Dominance in domestic dogs

[OnceInAWeil]

Wondering if anyone has read this and what they thought of it.

http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/Behav ... w_2009.pdf


I tend to lean toward what this particular article is saying, but I am very confused by some of the discussion I see on this board. When advising owners, we tell them that dogs are not motivated by a desire to be dominant. But in a discussion about dog-dog interaction, words like "bossy" and "rank" go flying. So which is it? This isn't a criticism of the board at all, I'm just curious about the general consensus.

[jacksdad]

I will have to read the article that you post later, but I skimmed the abstract and it appear to track with what I have been learning/digging out in regards to Social Dominance as a concept, followed by what it means in specific to dog.

My personal opinion is that at this time is.....anyone wanting to gain a proper understanding of what Social Dominance is all about needs to start here

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4535117 (unfortunately you do have to buy the article, but it is in my opinion worth every penny to do so if you really want to start understanding what Social Dominance is all about)

Once you have read and understand what Carlos Drews is talking about, then diving into what Social Dominance is all about in terms of dogs becomes a bit easier. Drews argues in his paper that there needs to be a high level definition that is broad enough to cover everyone so we all are on the same page in terms of what we are trying to say/describe/define when we use the term "Social Dominance". Then you need to refine, describe and illustrate how that plays out in the individual species.

For example, if I were to start talking about "social dominance" in dogs, you would in theory instantly know I was talking about how a group of dogs living together have worked out who gets access to what resources in what priority. NOT who is "in charge" of the group of dogs living together. Or who is the most aggressive dog etc.

To my knowledge there is only ONE study that has been done that touches on "dominance" in dogs. it was done over a decade before Carlos's paper. I have it, but haven't gotten around to reading it. so I can't comment on it too much yet. But that should give you some idea of how LITTLE we KNOW about "Social Dominance" in dogs.

So, what most people think they know about Social Dominance/dominance in dogs is based on a lot of myth and "legend" that has been repeated so often that it has come to be just taken as "fact". much of the "facts" can be traced back to wolf studies done on captive wolves that followed the logic of if these captive wolves are doing X, and dogs come from wolves, then X must also apply to dogs....and off to the races we go. These "facts" are further distorted by the "telephone game" effect. remember that kids game where you sit in a circle or stand in a line and someone tells one person a couple sentences, then message gets passed from person to person and by the time it reaches the last person and they say out loud the message it bares no resemblance to the original...that is what has happened in part to common understanding of dominance and dogs.

When you dive into the scientific literature regarding Social Dominance you begin to see a drastically different picture than is commonly bandied about in the "dog world".

For example.....

Social Dominance is about a relationship between two individuals of the same species
the relationship is about who gets access to a limited and desired resource
it is a way to resolve that conflict/competition PEACEFULLY
it's NOT a trait one is born with, but another isn't
its NOT about leadership

I personally have started to "feel" (I say feel because I am still learning and reading and thinking on this) that the "rules" of Social Dominance and the "rules" of social hierarchies are not one and the same. they can/do/will/maybe have overlap, but they are two separate questions. I could be wrong, I could be right..... but that is where I am at, at this time.

Which brings me back to your question.....

IF Social Dominance is about the working out by two individuals who gets priority access to a limited and desired resource, then explaining the motivation of why dog A wants to hump dog B as "dominance" falls apart real quick. Or why dog A smacks dog B's neck with their paw, or why a dog wants to go through a door first, or why a dog pulls on lead, or why a dog jumps on people and on and on as "dominance" falls apart fairly quickly. where is the resource that is limited? where is the resource that is critical to staying alive? etc.

if dog A and dog B both want a drink from the same bowl, who gets to go first would be a "social dominance" situation. BUT...and here is where things get to complicated who "wins" access to the water bowl first could be purely a factor of who is more thirsty. today it was Dog A because dog A just played fetch for a solid hour, but dog B was laying around relaxing...so not needing the water that bad...backed off and allowed Dog A to be "dominant" in accessing the water bowl. But what about tomorrow when Dog B comes back from a solid hour of Agility training and is now the dog who is VERY thirsty, where as Dog A was laying around relaxing and not so thirsty but both decided to go for water at the sometime...who would be dominant then???????? Is dog A having "won" yesterday going to "win" again today. is it a mater of who is thirstier and thus asserts them self more to gain access to the water. Does dog B learn that no matter what, because it looses more often than wins that dog is is 'dominate' no matter how thirsty dog B is and thus gives way to Dog A despite being "desperate" for water. then what happens between these two when the resource isn't water??????

what about if Dog A and Dog B are just lying around in the back yard "chilling" and dog A goes over to dog B starts muzzle poking/punching or otherwise pestering dog B to play. Is that dog A trying to be "dominant"? is dog A trying to be "in charge" or does dog A just want to play because it's fun, but is rude in how dog B is asked to play?

