Dog Community

Is aggression allowed in your pack?

Posted : 1/11/2007 7:21:05 PM

Reading through the thread on the CM's pitbulls, I was interested to see how strongly CM apparently opposes any expression of aggression in his pack.

This is one place where I disagree with CM's practices.

The way I see it, around about 90% of aggression in dogs is ritualised and will never amount to anything serious. In fact, it's good for dogs to tell one another when they're crossing the line and being rude or annoying, otherwise how do they learn how to be polite? How do they learn to get along if they can't lift their lip when they're being annoyed? My Penny is at the bottom of the pack, but she's still allowed to express her irritation by lifting her lip and snarling. She doesn't do it to any of the people or to the top dog, but the dog immediately above her gets snarled at when she's being intolerably rude and I wouldn't begrudge my dog the opportunity to express herself that way. I did step in when she took to snarling at the top dog when he was eating, but that was because they were eating in close quarters and with the food around. I was well aware that a little snarl was more than likely to start a fight, which would soon involve all 3 dogs in a tight space with people and yummy food in the middle. Obviously a recipe for total disaster, so in that case Penny was told to mind her Ps and Qs.

For the most part, though, I'm happy to let our dogs have their own hierarchy. There is none of this humans are #1 and dogs are #2. Humans are gods and dogs have a ladder hierarchy in our house. We keep out of their scraps unless it looks like someone is going to get hurt. We might hold the dog not involved in the fight away so it doesn't turn into a complete ruckus, but otherwise we simply keep an eye on them and let them sort it out. To me, denying them the natural ladder hierarchy is denying their nature as social animals. Similarly, I believe in expecting them to simply accept any strange dog you brought into the pack because you brought it in you are denying they have a personality of their own. I don't want a dog that depends on me so much that they'd blindly accept any old dog I brought in because it was me that brought it in. I much prefer a dog that can think for itself and decide on its own if it likes this new animal or not. Dogs are individuals and they have every right not to get along with another dog that rankles with them. As pack leader, it's up to me to minimise aggression, but at the cost of my dogs' individuality? I think not. To me, a dog that will blindly accept whatever you dictate without batting an eyelid, even if it hates it, is not a balanced dog. It's either shut down or a ticking time bomb. My dog is allowed to growl and snarl because it's her natural warning system. Without that, we go straight to snapping. Without snapping, we go straight to an all out attack.

So, in this pack, aggression is allowed in moderation. I minimise aggression as the pack leader by picking the right canine personalities for the other canine personalities in the pack, not by forcing acceptance. I savour the fact that my dog doesn't like some other dogs. That's her personality coming through, not a lack of respect for me.

zsrg;lb ksr'pfjsoprej dfsg;va bjpskopa]

Posted : 1/11/2007 7:25:28 PM

Well in the case that you speak of aggression can be as harmless as you explain. I think it has to do primarily with the fact that you obviously have a happy healthy pack of dogs who are aware of their role in the pack. You also have to take things into consideration such as the breed, their inherant reaction to aggression, and the experiences and the socialization level of the particualr dog.

zsrg;lb ksr'pfjsoprej dfsg;va bjpskopa]

Posted : 1/11/2007 7:31:05 PM

Oops, so to answer your question I have yet to see any aggression in Rory yet I am cautious of it and always keep my eyes open for it. My sisiter's dog put Rory in her place persey by a growl and it has never escalated into anything because it was determined he was expressing his superiority and I agree that to a certain extent it is healthy for dogs to work it out on their own. However if Rory wasnt so eager to resign to her level of inferiority then human interaction is nesseccary, looking back the family helped Diesel enforce his role in the pack by simply putting Rory in a down position when he was being a old grump, I did not want Rory to feel it was ok to challenge him yet if Diesel overstepped his boundaries we would put him in his place too. Basically, I felt that I wanted to train Rory to be submissive to older dogs or dogs who pose a threat They are both pit bulls with inherent DA and I can only imagine how differntly things can go with unexpereinced dog owners and I think that is where most of the problems lie

