Dominance theory.. why it's outdated and wrong.

[ETO]

Well I know a lot of you will know more than I do and will truly believe that the dominance theory exists... but it's outdated and wrong.

 

Dr L David Mech.

An internationally recognized wolf expert, a senior research scientist for the U.S. Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (since 1970), and an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul. He has researched wolves since 1958 in places such as Minnesota, Canada, Italy, Alaska, Yellowstone National Park, and on Isle Royale.

 

 

From his research in wolves - we then transferred it to our pets - as Jean Donaldson explains below.

 

An extract from Jean Donaldson's "The Culture Clash"

 

The Dominance Panacea

 

The other model that has been put forth as a quasi-justification for the use

of aversives in training is pack theory. Ever since the linear hierarchy was

postulated in wolves, dog people have gone cuckoo in their efforts to

explain every conceivable dog behavior and human-dog interaction in

terms of “dominance.” We really latched onto that one. It is a great example

of a successful meme. Dogs misbehave or are disobedient because they

haven’t been shown who’s boss. You must be the “alpha” in your “pack.”

Aside from amounting to yet another justification for aversives-oriented

training methods—the dog is supposedly staying up nights thinking up

ways to stage a coup so you’d better keep him in his place with plenty of

coercion—dominance has provided a panacea-like explanation for dog

behaviours.

 

For the owner, this simple explanation makes unnecessary the work of boning

up on a myriad of other topics, like how animals learn. Notions like dogs

rushing through doors ahead of their owners or pulling on leash to exert

dominance over their owners are too stupid for words. Some poor people have

it so backwards that they view appeasement behaviours such as jumping up to

lick or pawing as dominance displays and thus fair game for aversive training.

The dominance panacea is, once again, a case of leaping to a conclusion before

ruling out more obvious explanations. Dogs chew furniture because what else

could furniture possibly be for? They are disobedient because they have no idea

what is being asked of them, are undermotivated to comply, or something else

has won the behavioural gambit at that moment in time, like a fleeing squirrel.

Rank is not likely on their minds.

 

So, a separation has to be made between a dog behaving appeasingly and a dog

being under aversive control. If you apply continuous shock to an animal after

giving the recall cue, turn it off when the dog makes contact with you, and the

dog learns he can escape and later avoid the shock by coming as soon as you

give the cue, you have aversive control. You can do the same thing more

clumsily, and many do, by using strangle collars or rolled up newspapers. This

is not necessarily a dominance maneuver, however. How it impacts rank is up

for grabs. Big fallacy, this one.

 

Likewise, if a dog knows that he has a one in five chance for a reward if he

comes and that the great likelihood is he will be able to return to what he is

doing if he comes immediately, and will in fact lose a few minutes’ freedom if

he fails to comply, he’s also going to exhibit a strong recall. This is control

without aversives. What’s important here is not what brand of motivation you

use, avoidance or positive reinforcement, but the near total absence of bearing

this has on the whole question of dominance. When most people say they have

a dominance problem, usually they mean one of two things: they have a

compliance problem, or else the dog is biting or threatening them. It may very

well be in both cases that the dog’s self-perception is that he is dominant over

the owner. It could also be the case that the dog’s self-perception is he is

second-to-last in rank of all organic matter on the planet yet is still

undermotivated to comply and/or bites people. You could have a dog whose

self-perception is that he is very dominant yet is a world-class obedience dog

and never bites or wants to bite anyone.

If the problem is compliance, the dog can be trained to comply using operant

conditioning. This is the direct-access means to modifying behavior.

 

Usingconcepts like dominance to explain why a dog fails to come when called when

he has not been conditioned to do so and had the behavior proofed against

competing motivation is needlessly muddying the water. You can flip him on

his back all you want and he will still fail to come if he’s untrained and

unproofed. And, you can flip him on his back and hold him down all night

(and precede him through doorways) and he’s still going to bite you if you

push him past his bite threshold. There is a staggering lack of rigor and

parsimony in the dog world, and the popularity of dominance as explanation

is a prime example.

My favorite myth is going through doorways first. What silly person came up

with the notion that a dog would understand, let alone exert dominance, by

preceding his owner out the front door? When dogs are rushing through doors,

mustn’t we first rule out that they are trying to close distance between

themselves and whatever is out there, as quickly as possible, because they are

excited, because they are dogs, and because they have never been presented

with a reason not to?

