Of Doors and Dominance......

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. 

If you're saying that most times, a "dominant dog situation" is created by an owner that doesn't provide a healthy leadership role to them and the dog takes advantage of the situation, I agree. Most times, that's the way it is. Most dogs are NOT dominant. But there are definitely dogs who are naturally-born to want to have things their way, who will, with very little provocation, not only assume the role of the-one-who-gets-their-way, but actively work toward displaying their "dominance" in any given situation and even with a strong pack leader, they will challenge and test the leader to try to have things their way.

If someone said something about a about a full-time job, I missed it. Dominant dogs sleep, eat, rest, play and relax, just like any other dog. But given the opportunity to assert their desires over other pack members, including the leader, they will. I hope you get to foster a dog like this someday. There's a lot to learn from such an animal.

FourIsCompany

MANY times, I've seen the "good" dog (the one sitting patiently) jump on the "bad" dog (the one who wouldn't settle) as if to say "Calm Down! Don't you know she won't open the door till we're all sitting calmly"?!?!!?

This happens in our house too!  I find it kind of funny.  You just KNOW if they spoke english theyd be saying "flaming idiot!!! thats YOUR fault!"

Dog_ma

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.

True. I totally understand this. I think, though it would behoove us (how do you like that phrase?   ) to differentiate between "dominant" and "aggressive". They are NOT the same thing at all. Like you said, a dominant dog can be a big sweetheart and not have an aggressive bone in his body! And what word would we use instead? That's a real question. I like this little page on dominance, by someone who works specifically with dominant dogs and their people.

Your last paragraph practically describes a healthy GSD's personality! LOL

Chuffy - LOL  

This is what I witness on a regular basis........

Here is the set up, on our deck there are two ramps leading off and on ( we built ramps for Luke, he had issues climbing stairs)

If Rumour is laying close to one ramp, none of the other dogs ever go by him and exit, no, they use the other ramp....it's almost like in the Monty Python movie(Holy Grail)....."None shall pass".....lol....tell me he is not controlling the exit way.......

snownose

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.

So I misunderstood your original meaning and yes, I think, there are some social structure differences between humans to humans and dogs to dogs. And humans to dogs. Therefore, we shouldn't act toward our dog(s) as if we were another dog.

I'm not offended by yet another reference to having just one dog. Just as I don't mean to seem uppity if I, as some might think, "condescend" to use the wolf model to prove that exit order does not define who is in charge, per se. The last sentence of your post I completely agree with. That is large reason why I don't just add pets willy-nilly, like plug-and-play computer games, nor am I suggesting that anyone here does that. But I completely do agree that the addition of another member changes the social landscape. So, in that case, is that why I don't have a problem having a cat? Shadow was growing up around a tomcat and a JRT, so he was used to small animals that, when he was small, had strength similar to his own and could teach him their own lessons. I think the peaceful coexistence has more to do with his early accidental socialization than the difference of species but I am willing to stipulate that the difference of species could also be a factor.

Allow me to anthropromorphize for just a moment, though. Not all humans get along in spite of social structure. In fact, sometimes, people can be the most contentious while affecting an air of being most polite. Example, starting with "With all due respect" which, in human terms, is a signifier that disrespect will ensue. "With all due respect" followed by whatever statements to establish that the other knows nothing by whatever determinants are deem suitable. In the same breath, I do not expect all dogs to get along. They don't have union cards. They do have signals and often may give off alert or calming signals that we may fail to notice at the time. And the dogs may define a structure within themselves. Or they may simply never get along and it would be cruelty to keep them together as a bragging point on our part, regardless of model or training style.

It's kind of a long-winded way of say that I agree with you that a group of dogs presents a different dynamic than just one dog, even if I only have the one dog experience. Or, am I disallowed from agreeing with you on that because I have only one dog?

Note: the smiley denotes the previous sentence as tongue-in-cheek humor.

spiritdogs

Insisting is fine - I insist that my dogs comply with all my requests.

Then you are dominant over your dog. As you say, you assert your will kindly. Gold star for you!

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.

I don't understand this discussion about "choice", unless, of course, people's dogs really are permitted to choose to defecate on the rug, chew the cat, and scrounge from the plate.

Ixas_girl

I don't understand this discussion about "choice", unless, of course, people's dogs really are permitted to choose to defecate on the rug, chew the cat, and scrounge from the plate.

Isn't that what housekeepers are for? LOL

I'm not answering for corvus, but I had also said that I didn't always require that Cara and Mia comply, and what I mean by that is some requests I make are less important than others (and of course, I decide which requests are available for the dog's choice.) For example, there are times when I call Cara that it's OK if she doesn't come. If I "get serious" she knows the tone of voice that means she must comply. Many times it's a "Do you want to do this"? kind of a thing. And pooping outside does not fit into this category, LOL

With Jaia, it's important that he comply with every "request" or obey every command, if you will, because he needs the consistency. If I let him off the hook (like I do Cara) he'll try it again next time and the time after that and it gets harder and harder to get him to comply. But if I'm consistent, he knows he's gotta do it every time because there is no slack.

Ixas_girl

I don't understand this discussion about "choice", unless, of course, people's dogs really are permitted to choose to defecate on the rug, chew the cat, and scrounge from the plate.

