Of Doors and Dominance......

ron2

You just proved my point, so I am not sure why you might have an issue with it.

No, as I control the exit at the gate, and yes, I go first.

ron2

I brought it up for those who continue to model dog behavior on wolf behavior. Granted, there are some similarities and some differences. And to offer some real evidence to support the statement that walking order does not define who is in charge.

So, it is you then who decides what parts are accurate in comparison when it comes to the wolf pack versus dog pack situation? LOL....this is meant jokingly.....

ron2

I brought it up for those who continue to model dog behavior on wolf behavior.

That does not make any sense, you are trying to "help" us to see your point with something that is a flawed view in your own eyes? You are actually encouraging us to compare dogs with wolves by doing that when you have said always dogs are not wolves, plain weird IMO, or only when is convenient for you (and your point) dogs can be compared with wolves, if is not convenient then is a "flawed view"

Ixas_girl

mudpuppy

the "requester"

I don't think you can say "requester", unless you are implying that the dog has a choice. Again, if dogs had choices, they'd probably be doing things in your house that you don't appreciate. Watering down the control we exercise over our dogs by saying we "ask" and "request" sounds inaccurate, based on the measure of control we all report having with our pets. I insist my dog wait calmly to be let out or fed, I don't request it. No calm = no action. I wonder if anyone's head is exploding just by reading these words: "benevolent dominance". For example: "I control my dog's behavior upon exiting and entering the house to keep us all safe and reinforce her impulse control." This is an expression of exercising one's will over the pets for everyone's well being. The way I see it, that's my responsibility as a pet owner/handler/mom/whathaveyou.

Well, I think you can say "requester" because to do so is suggestive of a nice boss asking his employee to do a task.  I think that there is a difference (call it semantics if you will) between the kind of employer who asks for something nicely and the arrogant boss who demands.  Employees must, if they expect to keep their jobs, do as the boss asks, but which type of boss would you prefer working for?  And, dogs, like employees, do have a choice.  If you have ever worked with difficult dogs that try to exercise those choices, you know what I mean.  Most dogs are pretty compliant.  Some are not - and some will downright NOT work for a boss that demands by force.  I have a horse that is quite like that.  Explain, ask - he's a great boy, willing and smart.  Demand, force - he will kick your butt.  Insisting is fine - I insist that my dogs comply with all my requests.  The difference is that I do not do it in an unpleasant or unfair way.  And, I do not blindly support protocols that have no basis in fact.  A dog either respects his handler or not,  and it has less to do with where he walks than with the relationship in general.

spiritdogs

Well, I think you can say "requester" because to do so is suggestive of a nice boss asking his employee to do a task.  I think that there is a difference (call it semantics if you will) between the kind of employer who asks for something nicely and the arrogant boss who demands.  Employees must, if they expect to keep their jobs, do as the boss asks, but which type of boss would you prefer working for?  And, dogs, like employees, do have a choice.  If you have ever worked with difficult dogs that try to exercise those choices, you know what I mean.  Most dogs are pretty compliant.  Some are not - and some will downright NOT work for a boss that demands by force.  I have a horse that is quite like that.  Explain, ask - he's a great boy, willing and smart.  Demand, force - he will kick your butt.  Insisting is fine - I insist that my dogs comply with all my requests.  The difference is that I do not do it in an unpleasant or unfair way.  And, I do not blindly support protocols that have no basis in fact.  A dog either respects his handler or not,  and it has less to do with where he walks than with the relationship in general.

Once again I think this is a difference of definition and what the word "dominance" really means when someone says it.

 I am a "boss" so to speak at work. I never demand, yell at people, berate people, or try to make them feel smaller or less worthy than I. I request things, if needed I explain why the things I request are needed, I explain how to accomplish tasks or why a task must be performed in a certain manner as opposed to how the employee might want to perform them. I reward good behavior, I praise. I discipline.

 At the end of the day one could say that I am still the dominant force.In the long run the manager or boss or whatever you call them is the dominant force. Some for good, and some for evil.

Employees have a choice, but there are consequences if they fail to make the correct choice. Even the most wonderful boss will not tolerate an employee who does not work, if they do then they cannot be defined as a leader.

 I believe it is also because some few use the word dominance for every issue, or when they use the word dominance they do not really mean what the other side interrupts that the issue of dominance is as divisive as it is.

edited because I cannot seem to spell at all today and because I keep messing up in my grammer!

Since the wolf pack application versus dog pack application is flawed in many ways according to some people, isn't it kind of silly to compare human world applications to dog world applications?

I do not boss my dogs around, they do what was taught,and what I expect, and to keep the trouble to a minimum, I apply a more strict protocol when things need to happen....they can act silly and do stupid stuff with each other during play....as I don't control every moment of their lives, remember, my dogs are free to roam in a fenced in area at all times....the doggie door allows that to happen.

Dog_ma

From the article posted by luv: "Problems tend to occur in the human/dog relationship when owners convey signals that unwittingly cause their dog to develop a sense of high status."

I think I agree with this.  The key point is that different dogs have different standards of status, and some don't care much about status at all.  

Sometimes "status" is as simple as "this is what we've agreed on."  Meaning, status quo, not dominant/submissive.  One very typical response to having an agreed upon status quo disrupted is ... growling or snapping.  So if Fido thinks he has every right to be on the couch, and one day the frustrated human grabs Fido by the collar to drag him off, Fido may take exception to this.  That isn't dominance.  That is "Mind your manners, person! Sheesh, the nerve!"

Problems happen when Fido and human have different ideas about what they've "agreed" upon.