[WufWuf]

You might find these articles interesting OIAW

http://suzanneclothier.com/the-articles ... nce-debate

http://suzanneclothier.com/blog/convers ... nce-debate

Here's series of articles Patricia McConnell did

http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theoth ... -dominance

http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theoth ... ps-in-dogs

http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theoth ... rson-to-do

http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theoth ... the-d-word

[Nettle]

There's a lot to like about this study - thanks for linking it.

Words give us some problems when we discuss the D thing. Some months ago I was trying to find a word that fitted those very able types of dog that don't get annoyed about or by anything, and even on this Board we couldn't find anyting that didn't smack of front, top, boss etc. We really do need a new word.

I was pleased to see the Hermit Dog mentioned. Again, 'hermit' isn't quite the right word but it's a good try at it. Those dogs that don't give a rat's asterisk about what other dogs are doing/saying/being. They are just so far removed from dog skulduggery and posturing, they don't do politics and they are happy in their own skins.

[OnceInAWeil]

Some of the things that Patricia McConnell writes don't sit well with me. I can't remember specific examples in The Other End of the Leash, but this is from one of those articles WufWuf linked:

I threw the ball and little Misty, a tiny, fox-faced BC of mine, got to the ball first. As she ran toward me with it in her mouth, Luke rushed up behind her, grabbed her tail in his mouth and flicked his head to the side. Misty, being attached to her own tail, flew threw the air and landed so hard the ball popped out and dribbled through the grass. Luke snatched it up and proudly brought it over to me (at least, until I, coming out of my shock, said WHAT ARE YOU DOING? and body blocked him backward about 10 feet. FYI, that is all I did, and he never did it again.)

The part in bold strikes me as intimidation, and not something I'd do to teach my dog. But I don't have a Ph.D in animal behavior, so there's a good chance she knows something I don't...




Someone posted this link to a video in the comments of one of the articles. What do you guys make of it? http://feraldog.wordpress.com/2010/03/2 ... ch-a-wolf/

[jacksdad]

you have to remember that when you read a book, say "other end of the leash", you are getting a snap shot in time. what the author knows and believes up to point the book is finally published. the author can sometimes grow in their knowledge, experience, change opinion etc. So you do have to keep that in mind when reading books, studies etc.

Did Dr. McConnell respond correctly? was her response "ideal"? would she do it again today? some of these questions unless you talk to her you will never know the answers. BUT, that she is a Phd and I believe a certified animal behaviorist doesn't mean she has it all figured out, or that she is perfect etc. it is absolutely OK to use our own brains, think things through, weigh the evidence, and come to a different conclusion.

I very, very much admire Dr. McConnell, but I don't think we should turn our brains off and just blindly accept/follow what she says simply because of who she is and her accomplishments. It is ok to "pass" the teacher. That you may find your self disagreeing with her could be a sign of growth on your part.

Despite my admiration, I am not so sure I agree 100% with her on the "dominance issue". my disagreement is in my growing thought that Social Dominance and Social hierarchies may not be one in the same. IF (big if) I am understanding her thoughts and writings, it appears she is lumping the two together.

Am I right...don't know yet. am I presumptuous thinking I might be right and someone like her might be wrong...not at all. if we didn't think, questions and recollect data we would never move knowledge forward.

long winded "rant" to say this...it is OK you disagree with her actions or her conclusions. In the specifics you are disagreeing with, I absolutely agree that step would be a wrong one with your dog in most situations. It would be the wrong one to take with my dog as well. but is it blank it wrong...I do NOT feel/believe it is. body blocks as she describes doing with Luke is a useful tool in some situations. I have done it to some dogs and will do it again. when to use it falls into that oh so "helpful" it depends. So far my criteria for using it is loose dogs that aren't taking "Stop it" and "back OFF" signals from another dog, generally mine. I step in and calmly use my body to block them away from the other dog. I "escalate as the other dog escalates to keep it away from my dog, and deescalate as the other dog deescalates. But here is some food for thought for you...what if suddenly your dog start's bullying another dog...what is the most gentle way to move your dog away? In my opinion, body blocks like used by Dr. McConnell. sometimes the "tool" it's self is harmful, sometimes the "tool" is only harmful in how/when it's used.

