Interesting read on dominance/behavior

espencer

This has nothing to do with dominance or the lack of, I can have the most submissive dog in the planet but if he/she still want to chase rabbits then i will do leash redirections. Not necessarily "dominance" related, just like the article is trying to make it seem with the jumping and bad recall.

I think we all agree here, hierarchy between dogs exist, therefore dominance actually exists (i dont think alpha dogs are picked by democracy voting between the pack members).

Hmmm

I think we have some definition issues here. I am guessing that when you say  "most submissive" you mean least confident.Or is it more likely to offer appeasment gestures or is it that from your point of view is more likely to respond to your commands???

I

espencer

I think we all agree here, hierarchy between dogs exist, therefore dominance actually exists (i dont think alpha dogs are picked by democracy voting between the pack members).

Actually , i don't agree. I agree that a form of hierachy exists that is fluid and can change from minute to minute. I have a male and a female dog. By most standards they are confident assertive outgoing dogs. They play pretty hard. I could never predict based on objective observations who has the upper hand at any point of time.

Because a hierachy exists at any point of time, it does not mean that dominance exists. It just means that for that period of time a dog has control of a resource with value.

The whole point of the article is that Alpha dogs are a bit of a fantasy, that in wolf packs don't really exist as we now know that the wolf structure is Mum, Dad and the kids under two.  The original myth suggested that the alpha male wolf controlled resources to his liking including his access to breeding. This is patently now seen as not being true.

I think many people like to believe that their dog is an alpha , a number one. If you mean one of those really cool dogs that is just the best dog then all mine have been so :)) I think that what we really mean is a dog that has great language skills, high levels of confidence and who cruise through life getting pretty much what they want in pack situations without fighting for it, then yes i have had one. He was the dog in the picture on my post.

I think that humans often see what they want to see. With animals, our observations are so often tainted with the political, social and moral themes of the day. The dominance theory is just another example in my opinion .

espencer

Once thing is to refute that clicker is good for something where i think is not

Well, we will have to differ on this one. I have two small fast dogs, and to be honest they move too quickly for me to use verbal markers. My Lab offered behaviours too fast for me to use verbal markers.

Actually i don't have much truck with conventional tools at all. I hate leads other than for safety. I had a training session with my older dog on a grass strip that goes along our footpath for say about 100 feet just now. If i can't keep her focus here  with dogs passing and quite a lot of traffic,then i have no hope in the trial ring. I also need her to be happy to do this, to be just busting to do the next thing. My tools are some treats, a clicker, body language , cue salience, smiles, laughter, games, toys...

espencer

I agree with the article that dominance theory should not be used as a general guide, most of the dog problems are just bad mann

I think you make some good points in this and the other post of yours. For example, noting that not every dog is seeking to assume "dominance." Which is why assuming every problem is a dominance gesture is erroneous. A theory that assumes that all actions are towards dominance is inaccurate, hence, the hammer and nail analogy that is often used.

I think there can be some hierarchy between dogs but I also think it is fluid and I think it is from the bottom up. As I have said before, a dog or human can lead because the other dogs find it rewarding to follow or relinquish, depending on the dynamics of the situation.

But, to give some airtime to the attitude of the human, it is best to remain calm and in control, as that gives a stabilty to the dog, if for nothing else than to be one less reason for the dog to get keyed up over what the human might be worried about.

This has nothing to do with dominance or the lack of, I can have the most submissive dog in the planet but if he/she still want to chase rabbits then i will do leash redirections. Not necessarily "dominance" related, just like the article is trying to make it seem with the jumping and bad recall.

Next time you teach "Leave it" to a pup try this: put puppy on a leash and toss a biscuit beyond his reach, but just hold the leash taut - do not pull on it or say the dog's name.  (I tell my students to simply hold the leash against their waist, but make sure the bone is tossed beyond where the pup can get it.)  Simply say "leave it" (you may repeat as much as you want, in fact, I repeat the phrase a lot at the beginning.  If your dog turns his head toward you, cheerlead him back to you with "gooood leave it" - "take it" (as you pop a better treat than the one he left into his mouth).  If he doesn't, keep saying it until he finally turns (sometimes, it takes a very long time, but I've never known it to fail - don't forget, you are starting your training in a quiet location with no distractions - you are the only thing there, so the pup will eventually look at you, if just to say "what is that crazy human saying?";)

Use ever increasingly better treats while training.  Thus, the dog leaves a Milk Bone, gets a Charley Bear; leaves a Charley Bear, gets a bit of cheese; leaves cheese, gets a bit of beef; leaves beef, gets tripe and so on... what the dog is learning is that "leave it" means turn to the handler for your reward because it's always going to be better than the thing you left alone.  You would do this training at first on leash, for a long time, and in many locations, and with ever increasing distractions.  There are more steps, but this is the basic training.

