour of an adolescent dog who is unsure of his standing within the pack

so they disproved the pack theory with more pack theory? Or did they simply try and disprove that dogs can actually be dominant.

As for 'alphas' never needing to get physical. Uh huh. See how some alpha dogs put others in their place especially dogs that are more closely matched.

And alpha rolls? Stupidity because people do not know how to use them or the context they should be for. If you think you can take on a 30 odd kg muscle ball with massive teeth and that it is a great idea then you go do that ... tell me how the scars heal up. They do ocassionally have their uses, at least the scruff and pin does, but with expert knowledge and technique not for random people to go rolling thier dogs.

Not all aggression is dominance based, some of it is. Some of it also comes down to genetic and environmental factors as well. Sounds like just another wishy washy article.

Not sure whether I typed what I was trying to relay incorrectly or if you can't read but the article itself was NOT trying to disprove pack heirarchy. It was merely pointing out that a lot of behaviours that HUMANS assume are dominant dog behaviours, are in fact not but are those of a dog who is unsure of his place in the pack.

Also, some other information I am reminded of from reading some of these posts was that heirarchy is established in order to avoid conflict.

You may think the article is wishy washy, but I found it quite interesting. Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I read it so can't post the link which is a bit annoying

[Erny]

Not sure whether I typed what I was trying to relay incorrectly or if you can't read but the article itself was NOT trying to disprove pack heirarchy. It was merely pointing out that a lot of behaviours that HUMANS assume are dominant dog behaviours, are in fact not but are those of a dog who is unsure of his place in the pack.

Dogs need a leader in the pack. So if the dog is unsure of his place in the pack then for me (especially if we're talking one person/one dog) it is pretty clear he's testing to see if the leader position is filled or needs filling. And that 'testing' is likely to be represented by behaviours that are known to us as dominant behaviours.

Also, some other information I am reminded of from reading some of these posts was that hierarchy is established in order to avoid conflict.

In essence, hierarchy order enhances the pack's survival - working as an organised group assists in efficient food gathering and breeding for the best progeny possible. Obviously, conflict is not congenial to any organisation running successfully. That's why there is hierarchy in large corporations - it exists even in our human world.

You may think the article is wishy washy, but I found it quite interesting. Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I read it so can't post the link which is a bit annoying

It can be interesting and wishy washy at the same time. A link to the article would be good, but I have heard and read numerous articles/presentations on the subject and it is from these things that I have formed my opinion about what they are trying to say. And it pretty much bucks back to what we already have and know - just worded differently.

[lanabanana]

Oh def, heaps of articles around about it, and they all contradict each other.

Which is probably what I find quite interesting about them...I dont think I use any of the information in raising my dogs however LMAO

I read the article at work so will check my internet history there and see if I can find the link...

[corvus]

I used to think that. Earlier in the year I was given the task to build the basics of an ethogram for behaviour dogs use in communication with other dogs and whether they do the same to us. I was quite surprised to discover that when I looked at it strictly from a behaviour by behaviour perspective, dogs direct heaps of body language they use to communicate with other dogs to us as well.

Of course they do.

My point was, if they talk to us the same way they talk to dogs, can we say that they see us differently to other dogs? They aren't humans with a theory of mind. If their behaviour doesn't indicate it, what can we conclude? There is research out there that shows that dogs play with people differently than the way they play with dogs, which might support the idea that they see us differently, but if they behave differently, can we say they do so because they see us differently rather than because, say, they learnt different things work with us? My purpose in sharing this was to say I sympathise with the viewpoint, but I'm not sure that the behaviour at a basic level at least supports it. Surface facts are only good for what they tell us about more complex issues. It would be a lot more useful and engaging to comment on that instead.

[Diva]

My point was, if they talk to us the same way they talk to dogs, can we say that they see us differently to other dogs?

Maybe they don't know another way to talk? Or maybe it works well enough that they don't need to modify it much? Maybe one of the reasons we have dogs is that we could always 'get' what they were communicating and they can 'get' what we are.

I think maybe I communicate to my dogs in many situations much as I communicate simple messages to other people - a bit less verbal, but if someone analysed it I think they would find a lot that would map across. Maybe too much! But I don't think they think I am a dog. I do think they consider me part of their social structure. I'm pretty sure they think the cat is too -or else why would they exchange grooming rituals. But they know she's not a dog.

To say they think I am a dog would make me wonder why they don't think cows are dogs. Or kangaroos. Or, as above, cats. I think being able to tell species apart is a pretty basic skill that any adult mammal, predator or prey, would want to have down pat. Not sure why dogs should suddenly fall down in this skill when it comes to humans But given we are all one household social entity - dogs, people and cat - I can still accept they might try to apply heirachical behaviours to our relationship, without thinking I'm canine. But given that I control access to most of the good things in life, that only causes a problem if I carelessly give away authority.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Diva

[di_dee1]

I really don't give a rats how my 3 (bitch taken in when pregnant and a male and female pup kept..ACD x) sort their pack. I do see when their litter mate comes here, sometimes to stay a few days that she is very submissive for the first few minutes.

I yell OI or EXCUSE ME if spats get out of hand and this settles them. Whilst human dominance may be seen by some the only way to go, for us here it is integration of the dogs and us that is acceptable for all, that matters most.

They are dogs, we are human, they listen to me (mostly, and I pick my battles and don't sweat the small stuff) I watch their body language etc. Works very well.

I don't think they see me as another dog as I don't think they see the cows here as dogs.

Edited October 4, 2010 by di_dee1

[corvus]

My point was, if they talk to us the same way they talk to dogs, can we say that they see us differently to other dogs?

Maybe they don't know another way to talk? Or maybe it works well enough that they don't need to modify it much? Maybe one of the reasons we have dogs is that we could always 'get' what they were communicating and they can 'get' what we are.

I don't think I was looking for another way that they talk so much as a differences in the way they behave towards us compared to the way they behave towards dogs. But you're right, those are all good reasons.

To say they think I am a dog would make me wonder why they don't think cows are dogs. Or kangaroos. Or, as above, cats. I think being able to tell species apart is a pretty basic skill that any adult mammal, predator or prey, would want to have down pat. Not sure why dogs should suddenly fall down in this skill when it comes to humans

Well, they sure don't smell like dogs and we know that much! But if they include a cat into their social structure, and a human, one would assume they would include a cow or a kangaroo if raised with one as well, although I doubt a dog would ever compete much with a cow. I think that social dominance doesn't have to be an intraspecific thing. If there's a contest over resources, someone has to win regardless of what the species is. So I wonder if the argument that a dog doesn't see us as another dog is relevant to how they might behave towards us socially. Sorry, I wasn't very clear in all of this.

Some people interested in this topic might enjoy reading this chapter from Sophia Yin's text book that is currently available free online: http://www.lowstresshandling.com/online/ab...ed/chapter2.php. Turn the pages by clicking in the lower right corner. And ethologist Patricia McConnell has some sensible things to say about it as well: http://www.theotherendoftheleash.com/the-c...ed-as-dominance