Dogs, humans and hierarchies.

I don't know. My dogs live in the lap of luxury and they display very organized pack-hunting behaviors. Course maybe it's because by owning them all I've forced them to "pack up"? 

One thing I have noticed, is that strays in my neighborhood never hook up with one another.

ORIGINAL: JM
One thing I have noticed, is that strays in my neighborhood never hook up with one another.

It's a hard to discuss this subject of strays in general terms, because stray pack behavior also depends on the society surrounding the dogs (along with everything else). In the US, Animal Control will be right on the case if you give them a ring about an aggressive stray running around the neighborhood. For one, it takes time for a pack to form, two, dogs won't get together if they don't get along - just like people, they'll go their own way. Also, if Animal Control is doing a pretty good job cleaning up the streets, that would make it even harder to see a formed pack of strays running around.

My grand parents live in Russia in a village where packs can be observed all the time. (I even read an article written by German tourist who was appalled by it.) You can observe same packs in the same territories - I think their paths rarely cross. In Russia Animal Control folks will tell you where to go if you demand that they clean up the streets, which believe me happens a lot. So, Animal Control not only refuses to do their job (if such organization even exists), but also dogs get support from the locals - food and shelter in the winter.

There is a pack of 5 pretty close to my gran's house, the biggest dog, the alpha, is this shaggy guy named "Whitie". Whitie and all others often come to my grans for some food leftovers. Whitie is the only one who walks up on our yard - all other dogs stay on the other side of the fence, they are afraid because Whitie growls and barks at them if they try to step in... He usually picks up all the food, but he doesn't mind if we take some of it and carry it over to the rest of the guys. It's fun to watch them []
(I wouldn't attempt to take food from Whitie - he acts like he would bite - once it's his, he will defend it even from us. I am not C.Millan, so I've never tried.[8D])

Here is a little excerpt I found on hierarchies of gray wolves:

In large packs full of easygoing wolves, or in a group of juvenile wolves, rank order may shift almost constantly, or even be circular (e.g., animal A dominates animal B, who dominates animal C, who dominates animal A).

Circular ranking? Now, wouldn't that mess up the dominance theory [][]

To me, the world seems to be full of happy-go-lucky dogs that never really step up to run a household even when the opportunity is there, but rather manipulate their world to suit themselves. Is there a difference between stepping up and setting the boundaries and just trying to get what you want when you want it?

 
Yes and no. A number of dogs are not paticularly scrambling for top position though I've known of a case where a dog was trying to dominate another dog until the human stepped in and disallowed and the dog was happier and more relaxed that someone set some boundaries and let him know what he could do.
 
The whole point of training is to have boundaries. Even if you "trick" them into it with operant conditioning. The end result is to have them do something that you want, rather than what they want. And the main idea behind +R is to provide something that they want so bad, that they want more than pursuing their own goals, that they will do what you want and, hopefully, after time, it becomes an automatic response, i.e., pavlovian.
 
In the wild, there is plenty of submission but there are struggles for being "top dog." And their training is correction and aversion with the reward being inclusion in the pack, social group, tatting circle, brouhaha, clump, gander, pod, whatever.
 
We should perhaps settle some semantics of what we mean by a word. I don't connect the word "alpha" with Koehler or harsh trainers and the like. I take it for it's original application as borrowed from the greek meaning. Prime, first, i.e., leader.

ORIGINAL: TinaK

Here is a little excerpt I found on hierarchies of gray wolves:

In large packs full of easygoing wolves, or in a group of juvenile wolves, rank order may shift almost constantly, or even be circular (e.g., animal A dominates animal B, who dominates animal C, who dominates animal A).

Circular ranking? Now, wouldn't that mess up the dominance theory [][]

I think that dominance is a very shifty concept in some ways.  I have seen dominance enforced by attitude only (a female peke telling a fully grown male akita to back off) and I've seen it enforced by size, posture, speed, intelligence and other suplerative abilities.  And example of this:  Xerxes wasn't one for playing fetch.  However, at times during our park trips he would consistently outrun other dogs for ball their master was throwing for them.  He'd get the ball, chew it a few times, make eye contact with the other dog and then drop the ball, walking off without as much as a whimper or a growl.  He told that dog, in dog language, "this ball is yours because I gave it to you-I'm faster than you are."  He also would initiate play with dogs that were more dominant in the park hierarchy-then when that dog was excited to play-he would walk off.  Effectively saying "I can control when and if we play."