The finished dog will leave a rabbit to come back to you, expecting that the thing you have is way better.  But, that does take a lot of training.  I am able to call my dogs off game and livestock, which, as you know, is very stimulating to herding and hunting breeds.  All done without leash corrections to a novice dog.  No dog should ever be punished for what he doesn't yet understand!

spiritdogs

This has nothing to do with dominance or the lack of, I can have the most submissive dog in the planet but if he/she still want to chase rabbits then i will do leash redirections. Not necessarily "dominance" related, just like the article is trying to make it seem with the jumping and bad recall.

Next time you teach "Leave it" to a pup try this: put puppy on a leash and toss a biscuit beyond his reach, but just hold the leash taut - do not pull on it or say the dog's name.  (I tell my students to simply hold the leash against their waist, but make sure the bone is tossed beyond where the pup can get it.)  Simply say "leave it" (you may repeat as much as you want, in fact, I repeat the phrase a lot at the beginning.  If your dog turns his head toward you, cheerlead him back to you with "gooood leave it" - "take it" (as you pop a better treat than the one he left into his mouth).  If he doesn't, keep saying it until he finally turns (sometimes, it takes a very long time, but I've never known it to fail - don't forget, you are starting your training in a quiet location with no distractions - you are the only thing there, so the pup will eventually look at you, if just to say "what is that crazy human saying?";)

Use ever increasingly better treats while training.  Thus, the dog leaves a Milk Bone, gets a Charley Bear; leaves a Charley Bear, gets a bit of cheese; leaves cheese, gets a bit of beef; leaves beef, gets tripe and so on... what the dog is learning is that "leave it" means turn to the handler for your reward because it's always going to be better than the thing you left alone.  You would do this training at first on leash, for a long time, and in many locations, and with ever increasing distractions.  There are more steps, but this is the basic training.

The finished dog will leave a rabbit to come back to you, expecting that the thing you have is way better.  But, that does take a lot of training.  I am able to call my dogs off game and livestock, which, as you know, is very stimulating to herding and hunting breeds.  All done without leash corrections to a novice dog.  No dog should ever be punished for what he doesn't yet understand!

Hi 

I do a variation of  this for many things as a part of training. As i wish to trial my dogs i am dead set keen that watching me without prompting is very rewarding for them. It is the very first thing that i   teach a puppy. I might not be so dogamtic with a pet dog.I teach this around many distractions including people , food and running things.

One of the things that does happen though (and i try to train to avoid it) is the shear attraction of the prey. It is a paradox that often harsh physical corrections on dogs that are in prey drive may just seek to excite them, and may even cause danger to the handler. It really is another nail in the coffin to the dominance myth.

There are two things that we can also use. One is an aberration of behaviour that we observe during tracking and that is documented in Lindsay, which is that animals are reinforced  for doing an action such as going through a maze with a reward in a known location , they will ignore treats on the floor of a maze. A similar phenomina is that you can get dogs to ignore food and toys between you and a recall if you reinforce heavily enough. You can make it even stronger by "letting' them have the toys afterwards.

Another is premack. If you look at the list of my dogs you will see that the two oldest are tracking champions.  Luci (Nascere Bella Nera) stood behind the door when prey drive was given out and went "yes please, give me another dollop". So imagine a fearless mini poodle with even more prey drive than normal tracking with bunnies, birdies, sheep, cows etc, what can be a normal tracking experience.Imagine how reinforcing it is for her that when she runs towards the sheep they run away.. holy hell!!!

I counterconditioned Cows, Sheep to be boring. Nothing much happened when they were around. I was pretty interesting though. 

I used a combination of habituation, (things become boring if nothing happens and you spend a lot of time around them, it is a sub set of extincion i believe) for bunnies, and premack for birds which i just don't ever reccomend again. At the end of the track, i would let her off to chase the magpies, cockies and galahs. She never got close enough to ever catch one, and it was very safe.

