Is dominance really so bad?

Depends on your definition of dominance.  For me, it is more physical and more powerful than simply the dog "controlling" a situation by getting his way.  In SchH we look for some level of dominance because the *best* dog is one that is not only powerful but calm and in control.  A frantic dog, no matter how powerful and aggressive is not what I consider a truly dominant dog, he is a nervy dog that bites is all. 

When a dog learns to throw behaviors on his own, I call that "operant" and "proactive", but not dominant. 

My dogs sleep on the bed, sit on the couch, have free reign of the house, lick our plates, eat table scraps...

I do not think that dominance is a bad thing at all. I just think it does not have much place in training or our particular relationships with dogs. For me, I take the definition of dominance that was created by institutions - that is, a social situation between two conspecifics (same species), at one particular instant of time, in which a particular resource or right is being competed for. The thing it, it is changing all the time, it's not a personality trait, and every dog lies on a continuum - based upon the situation. Dominance, as the term was originally used, has nothing to do with size, or power (to an extent - in some groups it is due to the threat of power....for instance larger manes on a lion tend to lead to males who are reproductively successful...as a large mane indicates a strong, powerful, male) - it's about control and how it can control others. Some control by force, sure, but not all do, and the best leaders in any group tend to be the calm, patient, and fair ones that people want to follow. Which leads to the question of dominance hierarchies, or deference hierarchies. There has been a heck of a lot of research done in different social animal groups in which they compare different leadership styles in that species.

In other words, I do see situational encounters where two animals are competing for the same resource - but as soon as that dispute is over, so is all talk of dominance. And the same situation may have a different outcome every time, depending on the variables involved. And in terms of how it is used to describe human-dog interactions, for me it has no place, as I am not a dog and to me, my dog is not going to look at the situation in the same manner. Does the dog view it as a potential "dominance" situation in trying to get control? Who knows....in the end, dogs do what works. If their display gets them what they want, they are likely to try it again as a behavioural strategy. If it doesn't get them what they want, then they are likely to abandon it and try something else. Which leads directly into the science of operant conditioning, and that is where I base my efforts. I don't "become dominant" over a dog, I change the dog's behaviour through reward or punishment, as well as the emotion behind any behaviour, and the dog learns what works and what doesn't.

 I use the same definition for dominance as Kim has described. And I'm feeling the same way about its role in human-dog relationships. What role? I can ignore it and I treat my dogs exactly the same. I just reward what I like and ignore what I don't for the most part. Ultimately, I don't like being pestered by my dogs to do something for them, so I don't reward behaviours that are being used to do that. I'm happy to give my dogs tools to get what they want from me in ways that I find acceptable and will continue to reward it. Kivi is rewarded for putting his paw on people because it's cute, just as Penny was always rewarded for barking at people because they thought it was cute. I didn't, but she had me well-trained in the end. And it worked for her because I didn't care that much.

An interesting example of a "dominance situation".....Zipper was lying on one end of the couch the other night. He had been chewing a bone, and he accidentally knocked it off the couch and it slid across the floor to the center of the living room. Shimmer came in the room, and started to go for the bone. Before she reached it, though, she stopped and sat. Zipper was eyeing her, from his laying position on the couch. She looked at him, then looked away. She stepped towards it one step, then looked away again. She sat, and then got up and walked away.

If Shimmer had wanted the bone, she could have taken it and walked away and I know Zipper would never have even moved from the couch. But...she didn't. Zipper maintained control of the bone from a distance without having to even move. And it was clear he was controlling the "bone" because if he didn't care Shimmer would not have reacted to his behaviour in turn, and would have just taken the bone. It was a case of control, and even though Shimmer wanted it badly, she was "told" that he wanted it more.

Another interesting situation....the schnauzers have developed what I call "The Bone Game". Realistically though it's actually a control behaviour, and Gaci is the queen of this game. She actually uses patience to get what she wants rather than any sort of assertive behaviour. Shimmer or Zipper will be chewing a bone on the dog bed, and Gaci will walk up to them and wait. She will actually just stand there, head lowered, not tense but not moving, eyes averted, and wait. However long it takes. I have seen her stand in one position, unmoving, for over a half hour, until the dog with the bone got fed up, or uncomfortable, and walked away. Gaci then immediately takes the bone, and wanders off with it to chew it herself. She is so cunning, that little girl, that it's almost scary. She really only plays it with Shimmer because she knows she can con her into giving it up. Zipper usually gives her a look that says "get lost" and she'll just wander off to find something else to do. Often, she'll do it though just because she can. Sometimes she doesn't even want the bone, I swear she's just doing it to see if she's still successful at her game.