 

 

Top Ten Behaviors Dog People Attribute to a Dominance Problem

 

1. Biting/aggression, especially towards family members

2. Pulling on leash

3. House-soiling, especially when accidents occur on beds

4. Chewing valuable owner possessions

5. Jumping up to greet and pawing

6. Failing to come when called

7. Begging at table

8. Going through doorways first

9. Sleeping on forbidden furniture

10. Food/laundry stealing

 

Whenever there’s this desperate grasp for “whywhywhy” a dog does

something, rather than being taken by a red herring like “pack theory,” first

rule out:

 

1. Because it’s being reinforced somewhere in the environment

2. Because no one ever made a case to do otherwise (i.e., why NOT?)

 

The dominance panacea is so out of proportion that entire schools of training

are based on the premise that if you can just exert adequate dominance over the

dog, everything else will fall into place. Not only does it mean that incredible

amounts of abuse are going to be perpetrated against any given dog, probably

exacerbating problems like unreliable recalls and biting, but the real issues, like

well-executed conditioning and the provision of an adequate environment, are

going to go unaddressed, resulting in a still-untrained dog, perpetuating the

pointless dominance program.

 

None of this is to say that dogs aren’t one of those species whose social life

appears to lend itself to beloved hierarchy constructs. But, they also see well at

night, and no one is proposing retinal surgery to address their non-compliance

or biting behavior. “Pack theory” is simply not the most elegant model for

explaining or, especially, for treating problems like disobedience, misbehavior

or aggression. People who use aversives to train with a dominance model in

mind would get a better result with less wear and tear on the dog by using

aversives with a more thorough understanding of learning theory, or, better yet,

forgoing aversives altogether and going with the other tools in the learning

theory tool box. The dominance concept is simply unnecessary.

 

You can read the entire book here:

http://codeazur.com....ultureClash.pdf

 

After you read this article - read the comments.

http://www.whole-dog...gs_20416-1.html

 

And a Grade A essay including links and quotes to plenty of sources that also discredit the dominance theory.

http://www.facebook....QBu_euYPzXXo0GX

 

 

So any of you changed your mind? Or do you still think I should watch my back as my three pooches, are comfortably laid on my sofa plotting to take over the world snoring their heads off as I type?

Edited December 10, 2012 by ETO

[Blackbart]

Obviously a nutty professor.

[darren m]

ETO - interesting read , so whats your take on dog dominance .

 

what would you say are sure signs or dont you think it exsists.

 

in the wild there will or would always be dominance , a dog trying to climb the social ladder , not all dogs are alphas , some just follow , i just dont think we as humans recognise it that well.

[UKPoacher]

The problem with dog behaviour is that owners make it complicated by imposing human traits on animal behaviour. A dog is a pack animal and naturally obeys a heirachy. In the wild this hierchy is pretty stable on a day to day basis. In domestic life the pack structure is always changing. Anyone who comes to the house, any dogs you meet out on a walk, the kids testing out on their parents all have influence on the dog. A lot of 'problems' with dogs have been caused by human intervention. But it is easier to blame the dog.

 

If people were able to take a step back and rationalise why a dog does something in the way that it does, there would be less problems. Also, if owners could control the dog's environment better to give more consistency of training and commands and less changes in pack dynamics dogs would be a lot happier.

 

That's my view anyway.

[ETO]

ETO - interesting read , so whats your take on dog dominance .

 

what would you say are sure signs or dont you think it exsists.

 

in the wild there will or would always be dominance , a dog trying to climb the social ladder , not all dogs are alphas , some just follow , i just dont think we as humans recognise it that well.

 

My view is pretty much the same as Jean Donaldson's view.

 

I think we are too quick to label bad behaviours as dominant and think our dogs are going to take over the world but really we don't look at what it really is. For example; Louie will greet another dog with his tail and head held high - from a less experienced persons point of view that is dominant - he's trying to show the other dog who is boss. From my point of view, knowing what he has gone through (he's been attacked several times this year) he isn't confident and is trying to put on a front as a way of trying to hide that uncertainty from that other dog. Uncertainty is a weakness within any animal structure.