spiritdogs

Posted : 1/11/2007 7:42:21 PM

Aggression is allowed in my pack, so long as it is not inappropriate. Aggression comes in varying degrees, and not all of it is designed to do permanent damage. Dogs need to be able to tell one another off with a "grr" or a "ruff" now and then, even with a muzzle grab if need be. Dogs that sink teeth into other dogs and puncture, however, are not going to find much favor here, unless it's accidental. I am satisfied to be the overall leader, and let the "kids" settle their own squabbles, especially since they speak canine ever so much better than I. I do very well, but I'm not a "native speaker" LOL.
I do not put up with escalating aggression, or dogs doing serious damage to one another, without intervening (and reassessing their capacity to live harmoniously in the pack) nor do I support one dog over another, unless I am totally sure I am supporting the true dominant (for lack of a better word). So far, I have managed to create packs that work, and have not regretted my choices of the dogs I have elected to add to my group.

zsrg;lb ksr'pfjsoprej dfsg;va bjpskopa]

Posted : 1/11/2007 7:48:09 PM

So now that we are all on the same page of what type pf aggression we are speaking of, isnt there a more proper term? Would this be considered dominance?

Angelique

Posted : 1/11/2007 7:50:23 PM

ORIGINAL: corvus
Reading through the thread on the CM's pitbulls, I was interested to see how strongly CM apparently opposes any expression of aggression in his pack.

This is one place where I disagree with CM's practices.

Cesar allows his dogs to vocalise with each other as a form of communication. If the grumbles and vocalizations are directed towards him, he considers this a sign of disrespect towards the human Pack Leader, and the dogs receive the message that this is inappropriate. The dogs comply with his rules and boundaries on this.

ORIGINAL: corvus
The way I see it, around about 90% of aggression in dogs is ritualised and will never amount to anything serious. In fact, it's good for dogs to tell one another when they're crossing the line and being rude or annoying, otherwise how do they learn how to be polite? How do they learn to get along if they can't lift their lip when they're being annoyed? My Penny is at the bottom of the pack, but she's still allowed to express her irritation by lifting her lip and snarling. She doesn't do it to any of the people or to the top dog, but the dog immediately above her gets snarled at when she's being intolerably rude and I wouldn't begrudge my dog the opportunity to express herself that way. I did step in when she took to snarling at the top dog when he was eating, but that was because they were eating in close quarters and with the food around. I was well aware that a little snarl was more than likely to start a fight, which would soon involve all 3 dogs in a tight space with people and yummy food in the middle. Obviously a recipe for total disaster, so in that case Penny was told to mind her Ps and Qs.

You do as Cesar does.

ORIGINAL: corvus
For the most part, though, I'm happy to let our dogs have their own hierarchy. There is none of this humans are #1 and dogs are #2. Humans are gods and dogs have a ladder hierarchy in our house. We keep out of their scraps unless it looks like someone is going to get hurt. We might hold the dog not involved in the fight away so it doesn't turn into a complete ruckus, but otherwise we simply keep an eye on them and let them sort it out. To me, denying them the natural ladder hierarchy is denying their nature as social animals. Similarly, I believe in expecting them to simply accept any strange dog you brought into the pack because you brought it in you are denying they have a personality of their own. I don't want a dog that depends on me so much that they'd blindly accept any old dog I brought in because it was me that brought it in. I much prefer a dog that can think for itself and decide on its own if it likes this new animal or not. Dogs are individuals and they have every right not to get along with another dog that rankles with them. As pack leader, it's up to me to minimise aggression, but at the cost of my dogs' individuality? I think not.

Again, you and Cesar are in agreement, for the most part.

ORIGINAL: corvus
To me, a dog that will blindly accept whatever you dictate without batting an eyelid, even if it hates it, is not a balanced dog. It's either shut down or a ticking time bomb.

I've heard this before. It may be a "philosophy" which you embrace, but these are not your own words.

ORIGINAL: corvus

My dog is allowed to growl and snarl because it's her natural warning system. Without that, we go straight to snapping. Without snapping, we go straight to an all out attack.

Again, you are going by a belief system you have read elsewhere.

There is a difference between "addressing" an escalation as the Pack Leader (basically saying to the dog "I see where this is headed, don't go there), and punishing a dog (suppression) for a growl.

ORIGINAL: corvus
So, in this pack, aggression is allowed in moderation. I minimise aggression as the pack leader by picking the right canine personalities for the other canine personalities in the pack, not by forcing acceptance. I savour the fact that my dog doesn't like some other dogs. That's her personality coming through, not a lack of respect for me.

