Pack Hierarchy

[Dxenion]

In another thread a question was raised concerning the discussion of pack hierarchies in 2012.

The Oxford dictionary describes hierarchy as 'a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.'

Do you see 'pack hierarchy' as old school thinking? Is it still relevant today for dogs that live together, or for describing the structure in dog/ human cohabitations?

If not, how do you describe the relationship between dogs that live together and how they relate/ respond to the humans that they live with?

[Crisovar]

As long as dogs live alongside humans there have to be rules (same goes for everything really)and in any society there are leaders, for it all to work safely and amicably dogs lives with us have to have structure and boundaries, we as the humans in this sense are the leaders that put those in place. So in reality yes we have some sort of pack structure.

How we train dogs and how we look at their behaviours may have moved on but it is still about us keeping control over them so we can all live happily together.

[Weasels]

Oh dear! Obviously I think it's old school since I made the comment :laugh:

Having studied canid ecology at the postgraduate level before I ever got my own dogs, I came in with some data about how feral dogs/pariah dogs/dingoes act in the wild, and it didn't fit with a linear hierarchy, even among their own species. Since I now have my own doggy specimens to observe in their natural habitat (the couch apparently ) I am even less inclined to believe it.

As i said in the other thread, I think the actions that 'alpha theory' recommends can be good. Dogs waiting at the door for you to go out first teaches self-control and basic obedience. I think eating first is a waste of time. I think alpha rolling is awful. The most damaging thing I think it does tho is setting up an adversarial relationship between dog and owner

Interested to hear other POV's tho :)

[Aidan3]

As long as dogs live alongside humans there have to be rules (same goes for everything really)and in any society there are leaders, for it all to work safely and amicably dogs lives with us have to have structure and boundaries, we as the humans in this sense are the leaders that put those in place. So in reality yes we have some sort of pack structure.

How we train dogs and how we look at their behaviours may have moved on but it is still about us keeping control over them so we can all live happily together.

Great answer.

[melzawelza]

As always, I think a balanced approach to this is the best approach.

Alpha rolling, 'dominant' dogs, eating before etc etc is all old school and out the window.

BUT I don't like a lot of the other side of the coin who state that dominance does not exist in any form (of course it does, and it manifests in the ownership of resources), and dogs are like furry children who don't look for leadership or ever challenge their owners.

Both sides are silly to me.

In my mind, dogs are animals that co-exist with humans and benefit strongly with the owners being in a position of leadership. This doesn't mean alpha rolling and eating first, this means training the dog consistently in a balanced manner, practicing some form of NILIF and having the dog work for appreciation and valued resources. Some dogs crumble without leadership and others challenge their owners over resources without it (see the Lab bit me thread). Some dogs will do just fine without it, but it's still important and worthwhile.

[corrie]

I don't think in a general setting that too much weight needs to be put in it but I think it is as much a reality as human social (pack) hierarchy.

[*kirty*]

In my mind, dogs are animals that co-exist with humans and benefit strongly with the owners being in a position of leadership. This doesn't mean alpha rolling and eating first, this means training the dog consistently in a balanced manner, practicing some form of NILIF and having the dog work for appreciation and valued resources. Some dogs crumble without leadership and others challenge their owners over resources without it (see the Lab bit me thread). Some dogs will do just fine without it, but it's still important and worthwhile.

This. :)

ETA: Some dogs definitely seem to 'need' leadership more than others. Take a Rotti who comes into my work who has decided that it is her role to protect the whole family from EVERYONE. Sweet as pie at home (apparently), wants to kill anyone who comes near her family when out. Owners are inexperienced and very soft on her and don't understand why she is like that. She is an accident waiting to happen but owners think she is lovely...

Edited November 10, 2012 by taketwo

[Weasels]

I think there's another issue of the terminology having been poisoned. Like Cosmolo referenced yesterday talking about 'balanced trainers' - those words make me wince too not because of what they mean at face value but the way some people have twisted it.

The words 'pack leader' make me wary too. Of course I think a confident and consistent approach to interacting with dogs is important, but because of all the alpha rolling and people thinking their demeanour is an appropriate substitute for training that goes along with it, I worry when I hear it. Sometimes when followed up there is a sensible interpretation like in this thread, sometimes not.

edited for clarity

Edited November 11, 2012 by Weasels

[Dxenion]

Weasels when I read your comment in the other thread it made me stop and think "When did it become old school and what has it been replaced with?"

I have a pack of dogs here (albeit a small one) and I can see pack hierarchy associated behaviours occurring constantly between themselves and in their interactions with us. Is there a new way of looking at this now?

I'm really interested to hear others thoughts on this.

[Weasels]

Dx I'm going to be lazy and quote myself

"that dog is dominant...." is not a complete sentence. Dominance is a relationship established over time between 2 individuals for priority access to a resource. My girl asserts dominance over the water bowl. My boy asserts dominance over getting onto the car first, because he wants it more. Neither of these pieces of information help me if I want to train a specific behaviour. I just train it.

It's more theory of dominance as a personality trait rather than a relationship that I consider outdated. Some rare dogs may have an unusually high value for most resources and attempt to exert their access rights to almost everything, which could be labelled "a dominant dog". By then it's just getting into semantics tho. The idea that dogs view us in the same way they do their own species given how woeful we are at the subtleties of body language also has me suspicious O_o

Edit - Another good series of articles https://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theotherendoftheleash/tag/canine-social-hierarchy

Edited November 10, 2012 by Weasels

[Dxenion]

To me, pack hierarchy is to do with the social structure of the pack and how the individual dog's behaviour is goverened by their place in the hierarchy. This includes how they interact with the other dogs and humans, with resources, during play, in investigation, with marking, during greetings and response to a perceived threat to the group. There there is that polarising chestnut - leadership (aka alpha).