Meanwhile with the two in the house, the leadership roles are clearly defined: Inside Gaia runs the place, from the dog perspective.  Outside Xerxes is clearly more dominant. 

I would think that in a wolf pack, if a subordinate wolf has proven to have a better nose than it's pack mates the others will follow it if it's on a scent.  While one with better sighting abilities will be followed when chasing down a prey item.  In the overall scheme of things, it is usually the most intelligent animal that ends up as the leader.   At least in my opinion.  A leader knows when to defer momentarily, to the animal with the best talents to lead in that particular circumstance, and when that moment is gone, the pack can shift back effortlessly into the previous rhythm.

ORIGINAL: TinaK
And yes, our role is to teach dogs that hierarchy is not important when living with humans, not to say that it's not there.

Huh, that's an interesting thought. It's been a loooong time since I've had much to do with a puppy. I really don't remember what it was like and how I ended up with an adult dog that never ever tried to include me in her hierarchy. Really shows, huh? []

Is it possible that dogs (or wolves) have a tiered hierarchy? I've often heard of wolf packs being divided into alpha, beta and omega wolves. Perhaps each classification contains a number of indivduals that know where they stand with each other, but consider any individuals in another classification as the one social position. If that makes sense. What I'm imagining is, say that dogs consider themselves and other dogs as all betas or some such, and all humans as alphas. It's possible that they're only interested in a social structure between other betas and don't bother coming out of that social classification unless they're the kind of individual that still has a fairly strong pack instinct despite all the breeding. So what they have as all betas, is a loose hierarchy based on how well they know each other and respect for one another. So it's a social group in that they're hanging out for companionship more than anything, but there's a loose and fluid hierarchy seen in that group to help them get along with one another. They view all humans as belonging to the alpha class, which means that when they interact with us, they generally do so with a certain amount of deference, but they don't know and don't care who is the alpha of the alphas. But then, maybe people teach them to not care.

Rabbits are very social as well, but they're also super territorial. So, one rabbit is usually painfully lonely, but if you introduce another rabbit, chances are the first one is going to try to kill it, or else will fall in love and live in perfect harmony. Usually it's the former. Bonding rabbits is a lot of hit and miss, and some learn to get on and some hate each other for eternity, but when you get a pair that really bond, they are devastated if anything happens to their bondmate. I bring this up as just another example of a social species. They like rabbit company, but they hate to share with other rabbits. If I let Bonnie out, she goes and snuggles up to Kit's cage, but if she has access to Kit, she'll try to beat him up in order to take over his cage and food. I guess my point is that sometimes dogs might pack up just for the company if the environment allows it.

Xerxes, how you describe dominance being asserted in different ways is kind of what I'm talking about with the rule of he who wants it most gets it. Animals are real good at judging how much they will have to fight for something before the other will give in and let them have it. Even if the fight will be tiny and one is sure to win, that one might decide that it's not even worth a tiny fight. Even tiny fights can be stressful and result in minor injury.

People often use northern dogs as an example of packing behavior when they are probably the best dogs to form a group. Many mushers do not have time for dominace hierachies in their group of huskies, they learn to eat together often from the same dish. They are running as a team

They are running as a team under the direction of the musher. I found this out directly from a musher friend who has been doing it since the early 70's and only recently retired. I had asked if they scent the course to help lure the dogs along. Nope, they are trained to voice command. Not everyone has a team of fighters, but a smart musher knows which dogs to pair together that avoids problems.

And we have a person here who used to breed Huskies and can tell you all about their temperment but many people ignore her because it's not what they want to hear.

I don't mention these things to be contentious but since you posted your resource to contradict what I posted, I thought I could provide a refinement of what I said and a rebuttal.

If the secret is to desensitize dogs (which I 100% agree with). What is it that we are desensitizing them form?

