Dogs, humans and hierarchies.

Very interesting thoughts indeed.
 
I have no doubt that dogs have a hierarchy of sorts when it comes to conspecific interactions (dog-dog) - who live together (and I'll touch more on this point later). You can see it in all interactions between dogs that live together. However, I do think that it's also not what a lot of the "alpha/dominance/wolf pack" theorists believe it to be either, and of course I believe it HIGHLY varies from breed to breed, based on what they were bred for. There is one girl in our family who such theorists would dub the "alpha" bitch. However I don't see it this way. I consider the fact that she has raised (either directly as her own offspring, or being "grandma" to the other offspring) just about EVERY other dog in the household (except the Shih Tzu mix), so they have all grown to show her the type of respect children would show their grown parents (well, children who were raised well, in an appropriate manner, that is). However, she does not exert her "dominance" like such theorists would describe. She doesn't care if another dog takes the best sleeping spot. She doesn't care if she eats first, or second, or 8th. Most of what she does does NOT at all fall into the "typical" category of "alpha bitch" that many such theorists would claim her to be. She had taken in and raised and taught just about every puppy we've had in our home, with the same guidance and the same mannerisms. She taught them what to do, what not to do (in dog skills). She will intervene in play situations when an older dog is playing a bit too roughly with a young pup (usually the dog playing roughly is the next youngest dog who isn't used to living with small babes). To an experience observer, she seems to fulfill not an "alpha" role at all, but rather the role of simply being the second-oldest dog in the home, who the other dogs respect because they grew up under her and taught by her.
 
Then there is the Shih Tzu mix, who really blurs up the picture. Our Shih Tzu mix, in "human" terms, believes she is above the Schnauzers...lol. They coexist quite well, but she doesn't play with them, and they don't play with her. They more simply live together, sharing the same space. Of course they interact with each other, and they communicate with each other in bucketfulls, but it doesn't at all follow the typical "pack" mentality that many claim exists between the dogs.
 
It would be far fetched for any person to try and claim which dog, our oldest Schnauzer bitch, or the Shih Tzu mix (who is the oldest of ALL of the dogs), is "alpha" of the dogs. Because their relationships and interactions just don't fit that perfect little bubble. Yet they all share a home together, sleep together (usually the mix on or beside a lap, but in the same vicinity and usually beside other dogs), they eat together, etc.
 
You then have to look at the different groups of dogs. The dogs that were bred to hunt in large groups (hounds - beagles, for one example) or dogs that were bred to live together in large groups, tend to have very little expression of dominance/pack behaviours in the group. You could have a group of 60 beagles and there would often be no "obvious" leader, aside from perhaps the "oldest" dog of the group, or the favorite of the owner.
 
Dogs also live in a very un-natural environment, according to your "typical" idea of pack theory. Most dogs are exposed to other dogs EVERY day of their lives. In the dog park your dog is likely to meet different dogs every day. At the beach, your dog is likely to interact with dozens of dogs it's never yet met. At dogs shows, and trials, the same thing. Yet, all hell does not break loose every time dogs meet each other! There is no big "vying for position" that goes on every time a dog meets another dog! If there was, life would be chaos! If the "pack theory" truly stood as such, and dogs always were out to see "where they fit into the pack and see who's on top", do you think dogs would be able to meet, interact with, and play with completely strange dogs on a daily basis, for their entire lives, with little problems? Sure, they sniff butts, and ears, but is that really any different from a good hand shake when you meet a new person? If the dog is well-exposed to other dogs, they are usually going to do their introduction and then head off to play, regardless of where they are "viewed" as humans as ranking in a 'pack'.  Our domestic dog lives a HUGELY different life than both wolves, wild dogs, and feral dogs, in that they are exposed in very different ways to dogs on a daily basis. And I think this totally un-natural exposure, and selective breeding for traits that allow (or prevent) this, change the rules entirely regarding the hierarchical interactions between dogs. When I go to the dog park, or the beach, or a dog show, or puppy classes, or anywhere else where strange, friendly dogs interact, it's just hard to believe that there is a lot of basis to this "pack structure".
 