As for your link to feral dog...little perplexed how catching a dog or wolf even brings up the word "dominance". I will have to give it a more complete watch when I get home tonight.

[OnceInAWeil]

I understand that her writings reflect the times, but the online articles (by the way, thanks for sharing those, WufWuf ) are only a couple of years old, and her theories don't seem to have changed much from TOEOTL.

In the case of the body block scenario, I understand using it to move your dog away when it is bullying, but the way she described it seemed like she waited until Luke wasn't even thinking about Misty anymore and was on his way back to her. I also personally don't feel I would want to use such a technique on any dog I wanted to have a good relationship with, as it seems like basically shouting/charging at the dog. I would use it with an overly-interested loose dog, though.

The "catch pole dominance" video has me confused, as well. The stuff the guy leading the team says comes off as mumbo jumbo to me, but I always appreciate other takes.

[jacksdad]

Ok...got caught up on reading the paper linked by OnceInAWeil. Great paper. really hammers home a couple points that are key....

1. determining who is "dominant" to who is a process that involves collecting data. you can't just look look at two dogs and say one is dominate to the other as casually as is typically done in the dog world.

2. dogs aren't wolves and have their own behaviors and to understand them we need to study dogs not wolves

It also makes clear that the "big brains" figuring this stuff out haven't figured it out yet and are asking some really good questions trying to figure it out. Which means that contrary to claims by some trainers, we still have A LOT to learn and we don't know what "we" think we know about dogs and "dominance".

And to be useful, we have to use the term in the same way that the ethologists/biologists are...or will be...as they figure it out. doing otherwise creates confusion and eliminates any usefulness of the word/term in explaining whatever it is you are trying to explain via using the word/term.

Couple of personal thoughts.

I may have to change my thinking from dogs have social hierarchies to social structures or something along those lines. we have talked about dogs having a flatter "hierarchy/structure" than wolves on here many times. But it maybe even flatter than previously thought.

I may be on to something in my thoughts that Social Dominance in dogs and social hierarchies (structures?) are not one in the same. though time will tell.

It appears there has been more recent studies done on dogs and Social Dominance and social hierarchies/structures than I previously thought....learn something every day don't you. time to dig in and learn some more.

Thoughts on the video link.....

The Y pole does seem to be an improvement over the nets. Some of his explanations...seems a bit on the "mystical" side. And I am left wondering why they can't train the wolves to be more "accepting" of handling and medical work ups? watching it I couldn't help but think of how ken ramirez talks about all the different marine animals that they train to make it easier to do medical workups on. Honest question, other than needing to have someone with the right qualifications and able to put the time in, why can't the same be done for the wolves at zoo's and other places. in theory at least it would take them to the next step of reducing stress/trauma on the wolves and make life safer for the handlers...again. In theory. inquiring minds want to know.

But I am still not sure how/why "dominance" is even a word being used in the process of restraining the wolf with the Y poles and doing a medical check. May come across as a bold statement, but I am fairly sure in this context, he is misusing the word/term.

[OnceInAWeil]

Some of his explanations...seems a bit on the "mystical" side.

LOL! That is exactly the term I was looking for when I said mumbo jumbo.

And I am left wondering why they can't train the wolves to be more "accepting" of handling and medical work ups? watching it I couldn't help but think of how ken ramirez talks about all the different marine animals that they train to make it easier to do medical workups on. Honest question, other than needing to have someone with the right qualifications and able to put the time in, why can't the same be done for the wolves at zoo's and other places. in theory at least it would take them to the next step of reducing stress/trauma on the wolves and make life safer for the handlers...again. In theory. inquiring minds want to know.

But I am still not sure how/why "dominance" is even a word being used in the process of restraining the wolf with the Y poles and doing a medical check. May come across as a bold statement, but I am fairly sure in this context, he is misusing the word/term.

I thought all the same. Karen Pryor's website has videos of clicker trained wolves. http://reachingtheanimalmind.com/chapter_01.html Though perhaps these wolves grew up around people and the ones at the zoo generally don't?

[Nettle]

I watched the link sound off, as I usually do. You can see so much more with the sound off.

And my overriding thoughts were:

Why are they useing a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

Why (as Jacksdad has already said) don't they just accustom the wolves to being handled? Accustom them to feeding (say) in an area that lends itself to catching? An area that can be made smaller with movable barriers? How about using some reward?

WHY ARE NONE OF THEM WEARING PROTECTIVE CLOTHING???????

Surely the blood readings will be inaccurate given this level of stress?