I love your posts, corvus. You do what works for you, give me a different perspective, and keep me on my toes! However, you and Cesar ar closer in your philosophies than you might think. It's all in where you (as the Pack Leader) choose to draw the line...the dogs still do comply with your ultimate decision of where that line is.

Where we draw the line is still the decision of the Pack Leader.

corvus

Posted : 1/11/2007 7:58:18 PM

Sheprano, you reminded me that I meant to say I can understand why CM keeps such an iron grip on his dog psychology centre pack. I remember seeing him introducing a dog aggressive dog to the pack in order to teach it manners, basically. The aggressive dog was muzzled, but I remember feeling very apprehensive for the poor thing. With so many dogs unrestrained and on their home turf, I could just see a lifted lip from the intruder turning into every dog on the property falling on the poor thing and tearing it apart. I've only seen a dog fight with more than a couple of dogs once. None of the dogs got hurt as far as I know, but it was not pretty and I'm well aware that dogs easily get carried away in the emotions of the moment in those situations.

Anyway, Cesar kept the situation under control by not allowing his dogs to respond to the aggression of the intruder. Eventually one or two did and the spat was sorted out quick smart with the intervention of Cesar. I have mixed feelings about the wisdom of that whole thing in the first place, but if you're going to do things like that, you'd want to be able to put down the slightest sign of aggression instantly and from a distance, and you'd want to be able to do the same for escalated aggression, too, for the moments you were looking in the wrong direction.

We're talking about any kind of aggression. Maybe a better way to phrase the question is what kind of aggression do you allow in your dogs?

zsrg;lb ksr'pfjsoprej dfsg;va bjpskopa]

Posted : 1/11/2007 8:06:42 PM

ORIGINAL: corvus

Sheprano, you reminded me that I meant to say I can understand why CM keeps such an iron grip on his dog psychology centre pack. I remember seeing him introducing a dog aggressive dog to the pack in order to teach it manners, basically. The aggressive dog was muzzled, but I remember feeling very apprehensive for the poor thing. With so many dogs unrestrained and on their home turf, I could just see a lifted lip from the intruder turning into every dog on the property falling on the poor thing and tearing it apart. I've only seen a dog fight with more than a couple of dogs once. None of the dogs got hurt as far as I know, but it was not pretty and I'm well aware that dogs easily get carried away in the emotions of the moment in those situations.

Anyway, Cesar kept the situation under control by not allowing his dogs to respond to the aggression of the intruder. Eventually one or two did and the spat was sorted out quick smart with the intervention of Cesar. I have mixed feelings about the wisdom of that whole thing in the first place, but if you're going to do things like that, you'd want to be able to put down the slightest sign of aggression instantly and from a distance, and you'd want to be able to do the same for escalated aggression, too, for the moments you were looking in the wrong direction.

We're talking about any kind of aggression. Maybe a better way to phrase the question is what kind of aggression do you allow in your dogs?

Ws that the case with the rottie who attacked the white GSD? If so I remember pretty well.

Ratsicles

Posted : 1/11/2007 8:20:01 PM

Corvus, I agree with your post and pretty much do the same things you do.

There is ALOT of vocalizing at my house.My dogs bark and snarl and snap and growl during play. My higher ranking dogs snarl at lower ranking dogs to put them in their place. Sometimes, small "fights" break out- it's always alot of display- no one has ever drawn blood, and their little spats usually last no longer than 2 or 3 seconds.

Personally, I think it's a bit ridiculous to expect dogs to never express their feelings toward each other. My dogs know that all of the humans in the house lead their pack, and are to be respected- everything else, they work out among themselves. I've found that when I try to keep my dogs from displaying any form of aggression towards each other, we end up with MUCH worse problems than the occasional snarls and barks. Then end up constantly irritated with each other- they're all on edge, and they never seem happy. They end up CONSTANTLY trying to one up each other in ways I won't catch them at- stealing each other's food and toys, shoving each other off of furniture, nipping each other's heels...they all end up constantly unhappy and nervous and on edge- it's just all very subtle, and if I weren't watching them closely, I probably wouldn't realize there's a problem. I think that *most* people who would never ever allow aggression from their dogs are in that boat- they don't realize that their dogs are all most likely VERY frustrated with each other and are having to find other, more subtle ways to express it.