An example TinaK is our Newf's that lived entirely in kennels and never in a house until we took them.  They didn't know anything about house manners and were opportunistic scavengers...compost, yummy..counter surfing...why not...food resource issues etc.  We desensitized our Newf's and also my unsocialized Rottie (rescue) to the way I wanted them to act...basically molded them in a positive manner...this is what is natural for you the dog to be a scavenger and guard your food...this is what I want.  I was able to train my dogs in a calm and positive manner to learn they don't have to be scavengers in my home.
  

They are running as a team under the direction of the musher. I found this out directly from a musher friend who has been doing it since the early 70's and only recently retired. I had asked if they scent the course to help lure the dogs along. Nope, they are trained to voice command. Not everyone has a team of fighters, but a smart musher knows which dogs to pair together that avoids problems.

ron2, I live in Canada and also know many mushers...also Huskies are a VERY popular breed up here.  This musher sounds like he was filling your head with stories...a good musher knows that it is the huskies behavioral conformation that makes the dog want to run....just like it's the behavioral conformation for a Border Collie to herd, a pointer to point, a retriever to retrieve.   
 
What you are hearing is what a musher would like you to believe and a musher who doesn't understand behavioral conformation or motor patterns.  The dogs on a sled team are NOT running as a pack.  A pack is about chasing something. Sled dogs are running because other dogs are running. They are motivated by something the animal behaviorists call social facilitation.  Running is a behavior.  A running team is exhibiting complicated behavior.  When a musher is pairing up dogs attention is more on gaits and speeds in the pairs and it depends on the course they are running...the pairing of the lead dogs can change depending on the course of the sled race.
 
In the book Dogs by a professional musher and biologist he mentions the pervasive cliché that some mushers like other people to think.  To think the dog sled team is like a pack of wolves with a leader which dominates the pack and the analogy then designates the driver as the supreme pack leader, the so-called alpha dog, exercising his will over the pack and forcing them to run with threats of physical violence...the drive, it is believed, forces these subordinate animals to be submissive, wielding a whip, which he cracks in the air to make the dogs speed up.  Coppinger (biologist/professional musher) explains in detail how ludicrous this explanation is.  Sled dogs run because that is a behavioral conformation they are bred to have....have you ever heard of Huskies being referred to as horizon breeds?? that is because they have this behavioral conformation and motor pattern to run...they are not forced to run.

And i have to remind you that not all of those specific problems are coming from puppies, that some dogs are aggressive with their owners, you know that really well, there is some dogs that bite them and playing is the last thing they have in mind, dont mean to be rude but dont try to cover the sun with one finger []

 
Of course there are dogs that are aggressive with their Dogparents. I never claimed they weren't. But almost ALL ankle-biting behavoiur, that you discussed, is NOT at all aggression of any sort. And  BTW, I said "puppies/dogs", not just pups. Not sure where you got any idea that I've ever said dogs are never aggressive with their owners!
 

  Those who have not had a hard or alpha-type dog just don't see it.

 
Is it that we "just don't see it", or that we simply quantify or qualify behaviours in a different context? Doesn't the other coin work as well? Those who "have" had an alpha-type or hard dog are just looking FOR it. I've had dogs at just about every personality end you can imagine (except for an extremely fearful/timid dog), I have yet to find a "hard" dog. Perhaps we define our dogs in a different light though, and what's "hard" to you is simply something totally different to others.
 
On another note, this is a most enlightening thread! It's very interesting to see the different concepts come up, things being questions, things being requestioned, and people trying to wrap their heads around new, unknown concepts, and even perhaps mix different concepts together to form a new hypothesis of canid behaviour. I really like this! Perhaps it's because it's one of the few threads I've seen in a while, that, 3 pages in, is still a friendly discussion!
 
I just wanted to say a personal "thank you" to everyone partaking in this discussion, because it's truly a very diplomatic and mature discussion indeed.
 
Kim MacMillan

I really don't remember what it was like and how I ended up with an adult dog that never ever tried to include me in her hierarchy. Really shows, huh?

What would be the signs that you are included?