It's funny, though, because I read a story in one of Brenda Aloff's books about one of her Fox Terrier bitches who did the exact (and I mean exact) behaviour that Gaci does with another dog chewing a bone, and I was amazed at how the descriptions of the dogs were so similar.

So it's not that these behaviours don't happen at all, but I really feel you can only look at them in the context of dog-dog behaviours, and I haven't really found any use for looking at dominance interactions in terms of changing behaviour. Because in the end, it comes back down to reward, punishment, and contingencies. That is what changes behaviour, not who is "alpha".

Kim_MacMillan

I do not think that dominance is a bad thing at all. I just think it does not have much place in training or our particular relationships with dogs. For me, I take the definition of dominance that was created by institutions - that is, a social situation between two conspecifics (same species), at one particular instant of time, in which a particular resource or right is being competed for. The thing it, it is changing all the time, it's not a personality trait, and every dog lies on a continuum - based upon the situation. Dominance, as the term was originally used, has nothing to do with size, or power (to an extent - in some groups it is due to the threat of power....for instance larger manes on a lion tend to lead to males who are reproductively successful...as a large mane indicates a strong, powerful, male) - it's about control and how it can control others. Some control by force, sure, but not all do, and the best leaders in any group tend to be the calm, patient, and fair ones that people want to follow. Which leads to the question of dominance hierarchies, or deference hierarchies. There has been a heck of a lot of research done in different social animal groups in which they compare different leadership styles in that species.

In other words, I do see situational encounters where two animals are competing for the same resource - but as soon as that dispute is over, so is all talk of dominance. And the same situation may have a different outcome every time, depending on the variables involved. And in terms of how it is used to describe human-dog interactions, for me it has no place, as I am not a dog and to me, my dog is not going to look at the situation in the same manner. Does the dog view it as a potential "dominance" situation in trying to get control? Who knows....in the end, dogs do what works. If their display gets them what they want, they are likely to try it again as a behavioural strategy. If it doesn't get them what they want, then they are likely to abandon it and try something else. Which leads directly into the science of operant conditioning, and that is where I base my efforts. I don't "become dominant" over a dog, I change the dog's behaviour through reward or punishment, as well as the emotion behind any behaviour, and the dog learns what works and what doesn't.

I couldn't have said this better, Kim.  Great post.

Kim_MacMillan

 I don't "become dominant" over a dog, I change the dog's behaviour through reward or punishment, as well as the emotion behind any behaviour, and the dog learns what works and what doesn't.

Is that not a form of dominance?  Not saying that it is wrong...just saying sounds like dominance to me and IMO there is nothing wrong with dominance.

Willow's dominance was a problem for me when she was using aggression to get what she wanted.  So, yes that was bad and a problem. 

But, now that she's learned that doesn't work thru NILIF the general fact that she can tend to be "dominant" doesn't effect our daily life. 

corvus

It's like they think better to be safe than sorry. Sorry how?

Well, my personal experience was that I knew she was dominant for more than one reason.   But, I can see people with certain breeds wanting to establish expectations right off.  If they do have an issue and it goes on for some time unchecked it's only that much harder to solve the problem. 

If I ever get another chow I will definately start NILIF right off to avoid these problems.  I really don't care why they are dominant.  And, although some problems may not effect my relationship with the dog, it could be very dangerous when interacting with others. 

 But my point is, what's the difference in how you treat a dog prone to dominance and a dog not prone to it? My sweet and sensitive Lapphund is still expected to follow all the house rules and do something for us if he wants something from us just as my stroppy, outspoken puppy is. I have never gone "Hmm, seems we have a puppy that expects everyone to do what he wants them to do... uh oh, better make sure we do NILIF with him." That was a given regardless of what his natural temperament might be. The only way his temperament has affected the way I treat him is in the training methods I feel I can use with him, and I've made a conscious effort NOT to use anything confrontational with him because he's a dog I strongly suspect will meet aggression with aggression.

Bruister

Kim_MacMillan

 I don't "become dominant" over a dog, I change the dog's behaviour through reward or punishment, as well as the emotion behind any behaviour, and the dog learns what works and what doesn't.

 

Is that not a form of dominance?  Not saying that it is wrong...just saying sounds like dominance to me and IMO there is nothing wrong with dominance.