When I just let my dogs have at it, they're happy. I would never let a TRUE fight gone on in front of me- but honestly, the only time I ever even had to worry about a real fight breaking out is when I saw how frustrated they were from not being able to express anything openly. That's when I saw REAL anger and frustration coming from them. When I just let them do what comes naturally, no one is anxious, everyone knows where they stand, and everything is peaceful. IMO, a couple of quick snarls and snaps a day is SO much better than a house full of quiet, but miserable, dogs.

CM's pack does not live in his house...from what I've seen, he spends most of his time exercising them- I don't know this for sure, but I just don't see how a pack that is never ever allowed to have any displays of aggression can be truly "balanced" and happy. More likely, they're just expressing it in more subtle ways. My parents never allow their dogs to display any aggression, and they have the same problems my pack did when I was requireing the same of them. To me, saying a dog should never snarl at another dog is like requireing a human family never to discuss their problems with each other. Everything just ends up getting swept under the rug, and even if things never backfire, I doubt everyone involved will ever be truly happy with that arrangement. Just my [sm=2cents.gif]

corvus

Posted : 1/11/2007 8:27:55 PM

ORIGINAL: Angelique

Where we draw the line is still the decision of the Pack Leader.

That's a good point, Angelique. What I argue is not so much philosophy or methods, but personal choice. I don't hold a hard line with dogs because I don't hold a hard line with anyone. It's not a part of my personality. I haven't had any problems as a result of being more relaxed, so I stick to what comes naturally.

I believe if I insisted Penny never growl, grumble or snarl, she'd go straight from looking mildly unhappy to snapping. That's not something I've read or subscribed to, just my understanding of my own dog. She grumbles long before she snarls and snarls long before she snaps. If I took those ways of expressing herself away from her, then she's likely snap with practically no warning. I much prefer the warning system, thanks.

I also believe refusing a dog the right to express their annoyance is generally unhealthy. My words, not something I've read. I just don't see how it benefits a dog to repress all outward signs that he's annoyed. In my experience, dogs know to what degree they can safely express their annoyance to each member of the pack. Like I said before, Penny snarls at the dog right above her, but not at anyone else. She grumbles at the top dog and at people, but does it with her ears down, teeth hidden, and looking away. I didn't have to teach her that, she just knew how far was polite considering her rank and theirs. I don't see a need to tamper with that natural inclination, and I consider it fairly useless and kind of wrong to tamper with a natural inclination, especially one that's completely harmless.

I find a lot of CM's philosophies to echo my own. I'm just questioning whether suppressing aggression within a pack is beneficial or even harmless to the dogs in that pack.

corvus

Posted : 1/11/2007 8:48:48 PM

ORIGINAL: sheprano

Ws that the case with the rottie who attacked the white GSD? If so I remember pretty well.

No, I seem to remember the dog was a GSD that lived with another GSD or two. Sorry, shady on the details. No white ones to my memory.

Ratsicles, that's what I was imagining would happen. I see it much the same as you do. Bottling up emotions is bad for humans, so why would it not be bad for dogs? It's just like trying to suppress a prey drive. You might get the obvious aspect under control, but the dog is probably going to find other ways to express that drive, and it will just keep going like that until you give the dog an acceptable outlet for its prey drive.

Angelique

Posted : 1/11/2007 8:51:05 PM

Corvus,

Suppression = what? A punishment for the growl?

Growl, and you will receive an unpleasent consequence (cause = effect)? 100% learning theory.

Leadership theory (if I may be so bold). Growl = disapproval of the leader and the communication (before the growl escalates) of "I see where this is headed. As the Pack Leader I am saying "don't go there" and aggression is not allowed.

Sure, you can administer "punishment" for the growl, the growl may be suppressed due to the lack of appropriate communication from leader to follower, or you can simply indicate "don't continue in this direction" (a mental body-block) and the dog will understand (if they recognise your leadership).

Can you see the difference between the aversive "training" philosophy and the leadership dynamic which the dog is by Mother Nature pre-programmed to comply with?