Is it possible that dogs (or wolves) have a tiered hierarchy? I've often heard of wolf packs being divided into alpha, beta and omega wolves. Perhaps each classification contains a number of indivduals that know where they stand with each other, but consider any individuals in another classification as the one social position. If that makes sense. What I'm imagining is, say that dogs consider themselves and other dogs as all betas or some such, and all humans as alphas. It's possible that they're only interested in a social structure between other betas and don't bother coming out of that social classification unless they're the kind of individual that still has a fairly strong pack instinct despite all the breeding.

Could be.
But, I don't think all humans are seen by dogs as alphas. If you say that you've never felt controlled by a dominant dog, you might not feel how subtle dominance displays can be. No wonder one of the major ways alphas assert their dominance/leadership is by controlling the movement of others. First thing I notice when faced with an overly dominant dog, is this awareness of his moves... you just want to be aware of it and adjust your movement to his. (I've seen kids sitting stiff in front of a dog, and I've heard of adult owners whose dogs growl at them when they try to move... nevermind take their spot on a couch.) So, it's not just that the dog finds the couch cozy - it wants you to sit on it and not move until he is done... That to me is a dominant behavior of a dog who includes you in a hierarchy.
I've also read some people say "Well, if there is this hierarchy, wouldn't you constantly want to clime up the leader?" No! Not all beings want, or are born to lead. I've meet dog that don't want to have any of it. It's like, the two of you would be standing by an open door: "You first" "No... you first" "No... please you", etc. These dogs would never take an opportunity to test their owners, and really, you don't need to keep the rules so tight in the house. Maybe you were lucky to always have dogs like that?

Dominant behavior, like any other behavior, has no purpose in itself, but it serves the need to cope with the necessities of life. If there is a necessity (a resource - a bit of steak on the floor), if the dog is a natural alpha, it will might challenge you, which puts you in the same hierarchy.

ORIGINAL: TinaK

I really don't remember what it was like and how I ended up with an adult dog that never ever tried to include me in her hierarchy. Really shows, huh?

What would be the signs that you are included?

I would expect at some point that my dog would not just test the boundaries I've set, or try to manipulate me to get what she wanted, but do all the little things she does with dogs when she's working out where she stands with them. That might involve growling, snarling and snapping when she's feeling pressured by me, trying to intimidate me off food with stares, and initiate boistrous play with me. These are all things I've seen her do with both strange dogs, and dogs she has lived with, but she never tried any of them with me.

But, I don't think all humans are seen by dogs as alphas. If you say that you've never felt controlled by a dominant dog, you might not feel how subtle dominance displays can be. No wonder one of the major ways alphas assert their dominance/leadership is by controlling the movement of others. First thing I notice when faced with an overly dominant dog, is this awareness of his moves... you just want to be aware of it and adjust your movement to his. (I've seen kids sitting stiff in front of a dog, and I've heard of adult owners whose dogs growl at them when they try to move... nevermind take their spot on a couch.) So, it's not just that the dog finds the couch cozy - it wants you to sit on it and not move until he is done... That to me is a dominant behavior of a dog who includes you in a hierarchy.

It makes sense to me except for one thing. Even the "top dog" in our small pack of three has never ever tried that with any of our other dogs, let alone one of the humans. He's not the biggest and strongest dog in the family, so how did he get to be highest ranking pup unless he had a dominant personality? And if he has a dominant personality, why has he never displayed dominant behaviour towards any people? Basically, why does he often try to dominate strange dogs, but never try to dominante strange people?

I've also read some people say "Well, if there is this hierarchy, wouldn't you constantly want to clime up the leader?" No! Not all beings want, or are born to lead. I've meet dog that don't want to have any of it. It's like, the two of you would be standing by an open door: "You first" "No... you first" "No... please you", etc. These dogs would never take an opportunity to test their owners, and really, you don't need to keep the rules so tight in the house. Maybe you were lucky to always have dogs like that?

