Poll: Your View of Domestic Dog Groups

I picked the first one because that's closest to what I see. However, I don't agree with it completely. I don't think that the other dogs (being non alpha) are constantly trying to get alpha position. I think that most dogs don't want to be alpha and are content with their rank. 

The results of a poll won't change the truth, as interesting as it is to see that so many people still labor under the false delusion of rigid hierarchies in social groups of dogs.  I'm truly amazed at how the wolf model persists long after it was discounted by further research.  Dominance seems to be more important to "primates" than to dogs LOL.

I vote for the third one.  I don't think hierarchy is really important to dogs, especially domestic dogs that are pretty far removed from a true wild pack, but I also don't think equality or equity really matter do dogs either.  I think domestic dogs have evolved and been conditioned by humans to simply do whatever works for them.  Based on how my dogs interact, who "wins" the play fights, who tries to claim which objects....they basically even out, but I don't think the dogs see it that way, I don't think they see themselves as "equals", they just see themselves as the dog who uses the couch and the dog who hogs the Kongs.

Liesje

I don't think hierarchy is really important to dogs

You know, I don't think it's important in the way we (as humans) might think it's important. As humans, we might think the BEST spot in a hierarchy would be the top spot and therefore something to strive for. I don't think dogs see it this way. I agree with you that equality doesn't matter to them either. Rather, I think what's important to them is that everyone KNOWS their relation to everyone else. That's it as far as importance goes. I don't think the alpha dog sits back and thinks, "I'm so cool because I'm the boss and I need to maintain my status" and the omega dog thinks, "Wow. I really wish I could be higher... It's lonely at the bottom... I'm a piece of dirt." I think the lowest is JUST as content in her spot as the highest is in hers. And I don't think the alpha would be all freaked out if another dog would happen along to take her spot. As long as they all know where the others are and where they are in relation to each other, they're ALL happy. That's what I think.

I picked the second one. Because that's what I observe (granted, through my context) in my dogs.

How can people argue that some sense of status does not exist in dogs? I just don't see it. I agree it doesn't exist in a primate sense, but it seems clear to me that not all dogs wield equal power, influence, and the ability to get what they want. We can say "Oh, the yielding dog didn't want it as much" or "The yielding dog valued harmony over the item" but we can also say "The yielding dog valued not being bitten more than the item."

On a daily basis, I'm watching an older dog teach a puppy how to avoid being bitten. We call those corrections, and everyone agrees a puppy needs to be around older dogs who will teach him or her the rules. Well, the rules include scaring the pants off puppies who transgress. Flashing teeth may be ritualized, but this is not a hollow ritual. Teeth are weapons, and dogs will use them.

I like what Ron mentions about responsibility.There are many dogs who don't desire to be at the top at all. It is too nerve wrecking for them. Toppish dogs (call them alpha or dominant or whatever) have more social power because they are worth following. Bullies often get disposed of.

I don't think there is a rigid domestic dog hierarchy in the general sense, though it may play out that way in individual homes. If you have one very confident self possessed dog and a few more nervous puppers, there may be Mr. Alpha and his followers. But otheriwse I see a fairly fluid system of spheres of influence, where influence can also be called social power. The ability to get what you want, yes, but also a dog who's opinion is taken seriously.

Lest you think I'm imposing human ways, what I mean by taking an opinion seriously is this: in a social group, it pays in terms of survival to figure out who can reliably find food, who has a good sense of threat (not over reactive or under reactive) and who will help you in facing threats rather than hiding behind the nearest bush. A dog who demonstrates skills and initiative is useful from a group survival point.

I pretty much agree except I do think there is a dynamic aspect.  Anytime another animal comes into the picture (even a cat), my hierarchy changes.  Kenya behaves differently depending on what dog she is interacting with, and sometimes even then it changes.  For example, the first time she met the dog we wanted to adopt, he literally walked all over her and she was jumping away with her tail tucked.  Now, she sees the same dog once a week and they play on par with each other (they have similar play styles, rough and mouthy) or she is actually the bully.  These pictures say it all.  This is the dog that she was so afraid of and would run away from and hide behind me.  Now he is basically part of our "pack" since they see each other twice a week and play as a group of three.

The same happens with Coke.  At home during play, he is always submissive to Kenya.  He rolls around for her and lets her always win the tug of war or sit on him.  But when they play with a third dog, he is much more assertive with that third dog and then gets more assertive with Kenya. 

FourIsCompany

Liesje

I don't think hierarchy is really important to dogs

 

You know, I don't think it's important in the way we (as humans) might think it's important. As humans, we might think the BEST spot in a hierarchy would be the top spot and therefore something to strive for. I don't think dogs see it this way. I agree with you that equality doesn't matter to them either. Rather, I think what's important to them is that everyone KNOWS their relation to everyone else.