One is instructional (cause and effect), the other is instinctual (leadership through instruction before the act).

corvus

Posted : 1/12/2007 2:07:26 AM

Punishment, leader disapproval, doesn't really matter. What I'm driving at is that maybe this is something so fundamental to the dog as an individual that it's like tampering with something that is, at it's most basic level, wholly dog. Like the prey drive. I actually like dogs with prey drive. To me, that's a fairly basic part of being a dog. And even a dog with next to no prey drive will chase a ball. That's one of the reasons why we like dogs. Dogs also bark. For whatever reason they do that, for the most part we like barking in dogs. In my mind, a healthy dog also tells you when they don't like something. I'm usually respectful of that. I don't coddle my dog through everything she finds unpleasant, or simply say she doesn't have to do it, but I also don't like to put her through unnecessary stress.

My feeling is that growling or snarling is a natural way for dogs to communicate that they don't like something. I wouldn't frown upon it any more than I would frown upon a dog yelping when it was in pain, or wagging its tail when it was happy. I would frown upon it if it were directed at me, because a snarl is a step away from a bite and it's dangerous for dogs to be biters. But then, as I said before, dogs seem to know that they mustn't snarl at someone higher up than they are without being taught that it's unacceptable. The way I see it, dogs know better than we do when they can show aggression and how much they can show without getting themselves beaten up. Why interfere with that?

Lastly, I don't know if I buy this idea that dogs will not growl at other dogs because the leader doesn't like it. I don't like Penny barking incessantly when she's over-excited. She knows I don't like that, and I can watch her desperately try to supress it, whether because she'll get in trouble if she doesn't or whether she's keen to do what I want her to, who knows? Fact is, she often can't do it. She clamps her mouth shut and whines and her bottom jaw trembles and eventually the bark comes out anyway. Is that because she doesn't respect me as the leader? Is it because she hasn't learnt there are bad consequences to that behaviour? Judging by the effort she puts in to keep those barks from coming out, I'd say not. Rather, I think she just can't help it. My point is, some things dogs just can't help doing because they're dogs. I wouldn't be surprised if not showing any signs of aggression was one of those things.

If your dogs live in an aggression free world and are happy, then more power to you. I just see it as telling a dog it can't say when it doesn't like something. True, when Penny gets going and I know she's going to do something stupid and troublesome, like snarling at our alpha dog when he's eating, I'll intervene and say don't go there, but there's a time and place for intervention, and I feel that's only when there's potential danger involved.

ron2

Posted : 1/12/2007 5:45:26 AM

I'll agree to a point. And I don't think we necessarily train out warning signals, which are good to have. Just the same, I don't know how important it is to express aggression or fighting moods in a dog, opposed to a human. Growing up, we were not allowed to fight. And warning signs that we might want to fight were not tolerated, either. Behavior control and/or extinction through corporal punishment. As long as you misbehave, the punishment will continue. Later, in Kenpo Karate, the instructor stressed the importance of impulse control. Learn to not fight, even though it is your "natural" reaction. Modernly, as an adult, I must not fight, the penalties are harsher and I can cause more damage. Then, again, many fight with words, which in many ways, are just as powerful a weapon as a clenched fist.

I think fighting has it's place as a defense mechanism but I don't think it's based on a need of expression.

brookcove

Posted : 1/12/2007 8:29:41 AM

I think it depends on the individual dogs. I let my Crested get away with a lot because she's the most stable dog I've ever met and her instincts never fail her. Maggie has a tendency to get too rough with puppies so I will "shut down" any display I see. Since I started doing that, she has never escalated, either with a warning or without.

When I bring aggressive dogs into my home, I've learned to depend on the signals my dogs give me, to help me evaluate what I'm dealing with. Once or twice, that has saved me some serious injury, as Border Collies have a type of aggressive problem that is actually a seizure disorder. The dog seems normal, stable, usually even overly submissive. Then the dog will attack and attack hard, with no warning. Zhi steers clear of these dogs, Maggie will not let them get near her, and Ben frankly tries to kill them.

Before I learned to be aware of these signals, I recieved my one and only serious bite, and another time was attacked with little recourse. I don't know what would have happened if the door to the yard hadn't been open, allowing the dogs to drag the attacking dog outside. That incident is what made me realize that my dogs don't react normally to these dogs (they had acted weird about him before then).