While at home your dogs may very well appear to fit into some sort of "order" (or they may not appear to fit any hierarchical order of any kind!), you have to sit back and think - why is this? Is it just "pack structure" as would be shown to you? Or, perhaps, is it like, with anything else, they learn to live together, much like 6 or 7 university students learn to share a rented house together and cohabitate? And they learn what makes each other tick, and yes, they have their disagreements, and sometimes, they might just not get along (after all, do YOU like everybody you've ever met?). But then you look at these same dogs going out in public and playing with dogs on the street, playing with strange dogs in the dog park, going to a new daycare and fitting in perfectly, etc, and it really doesn't seem to stand up all that well when put to the test.
 
I do believe that, when it comes to dogs living together, there are certain patterns that develop in dogs, and specific relationships that do occur amongst them that some would dub a "hierarchy". But of course this hierarchal concept breaks down quickly when the dogs go out into the real world and relate to other dogs not in their household. So it really leads you to ask - is there truly a "pack" structure going on in your home, or perhaps is it simply that dogs have learned to live together as a familial unit, they learn to get along, they learn what they can't and can get away with - relative to each interaction with each individual dog (Dog A can get away with ___  (what some would call "dominance", and I have no issue with using it in the specific, fluid, context in which it's meant to occur) with Dog B, but can't get away with it with Dog C, however Dog B can get away with it over Dog C....etc), on a dog-dog basis, rather than simply a generalized pack structure? We have selectively bred dogs to do so, so so many things AGAINST what pack theorists would call the "pack structure", that I even question the linearity of interactions between dogs, not just humans.
 
As for the human aspect, I think that ALL of the dogs view ALL of the humans that they meet to be a completely separate entity than dogs. Of course they don't think that we are dogs. It is said (and research has shown) that dogs, more than almost any other species, including primates, respond most closely to human gestures and facial expressions. Dogs and humans have been together for so many hundreds of years, we have selectively bred very specific traits into dogs that allow us to have very intimate relations with them in very complex ways. I have not yet met a dog that ever tried to show a "place" or "rank" in a human construct (although many pack theorists will claim that they have, so who's to say who's right and who's wrong, eh?). I've met pushy dogs, and dogs with not much guidance, and dogs with not much patience, and dogs who have been basically taught to BE the way they are (in a bad way), but I can't say I've ever seen, as the literature tries to explain, a dog try to be "dominant" over a human. Of course, just like with others, dogs do likely learn that they "can" be demanding and get away with it with some people, that some people ARE pushovers, and that they can be walked all over. But is this truly "dominance", or is it any different from the push-overs that you and I know that you could walk all over and they'd still try to be your friend (not that I recommend this, nor have I taken advantage of such people like that....I truly feel bad for those kinds of people)? And that, once they stand up for themselves (ie, take over "leadership" status in some ideologies), the dog then learns that the rules change, the game changes, and perhaps what they were doing isn't going to work anymore, and then a balanced relationship forms based on mutual respect and trust?
 
 
I truly think that if we as humans, meet a dog's needs as a dog's needs need to be met, then the relationship between human and dog will thrive. And these needs have nothing to do with "human does ____ before dogs", or "showing the dog who is boss", but it's far more a parental role in teaching them with guidance, showing them what is allowed and what is not, but most importantly, providing for them what they, as dogs, need (water, shelter, safety, stability, trust, exercise, experience in being a "dog", being a part of the familial group - social feedback, grooming, medical care, mental stimulation, etc). If you provide these things, even with minimal training you are going to have a very strong relationship with your dog.
 
Kim MacMillan

I don't really understand what dominance has to do with human-dog interactions either. I live with a pack of dogs, and yes, there is a clear doggy heirarchy. But what my alpha bitch gets out of being top dog has nothing to do with what I want dogs to do. I want them to walk politely on leash, and obey a large number of commands, and not resource guard and not give submissive greetings (jump up on) to humans and to not play with humans as if humans were dogs (mouthing) and to not-squabble amongst themselves. What do my goals have to do with being dominant? absolutely nothing. Communicate and motivate works better than intimidate and bully.

Yes, I agree.