One day i let her off, and she started stalking. She was deaf to me. She did get close,she clipped the wing of a cocatoo... she didn't give up the chase and ran across the main road. .... Never again.

 But the dominance myth IS that dogs that do things like jumping up or pulling on leash are dominant. It's not true, hence, myth. Nonetheless, I've heard people cheerfully tell me that their dog is dominant if it does a single thing that they don't want it to do, whether they have rewarded it or not. That is the dominance myth.

I don't like to use the word hierarchy with dogs because it doesn't seem quite accurate to me. I think that dogs with a history with each other learn when or where it is a good idea to not get into an argument about something, but that will go out the window if you have a situation where you have two dogs equally committed to something and they can't both have it. I suspect hierarchy can be an accurate word for it, but I also think it can be misinterpreted so that it is no longer accurate.

Same thing with dominance. It is accurate in that there are dog behaviours that are designed to communicate "don't mess with me" or "I'm prepared to fight for that" or even just "I am very confident" and there are submissive behaviours designed to communicate "don't hurt me", "I am no threat to you" and so on. But the way it is commonly used is not accurate. I see this article as being about that side of dominance rather than the accurate side.

My mother has this little dog who just damn well gets what he pleases when he pleases or he beats someone up. It's pretty easy to gain his cooperation. You just have to convince him that he will get what he wants if he just does this one little thing for you. A good reward history makes this entirely doable without ever needing to lord it over him or force him to do something or even attempt to make him understand that he does things because you asked him to and not because he wants to. Why bother? He will always be a dog that does things that he wants to do. So we embrace it and make sure we make what we ask of him something he wants to do. Sometimes he knows he doesn't want to do it. He's been taught he's got to anyway and he'll be rewarded for it anyway, so he might kick up a stink, but he'll do it or let you do it to him and take his reward at the end and go. Whether he is dominant or not has no bearing on how he is treated and doesn't need to.

corvus

But the dominance myth IS that dogs that do things like jumping up or pulling on leash are dominant. It's not true, hence, myth.

This is where the myth is at its self supporting best. If you thump a dog and show it who is lord and master then it will offer appesement behaviours and you are able to say" look the dog "knew' that he was doing wrong and he is dominant"...

It can get pretty ugly. When i first started in dog training , (not that long ago) , there were trainers that were fond of helicoptoring and such things and relied heavily on the dominance myth to support thier behaviours." look the dog is sitting and i told it to drop , it is being uppity.." ouch..

corvus

I suspect hierarchy can be an accurate word for it, but I also think it can be misinterpreted so that it is no longer accurate.

Even though i used the word, i was a little hesitant myself.

I think that to understand the dominance myth you need to go back and understand the social mileau that it was originally sold into . A lot of the literature that perpetuates it seems almost humerous today but wasn't then. Koehler for example sold it as a duty and neccesity that lead the dog to be responsible and show who was leader. Some how a dog had to understand after a 5 minute beating with a belt that it was never to chase anything again.:(((

It is very much orientated to the male of the house and one suspects was a duty to be performed like keeping the children and "the little lady " in line.. 

 One of the pre condtions for the perpuation of a myth is that it suits those it is to be sold to. I am somewhat of a contrary so and so, so am happy to observe on the outside of the groups i have taught in the past. Since society has become probably more fragmented you need to sell more varied types of myths to different groups.

Nowadays you need to sell in the dog world to say two different examples of many more...

Soccer Mums.. Just tell them it will be quick clean and painless, and will clean up after itself unlike the kids.

Empty Nesters with helicopter techniques;;; (they hover over their dogs.. Just tell them the dog will be the fastest in the class

and on and on

 I don't mind the word "hierarchy" so long as people understand that hierarchy doesn't mean "no term limits";-)  Some dogs care about going out the door first, and will push their way out before their pack mates, but that doesn't mean that they will go snatch a toy from the same dog they just edged out the door in front of.  It's contextual.  Therefore, the fact that my dog gets dinner before I do doesn't mean he or she will be thinking that some election has been held and I lost.  All it means is that one with the thumbs did not feel like cooking just yet.  Sometimes, a rose is just a rose.

Another excellent post from you, as well as Corvus. As I have pointed out a few times, the "alpha wolf" theory was developed by people such as Lorenz during and around WWII, when world-wide "dominance" was on everyone's mind. I do think the psychology of the times colored some of the perceptions of people, even those labelled as scientists. Einstein was labelled and self-identified as a pacificist yet it was him and associates like Oppenheimer that brought crucial developemental elements to the atomic bomb.