 

When I introduced Jack to our household, Louie would grumble and stand by me - he wasn't confident enough to deal with it on his own. My way of dealing with this was to walk away from them. A person who believes in dominance would have rolled him over and held him until he was still and stayed there without being held. This just puts more on you. And if I had done this rather than walking away - I would've had caused more tension between the two dogs than there was before. Within 3 days Jack was accepted and now they are happy with each other.

 

I have to admit, once upon a time I did believe in dominance and Caesar Millan's methods. I did use them on one of my dogs - Benjie. Now I have found our relationship tainted by those methods. And now I have watched his interactions it is clear he doesn't know how to behave and interact with other dogs. So now I am rectifying that I am finding our relationship strengthening and also that he is understanding how to interact with other dogs. I have worked with him for the past 4 years. And 4 years ago he would've gone up to another dog and basically start a fight, now he simply sniffs and comes away.

 

Within my "pack" all the dogs are equal. There are appeasement signals now and then; licking other dogs mouths, low bodies and rolling over. The pup still has her puppy licence so gets away with some ruder behaviours - such as paws on the shoulders of another - but only within my dogs. If she did it to one of my friends dogs - she'd be told off.

 

But anyway - my views are that dogs don't dominate humans - ever. We read behaviours wrongly and therefore we create a lot more behaviour problems than we would have if we understood how to read our dogs.

[Blackbart]

I think you are looking for things that are not there or more precise trying to find a reason other than the norm for a dog behaving or misbehaving.

 

Dogs misbehaving is exactly that and i can not see the connection between being dominant and misbehaving unless that is by showing aggression. A dog being aggressive is either being dominant or is scared. I do not think that any other form of misbehaving would be seen by anyone as dominance and as we do not want our dogs attacking other dogs or people we have to be dominant with them so they comply as a gentle chat aint going to cut it when they are being aggressive towards all and sundry .By being dominant with them i mean anything from a raised voice to a clip round the lug.

 

All the dogs in your pack are obviously not equal if there is licking, low back slinking and rolling over , all classic signs of hierarchy in the pack hence some are more dominant than others.

[ETO]

I think you are looking for things that are not there or more precise trying to find a reason other than the norm for a dog behaving or misbehaving.

 

Dogs misbehaving is exactly that and i can not see the connection between being dominant and misbehaving unless that is by showing aggression. A dog being aggressive is either being dominant or is scared. I do not think that any other form of misbehaving would be seen by anyone as dominance and as we do not want our dogs attacking other dogs or people we have to be dominant with them so they comply as a gentle chat aint going to cut it when they are being aggressive towards all and sundry .By being dominant with them i mean anything from a raised voice to a clip round the lug.

 

All the dogs in your pack are obviously not equal if there is licking, low back slinking and rolling over , all classic signs of hierarchy in the pack hence some are more dominant than others.

 

Appeasement signals are given when another dog is upset or a greeting it does not mean they are more dominant than the other.

 

Perhaps you should read all the links again if you even bothered to in the first place.

[al4x]

Gawd when a dog is upset, that extends to crying in our household, usually if I've gone shooting without her. BB I'm with you they need to know their place and be treated firmly and fairly rather than psyco analysed. I'd have got nowhere with mine if I asked her how she was feeling and didn't make sure she did what was required. Thats not to say she isn't a companion as she is but it means if told to get off the sofa she does and the moment she doesn't it would be scruff time and done for her. The same as I would never expect teeth to be bared which it seems is normal with some, at that point there would be a disagreement that I would win, but it wouldn't happen as she is used to doing what she is told.

[gixer1]

if told to get off the sofa she does and the moment she doesn't it would be scruff time and done for her. The same as I would never expect teeth to be bared which it seems is normal with some, at that point there would be a disagreement that I would win, but it wouldn't happen as she is used to doing what she is told.

 

Have to say its the same in my house - my yellow lab bitch growled once at my neice when she was about 2 (the dog) and her bum didn't touch the ground between where it happened and the kennel - I just do not tolerate it, and any dog that is in my home is treated the same.

 

My mother in law falls out with me as she is a "talk to the doggie" type person - you can tell by the fact the back seat of her car is covered in mud and the dog runs off constantly. - my point to her is the dog should be in the boot of the car - not the back seat - it will most likely kill her if she is ever in a significant accident...

 

She constantly drops himnts in the cold weather saying "do you think the dogs are ok sleeping out there in this weather" - my answer is always that I personally sat in that kennel in cold weather to ensure it was warm, and the last thing I want is a dog that you take out of an overly warm cosy house in winter and then let them jump into an icy duck pond!