Here's the thing: I've pretty much decided that domestic dogs, canis familiaris, are not pack animals. They are social animals. There's a difference. All canids are social, but not all are pack animals. So social relations, social structures are important to dogs, but a rigid pack hierarchy is not so much. A dog can live quite happily as an only-dog among humans. If dogs were really pack animals, this would not be the case. The only-dog would be a total nut for want of a hierarchical pack structure. But that's not what we see at all. In addition, like Kim mentioned dogs meet other strange dogs all the time and while they greet each other with social rituals (like humans do) they readily accept other dogs into the existing social structure with a minimum of fuss. Again, if dogs were pack animals this would not be the case. When wild wolf packs meet other strange wolves, the result is generally not pretty.

As much as I was personally offended by the Coppinger's "conclusion" to their book Dogs, I think there is a tremendous amount of wisdom in there as well. The village dogs that they studied were not pack animals. They were semi-solitary, social, formed groups when it was advantageous and stayed alone when that was advantageous. Pack behavior in animals is an evolutionary adaptation and in a situation where such a structure is no longer advantageous there's no need for it to be kept around as the animal evolves. For opportunistic scavengers living in close quarters with another species that provides a pretty amazing amount of opportunities for scavenging, packing is just not adaptive. I think in many ways, it's maladaptive. Wolf-dog hybrids that have a large amount of wolf in them are very very different creatures than domestic dogs; they are hard to keep around, hard to train, and hard to live with. Had domestic dogs kept these qualities, early humans would have viewed them not as harmless scavengers who are fine to keep around but as predators to be eliminated.

Multi-dog homes have a social structure, to be sure. Any family with siblings has the same. There's the big brother who beats up on the little brother because he can, there's the little sister who manipulates the older siblings because she can and it gets her what she wants, there's the momma's boy and the girl who just doesn't fit in and fights with everyone. But it's not a pack. It's just the behavior of another highly social species.

I've said for a long time, even before I really thought much about it, that we are Like Unto Gods to our dogs. We are seperate from their social structure, but integral to their well-being and happiness. We are most definately Other to them. They look to us because we provide for them. But a feral dog doesn't give a rat's patoot about humans beyond their mere utility as Droppers of Garbage.

I've been really trying lately to eliminate from my vocabulary terms that assume strict pack-like hierarchy. Having Marlowe around has really sped this process along for me because I am completely kidding myself if I think that he has any regard for any imposed hierarchy whatsoever. He let's Conrad boss him around because it's usually not inconveniencing to him and Conrad's twice as big and twice as moody as him. But submit? No, that's not really on Marlowe's agenda. He'll comply. So does that make Marlowe somehow not a dog or a defective? Given that as a scenthound he's among one of the most ancient groups of domestic dogs, I'd say that he's actually more dog-like than some other breeds. He is semi-solitary, social, an opportunistic scavenger, gets together with other dogs when that suits his needs, and ignores them when he doesn't need them any more. My relationship with him is not of Dominant and Subordinate. If I tried that, it would be a seriously losing battle. Instead I've simply demonstrated to him that having me around is way more useful for him than not having me around. I respect him and his needs, he respects me and my needs. The thing is, if you read breed descriptions of black & tan coonhounds, they are often described as "dominant". Yet, they hunt in groups. I asked our resident coonhound rescuer here what was up with that because I don't find Marlowe to be any more "dominant" than fly over the moon. He said that what people mistake for dominance is simply the coonhound's disregard for social hierarchy. They have a job to do, they get together as a group to do it because that brings advantage (a nose-to-the-ground coonhound can only follow a scent for a couple minutes before they acclimate to the scent and have to raise their noses and "clear their heads" for a second--in order to keep up a pursuit, the hounds hunt together so that at any given time some are actively tracking and others are clearing their noses), but strict hierarchy doesn't really play a role there.

Anyway, saying that I issue Marlowe a "command" and that he "obeys" is seriously misleading. In fact, I issue Marlowe a "request" and he "complies". Or doesn't. But I've demonstrated pretty consistently for him that compliance brings pretty major benefits and non-compliance is not nearly as rewarding, so he complies more than he doesn't. Saying Conrad is "dominant" in the house (which I have said) is also misleading. Conrad and Marlowe coexist and Conrad's touchy and Marlowe is a lover, not a fighter. For that reason, Conrad appears dominant and Marlowe is kind of sort of submissive. But that's just their relationship, like siblings. I think more accurate would be that Conrad is pushy and Marlowe is deferential and rather socially lazy.

