Pack Hierarchy

[tdierikx]

I'm the "provider of all things" therefore my dogs look to me for their needs to be met... I do my darned best to make sure that those needs are met. Call it what you will... *grin*

I own dogs primarily for companionship - not to be the giver of all commands. There are certain rules that need to be followed by ALL members of my "family" or "pack" (if you want to call it that), myself included.

T.

[eyeopener]

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?

There is no missing their is a leadership role shared between 2 of my dogs & I know who is often left out or stood over for high value foods so yes there is sonwhat of a pack order going on. But with that said I make the rules & every dog defers to me at the end of the day. I see shifts in pack dynamics depending on heat cycles, pregnancies, new dogs, litters etc so it's not set in cement who takes what role within the pack. At the end of the day though no one is game to walk over Bear or Jack when they are asleep or try & take their food yet Bear will willing walk away for puppies or 1 particular bitch. I really missed the role my recently departed older male toke of always leading dogs back to me if I called & policing squabbles but his position is slowly being filled us a string but younger male as he matures.

Not sure I believe I am their pack leader but I do get more say so than any dog n they all respect me but I think I'm viewed more as their safe person, feeder, fixer, slave than pack leader, lol.

[Maddy]

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.

A dog can dominate in a particular situation without being dominant though.

In my own experience (we usually have at least four dogs here, sometimes more), none of them were "dominant", some were just more likely to take risks by challenging other dogs for resources. Even then, it depended very much on the resource and how the individual valued that resource. One dog might value a better bed (and take considerable risks to obtain it) while not being at all interested in defending its food if challenged by a dog that valued the food more highly.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Hardy's Angel

[BJean]

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.

A dog can dominate in a particular situation without being dominant though.

In my own experience (we usually have at least four dogs here, sometimes more), none of them were "dominant", some were just more likely to take risks by challenging other dogs for resources. Even then, it depended very much on the resource and how the individual valued that resource. One dog might value a better bed (and take considerable risks to obtain it) while not being at all interested in defending its food if challenged by a dog that valued the food more highly.

Of course HA.

9 dogs here, 2 are domininant and the other 7 try and dominate in a particular situation.

But never towards the 2 that are dominant.

The 2 dominant are male and female and are kept separate, as

if together they would probably kill each other.

[Staff'n'Mutt]

Can't say I'm all for calling it the alpha role, But around here I"m boss. I am boss of the kids and I am boss of the dog. Just like with the kids, I'm responsible for her welfare. There are things I wont allow her to do like take food out of the kids hands while they are eating and things I allow like sleeping on our bed.

I know this is calling for a site wide eyeroll but as He who can not be named for fear of imminent implosion, Rules Boundaries and Limitations. that I agree with, the rest of his methods meh.

[BJean]

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.

Well next time don't dismiss what you do not know for yourself and then neither of us will feel reproach.

You already wrote:

"that dog is dominant...." is not a complete sentence.

And the word 'pack leader' makes you sad.

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.

No, it is the definition of the dog theorists which you agree with. Not the definition of all dog theorists.

[Weasels]

Perhaps "I believe this doesn't apply to LGDs because..." and some explanation of your position would be a better starting point for discussion that multiple uses of an accusatory "you"

And the word 'pack leader' makes you sad.

More a result of not wanting to use the word 'wince' twice in one sentence. More accurately, when I meet someone at the dog park who refers to themselves as a pack leader I am wary to hear what they think that means.

If it's merely a matter of a difference of definition of the word that doesn't seem to warrant a personal attack.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Weasels

[BJean]

Perhaps "I believe this doesn't apply to LGDs because..." and some explanation of your position would be a better starting point for discussion that multiple uses of an accusatory "you"

Now you give me instruction on how to write also?

[Weasels]

A suggestion. As with everything I say. I am open to debate and willing to change my mind according the balance of evidence when it is presented. Also a reference to forum rule number 2.

[corvus]

More a result of not wanting to use the word 'wince' twice in one sentence. More accurately, when I meet someone at the dog park who refers to themselves as a pack leader I am wary to hear what they think that means.

I feel much the same way. I think the term 'leader' is problematic. It is very subjective. What makes a good leader? People have all sorts of differing ideas. You only have to get stuck working under a poor leader to realise that. They think they are being good leaders. I like more explicit terms. Like 'decisive' and 'consistent' and 'communicate clearly' and 'proactive'. I don't really feel a need to label who I am and what I am to my dogs. They know better than I do.

Incidentally, lilli, Weasels was not using a dog-specific definition of dominance. It occurs in all sorts of species and still means the same thing.

[OSoSwift]

Just because i believe I show the leadrship roll does not mean I alpha roll, or work on the theory I have to dominate my dogs. I am incontrol of all things good. If they want to get the good stuff they fall in line with my rules and boundries.

I don't care what you call it, it works and we are all happy :)

[BJean]

Just because i believe I show the leadrship roll does not mean I alpha roll, or work on the theory I have to dominate my dogs. I am incontrol of all things good. If they want to get the good stuff they fall in line with my rules and boundries.

[espinay2]

It is Mech who says he is sorry he coined the word 'alpha' when referring to wolf pack structure as it has been taken put of context in relation to canid behavior. Rather than a lineal approach ( and even then the lineal approach as articulated originally is not a direct one but always involved complex relationships including sex based ones within the pack) he mentions it is a familial one developed by the natural growth of a pack ie father and mother and offspring for several generations. Basically the lead pair are dominant more in the way human parents will be dominant in a household. Relationships change over time, but the family structure guides the overall relationships. Interestingly too it has been held for a long time in relation to wolf pack behavior that it is not the dominant wolf that gets the food but the one that wants it most. Certainly this is something I was taught many years ago when studying wolf behavior in the US and something I have as a result always applied to dog training as the 'leader controls food' thing in relating to resource guarding for example is a recipe for disaster. Escalation will most often result in challenge for the resource no matter who is actually 'leader'/head of household if the dog really wants it. It is interesting too though that mech states the familial type relationship on which the whole theory if pack structure is based may not apply directly to 'artificial' packs which have not grown naturally as a family. So it may not always be possible to apply the theories directly to a domestic dog situation.

Edited November 10, 2012 by espinay2

[espinay2]

Fwiw too in relaxation to LGD they do maintain a lot more 'primitiveness' (not the right word but as close as I can come at the moment) than breeds such as kelpie. Having owned both I can see where lilli is coming from. The human/animal relationship with these two types of breeds is a slightly different one. Hard to describe and would probably take longer to try and articulate than is warranted in this thread. Also something not easily understood unless experienced.

[Rainers]

I have four dogs and one is new to the pack. The pack is fairly structured - Ryan is the leader and leads mostly by bluff, Ziva is second, Noah is third and Rainer is definitely on the bottom and I'd say, always will be. However Ryan is getting older and has been sick and I'm fairly sure Noah is changing and is no longer taking shit from anyone, particularly since Rainer arrived. Either way, they definitely have a hierarchy and it doesn't appear to change much at all. When foster dogs come in, Ryan is still always the pack leader and the dogs all support him if a foster is being troublesome.

[Crisovar]

Just because i believe I show the leadrship roll does not mean I alpha roll, or work on the theory I have to dominate my dogs. I am incontrol of all things good. If they want to get the good stuff they fall in line with my rules and boundries.

I don't care what you call it, it works and we are all happy :)

Just the way it should be. :D