I, too, agree that dogs will fight or not, depending on the context of the situation. I recognize Shadow's resource guarding and use it to control resource guarding. As long as he knows he's getting the resource from me, I can have him "off" in mid-snarl and have done so a few times. The guardiness is not gone, but is sublimated into behavior that leads us away from a troublesome scene. I don't expect guarding to go away. It's a natural instinct for a dog and it's what makes them trainable. I sometimes see training as an expression of a dog's desire to protect his resources. He can either fend off all trespassers or he can heed a human's calls. Either one protects the resources. I prefer it to be the "heeding a human's call" venue, more than the other. I.E., dogs do what works. Where have I heard that before?

Anyway, leading a dog by their natural instinct and desire to gather and retain resources is true dog whispering, IMO. You are working with the dog in hs natural desires to bring you both in the direction you want. Left on his own, the dog will seek reward and retain resources, it would just be independent of a human.

Dogs are more often about avoiding conflict than seeking it out. Given enough room and space, dogs that don't like each other will carve out their own space to not be trespassed. They don't always seek each other out to carry on an endless duel. So, one may leave the fight and roam until finding a space of his own to guard, which thereby reduces conflict with the neighboring dog. That's conflict resolution of de-escalating and removing the contention.

espencer

That article includes "dominance" on situations where dominance has nothing to do with (jumping, lousy recall, giving treats,etc.)

Umm, the article is not addressed "Dear espencer".  It is tackling widely believed myths about dominance; not YOUR ideas on dominance.  Just thought I'd point that out. 

Also, it does not suggest that there is no such thing as "dominance" in dogs, but rather it suggests that it is relatively rare, and that even when it IS the cause of a problem, tackling it from such an angle can pose problems.  Just one example - right at the top of the page actually, so it is easy to find:

Even in the relatively few cases where aggression is related to rank, applying animal social theory and mimicking how animals would respond can pose a problem. First, it can cause one to use punishment, which may suppress aggression without addressing the underlying cause. Because fear and anxiety are common causes of aggression and other behavior problems, including those that mimic resource guarding, the use of punishment can directly exacerbate the problem by increasing the animal’s fear or anxiety (AVSAB 2007).

Chuffy

It is tackling widely believed myths

How wide? Can you provide an study with numbers? Or is just wide because is just YOUR personal opinion that it is? Should we go to the poll section and ask who really thought that giving treats or a lousy recall was a sign of dominance and were believing the myth?

Instead of "widely believed myths" i would call it "same old bait for dumb people to get on their side"

 Eh, it is my belief that this idea of dominance is widely believed. Not by folks on a dog forum necessarily, but a vet once told my mum that her little dog (who is quite a confident little turd as it happens) was dominant because he was looking the vet and her in the eyes when they had a treat. Huh? I hear it all the time. That kind of talk helps no one and it's not true anyway.

The fact remains, that whether dominance exists or not you don't actually need to pay attention to it. Dogs in my house can try to dominate me all they like and will find that it's not a very rewarding strategy. They still have to sit before they get their meals, they still don't get to make their own house rules, and if they don't want to do what they are bloody told then I guess they didn't want all the good stuff I have on offer and would prefer to be ignored or find themselves somewhere boring without me. It doesn't need to matter to me who they think is in charge. It won't change the way I treat them.

Kivi is a complete wuss and sometimes when my partner is cross with him, he growls at Kivi. Kivi finds this very unpleasant and comes to sook up to me (because I don't do things like growling at him). Erik, on the other hand, at all of 12 weeks responds to being growled at by growling back louder and trying to bite. It's just not worth it. Especially when he is so eager to learn how to earn rewards and I can gain his willing cooperation by just rewarding what I do want him to do. I don't need to teach him not to growl at people because we outrank him when instead I can teach him that sitting quietly gets him all sorts of good stuff.

corvus

Eh, it is my belief that this idea of dominance is widely believed. Not by folks on a dog forum necessarily, but a vet once told my mum that her little dog (who is quite a confident little turd as it happens) was dominant because he was looking the vet and her in the eyes when they had a treat. Huh? I hear it all the time. That kind of talk helps no one and it's not true anyway.

I am so over dominance being offered as the reason for all dog behaviours from just about everybody. I haven't done a count (i might just do that ) but i reckon the numbers must be around the 75% ratio.