Actually, that's just communication.  I think there's nothing wrong with dominance, *except* that it's an oversimplification of dog behavior in social groups, and it often tends to make humans think that they have to bully dogs into compliance. 

corvus

I keep thinking, dominance is empty if it doesn't result in control.

Hi

I think that probably in thirty years time it might be that most people will accept that dominance isn't a great model of dog behaviour. Until then i think that humans will require and need it.

Today i was out and a quite chubby labradoodler jumped up on me. The owners have been responsible and taken their dogs along to a private training school and are well versed on "ah ahs" ,Caeser , and dominance. The trainers at the (now closed) school must have been pretty good, many of them had advice for all and sundry on the internet.   

I got jumped up on three times with three quite ineffctive ah ahs . The reason why the ah ah s work for the owners along side the dominace talk is that i believe that it helps them fit  into their peer group, it is almost a bond of passage as a knowledgeable and caring dog owner. it sure as hell doesn't work on the behaviour. So what begins to happen is what fits into the social behaviour of the humans.

Sure my preference is for positive methods, and even at eighteen months i would still have a crack at using them. It would take a while and would need some holistic work on weight, diet, training and sturcture.

If i was to use more punishing methods  they wouldn't look a whole lot like the ah ahs. It would probaly be quite fast,sharp and I would be planning on the behaviour never happening again.

What the dominace thoery does is tie two groups together. It ties the new dog thugs and the more reserved people that believe that just a little punishment will do even when it doesn't work. It gives a vital backstop and an out when nothing works, something to take the heat off the failure of the trainer or the handler.

spiritdogs

Bruister

Kim_MacMillan

 I don't "become dominant" over a dog, I change the dog's behaviour through reward or punishment, as well as the emotion behind any behaviour, and the dog learns what works and what doesn't.

 

Is that not a form of dominance?  Not saying that it is wrong...just saying sounds like dominance to me and IMO there is nothing wrong with dominance.

 

Actually, that's just communication.  I think there's nothing wrong with dominance, *except* that it's an oversimplification of dog behavior in social groups, and it often tends to make humans think that they have to bully dogs into compliance. 

So is there a difference between bottom line "human to dog" communication and dominance?  Are we ever equal with our dogs when it comes to communication?  I allow my boy 100% choice when it comes to his day to day living within his routine, but I allow him 0% when it comes to  him dominating a human being.  Am I communicating or dominating?  I think I am communicating as much as I can but the intent is to conquer any thoughts he has of dominating a human being, because it can never be the reverse.  I think the more we communicate the better, but ultimately i need to be the boss. Am I not dominating?

corvus

But my point is, what's the difference in how you treat a dog prone to dominance and a dog not prone to it?

I think the only thing different would be I'd be more diligent with it if I thought the dog might potentially have some issues. 

Bruister

spiritdogs

Bruister

Kim_MacMillan

 I don't "become dominant" over a dog, I change the dog's behaviour through reward or punishment, as well as the emotion behind any behaviour, and the dog learns what works and what doesn't.

 

Is that not a form of dominance?  Not saying that it is wrong...just saying sounds like dominance to me and IMO there is nothing wrong with dominance.

 

Actually, that's just communication.  I think there's nothing wrong with dominance, *except* that it's an oversimplification of dog behavior in social groups, and it often tends to make humans think that they have to bully dogs into compliance. 

 

So is there a difference between bottom line "human to dog" communication and dominance?  Are we ever equal with our dogs when it comes to communication?  I allow my boy 100% choice when it comes to his day to day living within his routine, but I allow him 0% when it comes to  him dominating a human being.  Am I communicating or dominating?  I think I am communicating as much as I can but the intent is to conquer any thoughts he has of dominating a human being, because it can never be the reverse.  I think the more we communicate the better, but ultimately i need to be the boss. Am I not dominating?

 

People who know me well here know that I am not into excessive typing;-)  So, perhaps I can direct your attention to these articles.  Leadership and domination are not the same in my view, and the concept is far more complex than most people understand.  Saying that a dog is dominant is a huge oversimplification, and not helpful in assessing the dog accurately for the establishment of training and behavior protocols.  Context is important.  So is the ability to frame a humane training and behavior protocol that does not exacerbate the very behaviors that you are trying to eradicate.

http://www.askdryin.com/dominanceindogs.php

http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?P=A&A=1723&S=1&SourceID=47