I don't think it's a case of this dog is dominant over that dog.... they just know what to do (and what to avoid doing) to minimise and diffuse conflict and tension, because that's what makes living in a group possible.  So, dog X knows that Dog Y wants to be first at the door and he allows that and hangs back. He's not being "submissive" he just doesn't care about getting outside quickly (dog Y does) and he doesn't fancy getting trampled.  Now, dog Y knows that the one thing dog X won't tolerate is having his meals snaffled.  He gets really SNIPPY about that.  Dog Y isn't being "submissive" about food.  A few morsels of food are just less important than a whole skin!

Liesje

These pictures say it all.

That first picture is SO cool! I love pictures that actually do say a thousand words. And this is one. I agree that new members can shuffle the pack (so to speak) and it can be dynamic for a time. But I think it settles back into a virtually-static state until something else shakes things up. For example, now that this other dog appears to submit to Kenya, do you think that will change again? Will Kenya be submissive to this dog at another playtime? My guess is no (but I could be wrong)

In my world, as B'asia grows up, things are shuffling all the time. But not at the top and the bottom. The center members are still maturing and I expect to see a calming of pack structure as B'asia reaches maturity. But we'll see.

Chuffy

In another thread corvus said something about it being important to dogs to know where they stand to minimise risk in social interactions.  I think that's what it boils down to. 

I agree. They just want to all get along! LOL

I can actually see how any one of the poll options could be the case in different households. And I believe in some households it's different than in mine because even though "dogs are dogs", I think we really have to take into account the different households and energies, conditions and beliefs of the variety of human beings who are structuring and contributing to these households. Dogs do what works.   Even within vastly differently-structured environments.  

Liesje, yes! That is why I like to say "relative power" or "relative influence." There are some dogs who consistently get their way across the board, and have the skills to match, but most dogs have similar and overlapping spheres of influence.

I think it also makes sense that a dog learns when another dog is strong in a particular area. Ie, Coke knows Kenya is less strong in novel social situations, and she recognizes Coke as stronger in that sense.  

I forget who said or where I read it but it seems true to me...

"a dog does not care whether it is number one, or number ten...so long as he KNOWS...his number"

yeah, I agree, but I think each dog's "number" does vary somewhat by circumstance, the resource at hand, and who else is present. And dogs are perfectly capable of grasping these subtleties to their social structure.

mudpuppy

yeah, I agree, but I think each dog's "number" does vary somewhat by circumstance, the resource at hand, and who else is present. And dogs are perfectly capable of grasping these subtleties to their social structure.

I agree.  When you run play groups as long as I have, and you see the way dogs react to new dogs, new people, new toys, old toys (yup, some dogs play with the same tennis ball during a session, and won't touch any other ball LOL), then you become a bit more circumspect about the idea of hierarchy.  Some dogs do seem to be at the top of the heap most of the time, but even they have times when they defer or simply don't care.  It isn't that there's never a hierarchy, just that it's contextual, not rigid, and dependent upon many factors (genetics, resources present, composition of the group, possession of a resource).  Some males that seem to have the upper hand among their brethren, will kowtow to a submissive female who happens to have the rope tug in her mouth.   In order to see this play out, you have to watch many more dogs than just your own.  Might be worth a few trips to the dog park, even if you don't want to bring your own dogs there. 

In my group of dogs, there is not one that is the alpha.  They have learned to live toether peacefully as a group.  One might be more "alpha" when it comes to food, another might be more "alpha" when it come to toys or even just a certain toy.  Belle is probably a little more the leader, but that may be related to the fact that she is the oldest and has helped to transition each new puppy into our family.  I think that human influence has altered the dynamics that wolves or even dogs in the wild have.  I also agree with others, that it doesn't really matter where the dog fits into the group.  They all see that they are well cared for, have food, toys, exercise, and affection.  Their relationship with each other also differs.  Treasure and Olivia are both young and love to play together.  Belle will play with them some, but only when she feels like it.  Gracie is all into being with me.  Gracie also is the one that seemed as if she were the "mother" figure and Belle was the one that "said" that there rules that apply here.  According to my group of dogs, I chose choice #3.

A few years ago, I would have chose 1.

Now, I choose 4. My understanding has increased and continues to increase, or refine, at least as I can see.

Granted, I only have one dog. Who will defer to the cat if she has the prime sleeping spot on the double recliner. Who will move when we ask. Other times, if he is laying on the floor, I will step around him. Possibly a totally anthro concept but it's like extending courtesy to each other. He moves when I ask, and I don't ask unnecessarily.

I think most people here have dogs that will do what is asked.  A truly independent dog wouldn't care what you do, punishment or treat. Such a dog, in my opinion, would be nigh unto a wolf. Be that as it may, you can only lead or direct or expect courtesy if you give it in return. And to do so means to know what it is yuor dog wants.

My favorite author said the most honest deals are the ones based on self-interest. Everyone knows what they want and gets it in exchange for giving others what they want.

But I guess the point I'm also trying to make is that you can only lead, or dominate, or correct, or reward a dog, or whatever it is you do, if they allow it. The dog always has the option of running away and never coming back.

That doesn't mean I am weak or wishy-washy. But I do think I realize a little better the nature of relationships, human and otherwise, at least for this discussion, than I might have before.