I am an unashamed gun dog and poodle person . I struggle to understand a lot of the other breeds.Dominance hurts gun dogs badly. Write in if i am wrong but  here we do a move into  stand for exam in trials. Gun dogs are notorious for getting it wrong. If i am lucky people say that the dogs break becuase they are "too friendly", but many say that they are being dominant. Generally they are just being highly anxious and really don't like people invading their space a whole lot. If i train and counter condition i get a really reliable stand for exam... Now try telling a gun dog owner that their gun dog is anxious. It is a bit like telling someones partner that they are cheating on them... Dominance suits the owner better.

Here is another one. Poodles like mine are prone to being a little aggro towards other dogs. They like to tell you that the other dog should go away and if you won't do it , they will. I generally use the "oh look at that lovely dog " technique followed up by an intro and some treats. Works every time . Most don't here. It is the old "no nos". Apparently it works best if you lean over your dog and scream in its face, I don't know i have never seen it work. Apparently it is all about dominance and a closely related problem, small dog syndrome. If the no nos don't work, apparently a few sharp leash  corrections will do the job. Again i don't know i have never seen it work properly.:)))

corvus

I don't need to teach him not to growl at people because we outrank him when instead I can teach him that sitting quietly gets him all sorts of good stuff.

(Tongue firmly in cheek) don't you know that dog training is all about value and rank???

poodleOwned

am an unashamed gun dog and poodle person . I struggle to understand a lot of the other breeds.Dominance hurts gun dogs badly. Write in if i am wrong but  here we do a move into  stand for exam in trials. Gun dogs are notorious for getting it wrong. If i am lucky people say that the dogs break becuase they are "too friendly", but many say that they are being dominant. Generally they are just being highly anxious and really don't like people invading their space a whole lot. If i train and counter condition i get a really reliable stand for exam... Now try telling a gun dog owner that their gun dog is anxious. It is a bit like telling someones partner that they are cheating on them... Dominance suits the owner better.

Can  you elaborate on the above statement?  Do you mean that all gun dogs are anxious?  Anxious about the moving in to a stand?  I don't agree with the bit about gun dogs not liking people "invading" their space.   Sorry but this whole paragraph is just very puzzling to me.  It seems that  broad statements that want to encompass a huge number of people and dogs are bound to be a bit, er inaccurate.

poodleOwned

Write in if i am wrong but  here we do a move into  stand for exam in trials. Gun dogs are notorious for getting it wrong. If i am lucky people say that the dogs break becuase they are "too friendly", but many say that they are being dominant.

LOL... I'd probably say the dog hasn't been proofed enough :p

My dog is a scenthound and she is naturally inclined to scent, if she scents in the trial ring sure that's her instinct but it's really training thing - nothing to do with "dominance" either.

I feel the same way with prey drive (or any drive, really). Again, I don't think it's anything to do with dominance, some people will tell you a dog who is in drive is ignoring you because it's being dominant but really, drive is a subconscious reaction to stimuli and it's about instinct not dominance. But, that doesn't mean it's something we can't train for. I've seen dogs with intensely high prey drives called away from live prey, or practically throw themselves to the ground when commanded to down mid-chase after a wild hare. If you have a dog with a high drive IMO you need the dog to learn that you offer them drive satisfaction and condition them to learn that what you have is always going to be better, and more rewarding than whatever is over there.

JackieG

Can  you elaborate on the above statement? 

Hi

Unlike AKC obedience, right from junior levels the Stand  For Exam excercise consists of a few steps of heeling , the handler then commands a stand and stops. He/she then leaves the dog, moves a few steps and halts facing the dog. Gun dogs are notorious for breaking the stay as the judge moves towards the dog to exam it, or during examination. From my own experience, I would say that Labs , Goldies, and spaniels are particually prone to breaking. May be weis a little less. 

If you video the dog and show it without context, most pundits would say the dog is anxious and stressed  , tried it a few times. I find that standard methods of desensitisation give a really reliable SFE.  Of course in the older days (and still many triallists) would have had a crack at controlling it with p+. It can work.

 I find many Labs (we probably have more english than american bred labs here I am not too sure) and Goldies are not great at accepting people close in to them and take some while to get used ot it. Jumping up is sometimes an adaptive behaviour to prevent people getting in close. Again looking at the Videos answers the question.Sure other breeds have the same sensitivites but i was restricting my comments to dogs i have spent a lot of time with and love and adore very much.