 

they are my dogs, I love them and they are part of the family BUT - they are dogs, and will never show dominance over any human in the family, they get "scruffed" every now and then if they misbehave and to an outsider this looks severe - but I can assure you with the amount of muscle on them they are not overly concerned and will usually show remorse then come back to heal..

 

my dogs are very loyal and if psychoanalysing is something you want to consider - if my dogs were so frieghtened of me and the way I do things why are they wagging tails and so keen to be right next to me every time i move!

 

Regards,

 

Gixer

[Big Mat]

What problem are you looking to solve here ETO?

 

Every dog is different and should be treated as such, i've got a dog here who will push his luck sometimes and he certainly dominates over the rest of the dogs!

 

I tend to go along the lines of what al4x and gixer say, i wont hesitate to scruff the dog if needs be but my lab knows her place and we dont have any problems. It is all about a level of mutual respect in my opinion.

 

If the dog didnt like what i do then it wouldnt be ready and waiting to go shooting when i grab my gear!

 

And dogs do dominate humans sometimes, i've seen it with several dogs on several different occasions!

Edited December 12, 2012 by Big Mat

[silver pigeon 3]

I also believe in pack hierarchy within my dogs, and to prove the point my eldest terrier is now starting to relinquish his place at the top to my lab. Lately there has been a little infighting (nothing serious) and at the minute there is no clear top dog, but given a little time i fully expect the lab to become the leader.

As to whether this extends to the humans in the house i don't know, but what i do know is that all humans (family members and visitors) are above the dogs, and any signs of aggression shown by them towards anybody would be dealt with very sternly. My dogs all know that i am to be obeyed and are happiest when they are pleasing me, be it working,petting or just being with me. They all sense my mood and very rarely do i need to do anything more than lower my tone of voice to correct any misbehaviours.

 

So each to there own, but i will stick at what i do as it seems to work well.

[gixer1]

I would like to know why my yellow lab bitch tries to hump my black dogs head every time I play fight with them :blink:

 

A constant source of amusement and she will continue humping his head until he growls and manages to flee her humpy-humpy grasp! :blink:

Edited December 12, 2012 by gixer1

[silver pigeon 3]

I would line to know why my yellow lab bitch tries to hump my black dogs head every time I play fight with them :blink:

 

A constant source of amusement and she will continue humping his head until he growls and manages to flee her humpy-humpy grasp! :blink:

 

Just randy bitch mate

[gixer1]

 

 

Just randy bitch mate

 

Maybe I should start feeding the wife chudleys

[WGD]

IMO with dogs you can train with your gut, you can learn from other trainers, or you can read up on it.

 

I'm a "gut" person, but I always know what I am trying to achieve with a dog (which is where I think a lot of trainers play their part). If I'm stuck with a particular problem I will ask a good friend of mine who also happens to be a nationally known and respected trainer.

 

Reading up on it is recreation, there are some good tips and there is a lot of over complicated junk, I've given up on it.

 

I train and work with the dog in front of me, if is doesn't comply it is because 1) it doesn't understand or 2) it thinks it knows best. I am not going to write reams of paper, any dog that thinks it knows better than me is in for a rude awakening. For a soft cocker that will be repetition, reward and praise until it "understands" that "knowing better" is not an option. If it is a hard headed springer it may well be a slap on the backside and a couple of days confined to barracks. Showing teeth, dominance and the requirement to dominate just don't happen and if they do, and I have brought the pup up, then I consider it a screw loose dog and it's days are numbered.

 

Maybe not PC, or educational, or indeed showing me to be particularly "educated" as far as dog physcology is concerned... but I'm not really interested in dog physcology, I'm interested in my dogs being healthy, happy to see me, working for me and putting game in my game bag.

Edited December 12, 2012 by WGD

[lee-kinsman]

Maybe I should start feeding the wife chudleys

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[WGD]

Maybe I should start feeding the wife chudleys

 

Why... are you black? :lol:

Edited December 12, 2012 by WGD

[gixer1]

 

 

Why... are you black? :lol:

 

Yes.

[WGD]

Yes.

 

In that case get the Chudleys out! MIght just work.... either that or your yellow lab won't leave your leg alone. :lol:

[lee-kinsman]

I support the dominance theory and I believe that healthy dogs are lead by a healthy Alpha. My dogs work for me because I've taken the time to dominate them in order to understand what I require. Nothing wrong with dominance, it just needs to be administered correctly.