Well, my problem with that is similar to my problem with the last idea. That is, my dog has never in her 11 years of life displayed dominance towards humans, but has frequently displayed dominance towards other dogs. She is rather too small to go around picking fights with every dog she meets, but she certainly doesn't take any crap from them and won't hesitate to strike a dominant pose and snap at the nose of a dog several times her size. And yet, she never does those things to humans. Never has. Why would she naturally do it even to a very large dog barking aggressively from the other side of a fence, but never do it to a human she hasn't met before? I'm starting to feel as dubious about the so called happy-go-lucky type as I am about the so called dominant type.

And then there's that dominant dog we had that I brought up earlier. Very dominant towards dogs and fear aggressive towards people, but never dominant aggressive towards people. We know he was socialised equally with dogs and people because my mother did his socialising herself. But still, he became dominant aggressive towards dogs, and fear aggressive towards people.

Dominant behavior, like any other behavior, has no purpose in itself, but it serves the need to cope with the necessities of life. If there is a necessity (a resource - a bit of steak on the floor), if the dog is a natural alpha, it will might challenge you, which puts you in the same hierarchy.

Well, I guess I'm dubious because I've only seen aggression in that situation as a resource-guardy thing rather than a dominant thing, and I've only seen the former in dogs that aren't getting enough food and are actually very hungry, or over a very high value piece of food.

From an evolutionary standpoint, I think that all behaviours must have a purpose, otherwise, why do they exist? To me, dominant behaviour exists as a way to communicate intention and commitment. If you're very committed to getting what you want, you're willing to fight for it, and so it behooves you to tell your opponent how willing you are to fight for it so they have the chance to back down and save you the trouble if it's not worth it to them. The kind of dominance behaviour you're thinking of, like dictating when and where a lower ranking member may move, well, why would that occur? From behavioural ecology theory, it may occur as a form of nagging, or it may even be a form of conditioning. But I'm not ready to believe it has no purpose other than to create rank.

This musher sounds like he was filling your head with stories...a good musher knows that it is the huskies behavioral

 
Actually, the musher that told that me they don't scent the courses to lure and that the dogs are directed by voice command alone was a woman. We didn't get into pack dynamics too much but she always enjoyed the coincidence that my Shadow looked like her wolf hybrid. I'm pretty sure she was American.
 
The bit about having an alpha in the pack or team was spoken about by a young lady in a documentary I was watching about a sled dog team where they keep 20 or 30 dogs on trot lines. I want to say she was American, probably in Alaska.
 
Nor am I the world's expert on sled dogs, not by a long shot, though I am keenly interested in this unique branch of the working dog world. That is why I quoted people with more knowledge and direct experience than I may ever have. I know someone here that has bred Huskies and could tell you about pack dynamics but won't because such talk is not popular here.
 
If you'r keeping track, three of my direct sources, not found in a book, are women.
 

ORIGINAL: corvus

The kind of dominance behaviour you're thinking of, like dictating when and where a lower ranking member may move, well, why would that occur? From behavioural ecology theory, it may occur as a form of nagging, or it may even be a form of conditioning. But I'm not ready to believe it has no purpose other than to create rank.

 
This stems, I think from the dogs earliest roots, where for survival it was necessary to be in packs and for the oack to be successful there had to be an order.  These days, packing is no longer necessary, resources are plentiful, but when groups are formed, there is an instinctive shuffle to find your social standpoint.  It's almost reflexive.  It doesnt matter that this has not been necessary for  a long time.  From an individuals point of view, anything that doesn't work extinguishes.  From an evolutionary point of view, anything that doesn't do any harm sticks around even if not needed.
 
As to why your dog doesn't seem to include you in a hierarchy..... language can be very subtle.  It may well be she is including you but isn't being that obvious about it because she doesn't need to be.  She sounds like a normal socially well adjusted well balanced dog.  The same goes for other humans.... perhpas she just isn't being obvious about it.  Or, perhaps she sees strangers as being so neutral and having no impact on her that there is no point trying to establish a social standing with them - whats the point in trying to establish social standing with a Blob?

Together with the fact that dominance and submission displays are subtle, I read that some dogs are psychologically dominant and physically submissive. And then, on top of everything else, some dogs are predisposed to "passive dominance" and others to "active dominance" displays. Males tent to show passive dominance over females, but placed in a certain situation, males will show signs of active dominance.