I think the dominance and hierarchy theories for many humans simply fulfill their own human need for power. And it's become such a meme that even people who don't consciously want or need that feeling still go along with these theories. I mean, what do people say they like about dogs? Loyalty? Unconditional love? There is a hierarchy implied in those sentiments even if not consciously.

My thinking on this is also evolving all the time and I have to confess that it is so against the current tide of popular dog culture that I sort of am afraid of being accused of being flakey and wishy washy and sentimental if I express my shifting views. Which anyone who has ever met me knows is not at all my personality. I don't hold opinions without a very good, very clear, very rational reason. In my atheist household growing up, being rational was quite explicitely the same as being good. So, that's my little disclaimer.

Here's the thing: I've pretty much decided that domestic dogs, canis familiaris, are not pack animals. They are social animals. There's a difference. All canids are social, but not all are pack animals.

 
Oooh, you have articulated, in two sentences, just what I tried to do....in like 5 paragraphs. [][] Bravo!
 
Truly well thought-out post Houndlove, you have a way with words that I admire. [] And I agree with you on so many levels.
 
BTW, don't feel intimidated to post your feelings and beliefs just because they differ from traditional dog culture! After all, there ARE likely to be others out there who agree with you. And even if they don't, to me it shows you are an independent thinker and not just "following the crowd", so to speak. I used to be that way until one day I figured "What the heck, what do I have to prove to anyone else, why should I be scared to voice my learning curve as well?". After all, it is those few people, who DO go against the grain, that have developed some of the most important things that we know about life today.
 
Kim MacMillan

I don't buy into it either.  I did entertain the thought for a time, but really couldn't find anything to back it up.

I am pretty sure my dogs are not plotting to overthrow me and take over the household.  Who would cook?

I think the whole 'your dog is out to get you' (BOO!) ideology is just part of this decades fear mongering aspect.

Anyway, saying that I issue Marlowe a "command" and that he "obeys" is seriously misleading. In fact, I issue Marlowe a "request" and he "complies".

 
Cressida, great post and very well thought out, I might add. 
 
This is what I've been saying all along, but especially with hounds that's the way it works.  They are so used to working independently that we forget that the idea of "Alpha leader" and "subordinate pack members" doesn't apply in their manner of thinking.  I am simply "leader human and supplier of good things" to them.  I request particular behaviors and they comply-because they want to.  I don't "command" them.  I look at having PHs, (and I know I make a big stink about the breed-but this breed is so different from any other dog I've ever had both in personality and in behavior.)  In having them I've had to change my views from "ownership" to "partnership" with these magnificent dogs.
 
They do embody a pack mentality yet retain alot of independence.  Also they have a fluid type of dominance that I think is found almost exclusively in sighthounds-he who runs faster, turns tighter and hunts better is leader while on the hunt or during play.  But inside it is the female that rules, sets the rules of interactions.  It's interesting to watch the multiple types of interactions and the approach of the dogs to these interactions in different environments.  Inside or on lead it is always Gaia that initiates play.  Outside while off lead (in a secure fenced area) it is Xerxes. 
 
Ok I've blathered on a bit too much.  I'll just sit back and read for a bit.

Cressida, absolutely beautiful post. My thoughts have run exactly along those lines as of late. You certainly articulated very clearly what has been too muddled in my head for me to type out in a coherent manner. Thank you for putting it so clearly and eloquently. You get a gold star for that one. [sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

I've said this before elsewhere but I'll say it again anyway.... I think that this idea some people have that a contingent of people believe the dog is "trying to take over the house" is, for the most part, seriously misguided.  I seriously doubt any dog sets out to "take over the house", any more than kids plot to do that.  What a ridiculous notion.  But I do think that some people let their pets (or kids - often both) "rule the roost" and this causes a whole host of problems. Some would say that the dog is being "dominant", while others would say he is "just a brat".  IMO, they are 2 ways of saying the same thing!