To me, dominance and how it is displayed and enforced by dogs and humans is tied to where the dog sees itself and (in the case of the My Lab Bit Me thread) humans in it's hierarchy.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Dxenion

[Weasels]

Ah there's the point of difference. I don't believe dogs see themselved in a set place of hierarchy within a group. I think it is more fluid than that and can vary among contexts, place and the resource in question. To use the kelps as an example again - as anyone who's met them can attest, Chess is kind of a massive b*tch and Weez is an complete weenie pants. A casual observer would suggest that Chess is the dominant dog over Weez, but observing their behaviour over a variety of situations shows that Weez will go after things he wants and will even cause Chess to abandon things (bones mostly) that she wants by sheer annoyingness. And vice-versa. And it's not just domestic dogs either - dingoes in high resource situations like having access to a rubbish tip won't display any discernable linear hierarchy. They just go after what they want at the time.

[Aidan3]

I think there are some assumptions being made about the Lab in the other thread. If a dog doesn't learn that it's inappropriate to bite, that doesn't mean that it's status seeking when it does.

This is the dangerous assumption with dominance in training. Although we've largely moved on from the Woodhouse or Koehler approach to this sort of problem, there's still a lot of superstitious behaviour modification that fails to address the problem safely or adequately in its place, based on assumptions about pack structure rather than actual behaviour.

[corvus]

A bunch of us Australian canine scientists wrote a paper about this that was published recently. http://www.journalvetbehavior.com/article/S1558-7878(11)00117-1/abstract

I don't think the paper is available freely, but if anyone wanted a full copy they could imagine who to ask.

[BJean]

Dx I'm going to be lazy and quote myself

"that dog is dominant...." is not a complete sentence. Dominance is a relationship established over time between 2 individuals for priority access to a resource. My girl asserts dominance over the water bowl. My boy asserts dominance over getting onto the car first, because he wants it more. Neither of these pieces of information help me if I want to train a specific behaviour. I just train it.

It's more theory of dominance as a personality trait rather than a relationship that I consider outdated. Some rare dogs may have an unusually high value for most resources and attempt to exert their access rights to almost everything, which could be labelled "a dominant dog". By then it's just getting into semantics tho. The idea that dogs view us in the same way they do their own species given how woeful we are at the subtleties of body language also has me suspicious O_o

While you only own a kelpie, or similar, and have not had direct experience with hard wired ASD/CAS individual, you will continue to see and speak your own semantics.

NB: I should add in any true dominant dog, because from what you write, I see that you have not.

Edited November 10, 2012 by lilli

[OSoSwift]

Not sure what I call it but they way I see it is someone has to be in control of setting the boundries and ensuring they are followed. If it isn't the human or the human is wushu washy about it then the dog sets those boundries.

Quite often when that happens things get a bit messy as what is considered appropriate to a dog isn't considered appropriate to a human.

So in my house I set the rules and enforce the boundries. Yes between the dogs change depending on what it is they want etc or if one is sick, in season etc, but at the end of the day what I say goes. Don't know what that makes me but I guess a leader is not a bad word for it???

[Weasels]

While you only own a kelpie, or similar, and have not had direct experience with hard wired ASD/CAS individual, you will continue to see and speak your own semantics.

NB: I should add in any true dominant dog, because from what you write, I see that you have not.

Well that was dismissive and rude I already noted that this pattern is also observed in wild and feral dogs, who are in a fight for their lives.

More importantly, it's not my definition. It's the definition of researchers studying animal ecology which has been overlaid on a domestic animal situation with all kinds of strange results.

[Crisovar]

Not sure what I call it but they way I see it is someone has to be in control of setting the boundries and ensuring they are followed. If it isn't the human or the human is wushu washy about it then the dog sets those boundries.

Quite often when that happens things get a bit messy as what is considered appropriate to a dog isn't considered appropriate to a human.

So in my house I set the rules and enforce the boundries. Yes between the dogs change depending on what it is they want etc or if one is sick, in season etc, but at the end of the day what I say goes. Don't know what that makes me but I guess a leader is not a bad word for it???

Yep, the Pack Leader is pretty much what it is, if that makes some people sad then so be it. I don't know why it is such an issue. I don't associate any of it with alpha rolls or dominating, simply keeping control for everyones benefit.

[HazyWal]

While you only own a kelpie, or similar, and have not had direct experience with hard wired ASD/CAS individual, you will continue to see and speak your own semantics.

NB: I should add in any true dominant dog, because from what you write, I see that you have not.

Well that was dismissive and rude I already noted that this pattern is also observed in wild and feral dogs, who are in a fight for their lives.

More importantly, it's not my definition. It's the definition of researchers studying animal ecology which has been overlaid on a domestic animal situation with all kinds of strange results.

While you ONLY own a kelpie or similar... how bloody rude.

[Greytmate]

I don't think heirachy is fixed. I think its it's fluid and it depends on the who, what, where, when and why. Context.

If there is a constant pack leader, it's only because there is a human who has a 100% success rate on motivating, outsmarting or overpowering a dog to get their own way.

So we can use the old words or we can use the new words, but I think that some people waste a lot of time identifying patterns of behaviour and trying to analyse that according to dominance theory. All that really matters is that our dogs behave themselves each day, and we have to maintain a relationship to do that. You don't get a Pack Leader Badge that gives you special entitlements.