 

I don't believe in training with treats. I'll never forget when I took my big strong willed lab out when I first got him, in the garden he recalled perfectly for some cheese, when I took him into the field he naffed off and came back when he was tired. He did the same with other dogs, he would run 800yds to get to another dog. When he arrived back at heal he expected the cheese, sticking his head in my pocket and trying to tear it open. I knew he understood recall.

 

His problem was he had been allowed to be the dominant one with his previous family. He now understands that I am the jealous leader of my pack and I am willing to fall out with him for the benefit of my pack and if he wants to do well, he'll fall in.

 

The result a very hot retriever that can be handled out to 400 yards, in his first season which is this one he has picked snipe, woodcock, teal, duck, pheasant, partridge, pigeon, geese, rabbit, and hare, and has worked ploughed land, marsh, hills, dales thick gorse and thorns, and well into the night. His one interest is me happy and the retrieve. Not bad for 5 months training.

 

Every dog is different, they all need an alpha leader, but different levels of dominance are essential.

[gixer1]

Some dogs just don't like to wear a gimp mask... :yp:

[Blackbart]

Appeasement signals are given when another dog is upset or a greeting it does not mean they are more dominant than the other.

 

Perhaps you should read all the links again if you even bothered to in the first place.

 

 

I did read most of the links, until one eye glazed over and i slipped into a coma because in my opinion most of what i was reading was rubbish along the lines of what David ike might write.

 

Nearly all dogs can be trained through praise, reward and repetition with occasionally showing them who is boss in the form of dominating them. I say "nearly" because like humans sometimes you will get a wrong un that has something missing in the brain department or has the "attack everything gene " but unfortunately unlike humans, something can be done about that and it is'nt sending it to see a bloke with a ginger beard and sandals to talk about it's childhood.

[Actionpigeons]

Appeasement signals are given when another dog is upset or a greeting it does not mean they are more dominant than the other.

 

Perhaps you should read all the links again if you even bothered to in the first place.

If you worked with a pack of hounds you would soon see that there are dominant hounds (Dogs) the dominant hound just by body posture will make a less dominant hound leave a carcass when feeding.

 

You say in one of the post on this post Quote: " Within my "pack" all the dogs are equal" I am sorry but this in nonsense, and I can prove it without even being there.

Go to the butchers and buy one juicy knuckle bone. Throw it out into your garden and let all your dogs out, then come in the house and leave them alone even if you hear a scuffle. Go out ten mins later and one of the dogs will have the bone, that dog is your dominant dog!

 

Dogs live by using a pecking order, and people train and work dogs to a good standard do so by being dominant ie: the dog does things to please you the dominant member of the group, as well as if you do the job right the dog see the work as his reward and should enjoys it.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Actionpigeons

[Actionpigeons]

I support the dominance theory and I believe that healthy dogs are lead by a healthy Alpha. My dogs work for me because I've taken the time to dominate them in order to understand what I require. Nothing wrong with dominance, it just needs to be administered correctly.

 

I don't believe in training with treats. I'll never forget when I took my big strong willed lab out when I first got him, in the garden he recalled perfectly for some cheese, when I took him into the field he naffed off and came back when he was tired. He did the same with other dogs, he would run 800yds to get to another dog. When he arrived back at heal he expected the cheese, sticking his head in my pocket and trying to tear it open. I knew he understood recall.

 

His problem was he had been allowed to be the dominant one with his previous family. He now understands that I am the jealous leader of my pack and I am willing to fall out with him for the benefit of my pack and if he wants to do well, he'll fall in.

 

The result a very hot retriever that can be handled out to 400 yards, in his first season which is this one he has picked snipe, woodcock, teal, duck, pheasant, partridge, pigeon, geese, rabbit, and hare, and has worked ploughed land, marsh, hills, dales thick gorse and thorns, and well into the night. His one interest is me happy and the retrieve. Not bad for 5 months training.

 

Every dog is different, they all need an alpha leader, but different levels of dominance are essential.

[swingit]

I don't believe in training with treats.

 

Plus 1.

 

I never have and never will train with treats.If it works for some then fine,it's not for me though,I want my dogs to do what they do for "me",not for a treat.

 

Swingit.