Oh sure there can be a choice.  The dog can sit (or lie down or heel or stay or come or whatever) and get the door opened (or the treat or the ball thrown or the petting or his meal) OR (here comes the dog's OTHER CHOICE, pay close attention) the dog can choose NOT to sit (or lay down or whatever) and NOT get the door opened (or the ball thrown or whatever).

I think espencer illustrated this wonderfully.  He wants the dog (or ALL the dogs) to sit CALMLY before a walk happens.  You can't physically MAKE a dog calm down; he has to choose do calm down himself.  So espence (please correct me if I am wrong) provides the dog with a very clear choice - you can calm yourself and sit nicely and we will go for a walk.  Or you can act the pig and we will NOT go for a walk.  Your choice. 

Again, you cannot MAKE a dog pee or poop outdoors.  You CAN make that the more beneficial CHOICE for him.

Anyway, enough on choice already.

The D-word.  I have an issue with it.  And my issue is - when someone says "the dog has a tendancy to be dominant" (or a variation on this phrase) do they really MEAN "This dog has a tendency to be dominant" OR do they mean "This dog REALLY WANTS to be dominant!"  Cos in my view, there is a WORLD of difference.

To coin a phrase from someone else, I am no CM.  But I'd like to hazard a shrewd guess and say I have not met many true dominant dogs.  The ones I HAVE beleived to be truly "dominant" are not the sort of dogs you really need to pose rules on or "keep in line".  They aren't pushy.  They aren't aggressive.  If anything, they diffuse disputes between others.  They are quietly confident, calmly self assured.  They do not see the need to "make a point" with other dogs.  They are in fact wonderful dogs.... much easier by MILES than the "wannabes!"

So, here I go, meandering along on this train of thought... and I think, if it is only the wannabes that make such a point about charging about IN FRONT and pushing through doors first (totally discounting for the time being that many dogs will forge ahead and barge ahead through doors for other reasons than d*******e) then what does that REALLY say to your dog about your "leadership"?  I wonder.....

Chuffy, you should really come and visit, and see what happens here.......when Luke was still alive and in good shape he ruled the roost, but as soon as he got sick and weaker, the spot opened up.....enter Rumour....I mentioned before how quickly the pack dynamic changes.....then we have Tanner, who is sneaking in a test here and there......it's nature......but, equally important, it is breed related......my other two dogs don't seem interested in gaining any kind of leadership position.

So, yeah, I am gonna have to disagree......

FourIsCompany

(and of course, I decide which requests are available for the dog's choice.)

Yeah, that's how it is for me, too. I'm very thoughtful about what I ask for. For example, if I call "here" Ixa can come or not, she just needs to stay in proximity. But, if I call "come", we will join up so I can take her collar - I won't give up or waffle on that. And, pooping inside the house is just not one of my dog's choices ... lol.

As far as the door and dominance ... again, I think it's really much more about impulse control than anything else. Some dogs, in some situations, display great impulse control, and can be given more "choice" (like Cara). Some dogs don't have that measure of impulse control (Jaia, for example) and need more direction.

If exercising will is dominance, then exercising impulsive will is a willful form of dominance. Harnessing will is a form of submission. Leaders tend to submit to ideals (safety, for example), followers tend to submit to leaders.

snownose

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?

Well, Penny is currently part of a multi-dog household. All three dogs know the difference between a request they can ignore and a request they should obey. None of the dogs I would clasify as dominant or pushy, but both Penny and Pyry are very selective about who they listen to. Pyry is very independent and willfull and he'll test you. The only way I can get his cooperation, though, is to be interesting. If you have a history of picking up injured birds in his presence, he tends to worship you! I've found with him that if you try to insist on things, he gets naughty and plays up. He likes to have a choice. The trick is making the right choice attractive. He's better with my mother, but she generally gets his cooperation with bribery. With Penny, I let her make the choices usually about the other dogs. I don't see the point in insisting she keep her growls to herself when Jill is annoying her, but I don't have to sit there and put up with it either. I won't pat her if she's being snarky, but usually she goes off to sulk rather than controlling her growls. That's fine by me.

 

corvus

I've found with him that if you try to insist on things, he gets naughty and plays up. He likes to have a choice. The trick is making the right choice attractive.

Yes! This is where things can get artful and interesting ... in the difference between making a command/cue seem like a choice rather than actually be a true choice. This is where "one size does not fit all" is particularly meaningful.

FourIsCompany

Ixas_girl

I don't understand this discussion about "choice", unless, of course, people's dogs really are permitted to choose to defecate on the rug, chew the cat, and scrounge from the plate.

 

Isn't that what housekeepers are for? LOL

What? does your housekeeper defecates on the rug? gross

spiritdogs

That deference is voluntary - my insistence is not based on "dominance" they way it is normally expressed by you and the CM crowd, so I prefer not to have that word attached to the relationship I share with my dogs.... 

That post read like double talk to me, very confusing to JQP like myself......and a lot of work to continuously rewarding good behavior and extinguishig bad behavior on a ongoing basis, day in and day out, forever.  I get deference early on in my relationship with fosters and that means cooperative good behavior.  From that point we live life and have fun together.  content removed.  Personal attack.