Fantastic post Cressida... very well thought out and articulated and I am in total agreement with you on this philosophy...as are I believe many others...
 
OT...but just had to say:
 

  In my atheist household growing up, being rational was quite explicitely the same as being good.

 
This is my household too... and DH and I have strived to teach his kids two things throughout their life.... rational thought above all else...and tolerance....[]  Good rules to live by in my opinion... 

[sm=blush.gif][sm=blush.gif][sm=blush.gif]

Oh geez guys I am feelin' the love! And full props to Corvus and Kim too for their also very excellent, very well reasoned, and equally "heretical" posts and ideas! You all just rock my socks clean out the door!

Another cheer for Cressida here. That post makes a lot of sense to me.
 
I have an only dog so the closest I can come to observing my dog in a "pack" is at my MIL's house - we spend a lot of time there (always bringing Russell over) and she has two female dogs. I can read a pack hierarchy if I want to, but it is far from hard and fixed, and I wonder at times if I'm just superimposing what I've been told about pack hierarchies over the social interactions that I see. Each dog has its personal boundaries, as far as what it will allow the others to do before it sneers/glares/growls/snaps... and those boundaries seem more tied to individual personalities & desires rather than pack position.One dog prizes food, one doesn't like other dogs too close to her face, another wants to be left alone when she's on the couch, etc.
 
As far as relating to humans, I see no correlation between dominance or pack position and willingness to follow. My dog is submissive in general and especially to certain men... but he responds to me the best because, I believe, he understands what I'm saying the best. I know the commands and hand signals that no one else does.

Another cheer for Cressida here. That post makes a lot of sense to me.

 
Okay, so it seems I'm the only one who doesn't know Houndlove's real name was Cressida....[sm=blush.gif]....now I know!

  
I have an only dog so the closest I can come to observing my dog in a "pack" is at my MIL's house - we spend a lot of time there (always bringing Russell over) and she has two female dogs. I can read a pack hierarchy if I want to, but it is far from hard and fixed, and I wonder at times if I'm just superimposing what I've been told about pack hierarchies over the social interactions that I see.

 
This is something I've pondered over as well. I wonder how many people are implicitly LOOKING for such constructs in their dogs, that instead of simply making objective observations, and judging on that and then making inferences, rather they take what they see and somehow apply it to their current idea in a way that makes sense to that idea as it occurs. There is a term for those two different methods of reasoning, although the names escape me right now.
 

Each dog has its personal boundaries, as far as what it will allow the others to do before it sneers/glares/growls/snaps... and those boundaries seem more tied to individual personalities & desires rather than pack position.

I agree. Again, it's really no different than the way "most" humans interact (no, I'm NOT saying that dogs are human-like, but rather some behaviours and characteristics can be similar in social species). We all have our personal boundaries, and what we accept and allow from one person is not necessarily what we accept or allow from another.

I have to give that last quote a bingo also.  I think it pretty well sums it up.

Each dog has its personal boundaries, as far as what it will allow the others to do before it sneers/glares/growls/snaps... and those boundaries seem more tied to individual personalities & desires rather than pack position.

ORIGINAL: jones


 Each dog has its personal boundaries, as far as what it will allow the others to do before it sneers/glares/growls/snaps... and those boundaries seem more tied to individual personalities & desires rather than pack position.One dog prizes food, one doesn't like other dogs too close to her face, another wants to be left alone when she's on the couch, etc.

 
Great observation!
 
Xerxes was highly socialized as a puppy.  A result of his socialization was that he learned a multitude of greeting behaviors.  Some dogs have a "sniff my butt first" preference, some dogs like the sideways sniff, some like to jockey for another position, some like to circle...etc.  Xerxes learned all these greetings for dogs he met on a regular basis.  The point of this was that every dog was different.  ack structure didn't matter because these dogs weren't in a pack, in their own mind, until after the greetings-and that was only if Xerxes actually had accepted that dog.  
 
There is one female coy-dog that frequents the park and terrorizes every other dog in that park, and then she runs over and submits on her back, offering herself to Xerxes-and he wants NOTHING to do with her.  It's quite funny.  He doesn't want her in his pack, but she wants in.  He ignores her and after about 5 minutes she'll go away.