On the other hand, I've met dogs that actively seek to renegotiate the status quo, in their favor.  Sometimes this manifests as pushiness, other times as semi-aggressive behaviors. Dogs with a propensity towards dominance aren't evil little plotters, but they will step up to the plate if they feel they can do a better job.  It is quite natural and doesn't require thought.  These are often dogs that are not suggested for novice owners.  They can be fantastic dogs, who are capable of great things.  A dog with a tendency towards dominance (I say tendency because dominance is all relative) is NOT a bad dog.  It is not a bad thing - unless you're a person who wants the dog version of a point and shoot camera.
 

 
  Great post! I often think of a dog with a tendency towards dominance as simply confident. Personally, I love confident dogs. Penny is quite confident, but she and I know well where we stand with each other. Interestingly, Penny ignores commands from anyone who doesn't know how to insist on compliance. Once someone insists, though, she's theirs and will always do as they ask.

I don't always insist on compliance with a request. If my dog doesn't want to do it, often that's fine by me and I walk away and leave her to it. No dramas. She knows when I've made a request I intend her to comply with by my tone and body language.
 

corvus

I don't always insist on compliance with a request. If my dog doesn't want to do it, often that's fine by me and I walk away and leave her to it. No dramas. She knows when I've made a request I intend her to comply with by my tone and body language.

Do you think that would be the best approach in a multi dog household that includes some pushy and more dominant breeds?

snownose

Do you think that would be the best approach in a multi dog household that includes some pushy and more dominant breeds?

No! LOL I actually used to be very much the same as corvus. With Cara and Mia. It was a mellow household and requests were many times, just that. But when I needed compliance, I "got serious" and they always know when mom meant business. With 2 Shepherds added to the mix, I have to be a lot more structured and consistent. Not saying everyone would have to be, but it works best for me.

Not sure if this has already ben said, but while I don't think going through doors 1st is a D-word thing, monopolising doors (and other narrow spaces; steps, hallways) might be.

espencer

That does not make any sense, you are trying to "help" us to see your point with something that is a flawed view in your own eyes

Yes. And I think you know what I was trying to say. It's just easier to debate my words than to accept that exit order at the door bears no relation to who is in charge. That is, we get another round of apologetics.

 4IC said it best that each dog is an individual case. For a dog that some may think is dominant by trying to exit the door first will show other signs, as well.

snownose

isn't it kind of silly to compare human world applications to dog world applications?

Humans and dogs are part of each others' world and humans have made it moreso. We are symbiotic species. Actual documented studies with dogs and wolves show that dogs look to humans for problem-solving and cues and wolves do not. Even wolves raised in captivity around humans will not look to humans to problem solve, they will make their own decisions. This is drastically different than dogs and is the main difference between them, IMHO.

Wolves in the wild may meet stranger canids and you could count the events on one hand, as they usually avoid rival packs. Dogs meet stranger dogs and people, somtimes every day, and the events could number into the hundreds. And they may form instant alliances and yes, disagreements in just a few moments. This is a different social scene than a wolf. Dogs are taken as pups from their family unit and begin life with humans and other pets. including pets that would normally be prey, such as cats and rodents. For a wolf, anything small and furry will be a snack. It has to be for them to survive. Cubs stay with the family unit until they are old enough to handle starting their own family, or pack, by finding a mate. So, it's possible for a cub to be omega in its family and then go off and be alpha of its own pack, never once having tried to assert dominance over the alpha that it knew.

We, as humans, expect dogs to interact with us. Dogs, IMO, through genetic mutation through the eons, expect to interact with us. And they don't view us as funny looking dogs but as funny looking primates, though they may not actually use that word.

ron2

4IC said it best that each dog is an individual case. For a dog that some may think is dominant by trying to exit the door first will show other signs, as well.

With all the dogs that have come into my home, I can honestly say I have never seen a dominant dog or dominant tendencies being their full time job.  My conclusion is that it is the dog owner who creates one. 

Ron, what I was trying to get across, was the fact that how we interact in the work place, and human to human relationships can't really be compared to how dogs interact with each other.Are there similarities in some instances, sure, but how we solve a problem at work, or how we interact with people in charge surely is not exactly how dogs solve their issues.....

I am going to say it once more, and I hope nobody gets offended by this.....watching one dog and humans is not an exact picture of how dogs interact in a pack structure......that structure can change in a blink of an eye, simply by adding a pack mate, death, illness, or simply by stress.

DPU

With all the dogs that have come into my home, I can honestly say I have never seen a dominant dog or dominant tendencies being their full time job.  My conclusion is that it is the dog owner who creates one. 

Funny how some of us can have multiple dogs, treat them the same, and find differences show up.  We must unconsciously be causing the dominance related behavior. (But I'm still not loving the "d" word because it has so much negative baggage, and doesn't always accurately describe "status-seeking" dogs.)  Maybe therapy will help!

I like how Chuffy put it.   I don't think the door issue is, in and of itself, a big deal.  Doors are not intrinsically related to status.  -BUT- in the eyes of an individual dog, doorway entry and exit may be related to status.  It pays to pay attention to your dog! 

I fully believe there are breed differences, too.  (I think that's why we have different breeds, no?)  The most confident, assertive and "dominant" dog I know happens to be a GSD.  He's a lovely dog, and totally non-aggressive.  He's pushy, if you let him be.  His default seems to be pushy, and he is obedient to the degree he respects you.  Getting respect from him, btw, has nothing to do with being loud, overbearing, or a jerk.  He'd walk away from anyone who acted like a jerk towards him.  "Ignore" is in his toolbox.  I love that dog!