Unless you all think it would do me good to listen to the commentary , I won't watch again. Wolves, foxes and some other wild canids are well known for going catatonic under stress, and it looked as if this is what was happening here. Cornering animals, wild or domestic is a bloody stupid thing to do.

[jacksdad]

Wolves, foxes and some other wild canids are well known for going catatonic under stress.....

I was thinking more about this on the drive into work....catatonic...that's the right word. The guy was claiming that the wolf was submitting and accepting the Y pole. that just didn't ring "right" to me, but I was coming up short on the right word to describe what was actually happening with the wolf.

Cornering animals, wild or domestic is a bloody stupid thing to do.

That was also something I was "knocking" around in my thoughts this morning as well and wondering....thanks for confirming.

No, I don't think you will learn anything more than what you already did by listening once more with the sound up.

[Nettle]

Just remembered a course exercise where person goes out of room, other people decide what they want him/her to do when s/he comes back in, and they have to get him/her to do this purely by using body-language.

Several times (some students are slow learners ) different subjects were cornered.

WHAM!

Don't corner people, either The nicest, gentlest, most introverted students are capable of lashing out when they feel they have been cornered.

[OnceInAWeil]

Wolves, foxes and some other wild canids are well known for going catatonic under stress.....

I was thinking more about this on the drive into work....catatonic...that's the right word. The guy was claiming that the wolf was submitting and accepting the Y pole. that just didn't ring "right" to me, but I was coming up short on the right word to describe what was actually happening with the wolf.

The "calm submissive" CM talks about. The animal is actually shutting down, not being calm.

[OnceInAWeil]

Looking further down at the comments, someone asked them about the lack of training.

As a trainer who has worked with a wide array of species, (including various raptors, wolves, dog, cats, cormorants, wild ducks, ground squirrels, opossums, etc.), I appreciate very much that you are trying to find more humane ways to take care of husbandry needs.

I especially appreciate your interest in humane techniques because my work with wild animals has been primarily about improving their quality of life, including teaching them to willingly enter crates, get on scales, allow handling, and other necessary procedures.

I wonder, though, why places such as the Dakota Zoo have not engaged trainers skilled in the up-to-date application of operant and classical conditioning techniques, so that you would not have to corner and pin the wolves in the first place? So many zoos and wildlife parks have proven the effectiveness of this approach that I guess I hadn’t realized that there are still places which do not train their captive animals for husbandry procedures, as well as to generally lower their stress in their captive environments.

Also, I wondered if the Dakota Zoo uses captive bred wolves, and if not, why not? If they are using captive-bred wolves, then I can’t help wondering why they are not hand-reared, to make living as a captive animal, surrounded by humans, less stressful for them? (Or, if they are hand-reared, why was that wolf still so fearful?)

Lastly, does the wolf in that video live alone? If so, why, and for how long?

Thank you,

Sarah Mullen

feraldogs, on April 12, 2010 at 10:57 am said:

Sarah,
Thank you for your great questions and input. I totally agree that when possible training is far better than handling unsocialized animals. I was given a behind-the-scenes tour of the San Diego Zoo and was in awe of the relationship between the caretakers and their animals.

I passed your questions on to Terry Lincoln, the director of the Dakota Zoo. He strives to handle his animals with as much care and compassion as he can and I know he is always very professional and open to new ways of doing things. Here is what Terry had to say: The wolf in question is an endangered Mexican Gray Wolf. These wolves are purposely kept “wild” in captivity, in the event that they or their offspring are someday needed for release into the wild. The male in the video, “Tostito,” has received a reversable vasectomy, owing to the fact that his bloodline is probably not needed for future breeding but in the event that there is a problem, he can hopefully rejoin the breeding/release program. For this reason, we work hard to keep these wolves from being too conditioned to humans, including training them to move by voice command, enter certain areas they are trained to do, etc. We do conduct a lot of natural enrichment for them including the introduction of various natural play toys that include what they would experience in the wild (brush piles, deer bones, deer hides, etc.) In our efforts to treat the animals under our care with the utmost respect, we are very excited to be able to handle the wolves with tools such as Y-poles when appropriate, and utilize chemical immobilization over netting operations that could potentially cause stress.

Thank you for your wonderful input. Mark

[Nettle]

Two points leaping out at me:

Offspring may be released 'into the wild'. Not these wolves (although they say they 'might'). These wolves are already habituated to captivity. So they don't have to be 'wild' do they?

Why vasectomise the wolf? If his genes aren't needed in future, just don't breed from him. If they are, then do. But to put him through one lot of surgery and potentially two....I really don't see the thinking behind that.

Probably more but I'm tired.