|
Dominant Behaviour -
"Is it a 9 letter swear word?" |
|
The simple premise was that chicken A can peck all the other chickens but chicken Y can only peck X. and poor old X is effectively bottom of the heap. In the 1930s, other researchers coined the term “alpha male” (and its converse, the “beta male”) to describe the leader of a wolf pack the dominant males or females.
As trainers and behaviourists we have a habit of latching onto the latest buzz theorems, the latest ideas and study, and then to postulate than these theories are actual scientific facts, which the very word “Theory” discounts. "Theory" means speculative. The latest bandwagon that some of these trainers and behaviourists have jumped on is that dominance does not exist. it's all jusr a figment of our imagination, and dogs cannot and do not strive for dominancebecause they are conspecific. Meaning they can only relate to their own kind. In fact if these theorists who follow this argument look up the word "conspecific" they will see it has been hijacked “an organism belonging to the same species as another organism” Where in that explanation does it say that animals cannot view other animals as similar? It is a bald statement not open to conjecture. Belonging to the same species you cannot hypothesise more from that, as it would then be only speculative guesswork. This is from www.reference.com an online encyclopedia: “Dominance in the context of biology and anthropology is the state of having high social status relative to other individuals, who react submissively to dominant individuals. The opposite of dominance is submissiveness. Dominance hierarchies are found in many animals, including primates such as human beings”. If we accept the antonym of dominance is submission, and we are all aware that many dogs demonstrate clear submissive tendencies, then how can we possibly suggest that no dog demonstrates dominance or dominant behaviour.? There is a word in music “enharmonic” that means changing the name without altering the pitch. In other words two separate notations stand for the same sound. For example, the enharmonic word for F-sharp is G-flat. Both are exactly the same note but are named differently.I believe that is what is happening with the word dominance. Patricia McConnell Ph.D. the author of an excellent book “The Other End of The Leash” states that in some training and behavioural circles all talk of dominance is classed as politically incorrect, and that these people are ardently opposed to anyone using the word in the context of dogs. She goes on to say that at a professional seminar the word became so loaded that Wayne Hunthausen and herself started to call it “ the concept formerly referred to as dominance” complete with its own Prince type icon.
I will accept that dogs do not pack up to live and hunt the same as wolves. They lost that requirement when they filled an ecological niche and predated off the detritus of mankind, becoming domesticated in the process. see my article on The Origin of The Dog. That is not to say they do not enjoy the social meeting and greeting with others of their own kind, and in that social coming together are clear indications of status and rank. I have four dogs at present, they have distinct personalities and a clear pecking order within their own little pack, however I am also to some extent included in that pack. I make sure that I control the situation by laying down guidelines and rules; does that make me dominant or submissive or neither to that pack? Donna Brander BSc(Hons), Honorary Fellow(R(D)SVS) states: I find some of that statement to be incorrect. Please read "The Alpha Myth" Scientist’s, behaviourists, and biologists, are now questioning the validity of the pack rule theory in two main areas. First, because it does not appear to occur in the wild. The strong dominance hierarchy that has been often been described for wild canid's such as Wolves, Dingoes and Wild dogs suggests that social behaviour in wild canid's may be a product of environmental circumstances rather than any form of instinctual behaviour. Secondly, because feral dogs do not appear to exhibit the classic wolf-pack structure, especially in remote areas. Once again Patricia McConnell in her book “the other end of the leash” says:. “Recently there's been some confusion in the world of dog training about the role that status and hierarchy have in dog behaviour. Some people argue that wolf like pack hierarchies have no relevance to dogs, because our house dogs probably derived from scavenging village dogs who didn’t live in packs like wolves”“ Because the social relationship of scavenging village dogs appears to be different from the social structure of wolf packs, some trainers argue that social status and hierarchy are irrelevant to our own pet dogs. But that seems counterintuitive, given what we know about how our own dogs behave, and lacks understanding of how behaviour and the environment interact” Raymond and Lorna Coppinger in their excellent book (Dogs A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behaviour and Evolution) believe that the domestic dog is very different from its wild cousins, in their studies and observations on the island of Pemba, On that basis and study alone it has been suggested that domestic dogs do not form a pack with their own kind, and certainly do not do so with humans. I would certainly agree with that last statement, personally I do not believe we as humans can be Alpha's or pack leaders. Having said that it does not compute that we do not observe pushy and dominant dogs in our homes. The Coppingers theories are interesting, informative and enlightening. They suggest that village dogs do not have a hierarchical structure, that they live an almost semi solitary existence. Therefore as modern day dog probably derived from village dogs that are seen on Pemba, then the idea of a hierarchical system does not exist as it does in wild canid's that hunt as a pack. I believe this theory has some fundamental flaws, on the dump at chake chake, where these village dogs had better resources hierarchical and resource disputes broke out far more often, Dominance, status, and rank allowed the top dogs to get the richest pickings. I believe that is where this theory starts to show some anomalies and shortcomings. Another anomaly is that these feral dogs were not part of a family life with humans. They were not owned by individuals, as we own dogs. They slept outside and predated on mans detritus they were not fed by the village people. Whereby we have a far closer relationship to our dogs than the Pemban's.That is not to say that the book was not excellent, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I believe it to be a very important book with valid theories and observations. It does not follow that I have to agree with all of Coppingers assumptions and beliefs. I am more than aware that the word dominance is used to explain almost every behavioural problem in our pets, and that includes aggression. Yet in reality the dominant dog has no need for aggression. An air of authority and quiet confidence emanates from this type of dog, whereas the submissive fearful dogs is more likely to shown signs of aggression and to bite. To some extent I sympathise with those, claiming the word dominance should no longer be used, that it is defunct, outdated, and irrelevant. But sympathising doesn't mean that I agree with these theroies or logic. Advances in our learning and scientific studies have shown that our previous knowledge base did not give us the full picture. Most of these therories were based on studies that were at best incomplete, and at worst totally incorrect. The new wave of positive reinforcement style training and behavioural modification is proving to be far more effective and kinder than the methods previously used. However it is impossible to train using just Positive Reinforcement. Just holding the dog back on a lead is negative punishment. See "Killing with Kindness". The advent of clicker training has proved a revelation to many of today’s obedience and behavioural trainers. The style of training that insisted the dog should always be subservient, and that reward or treat based training is bribery, is fortunately now dying out.Though there is still places and organisations that believe it is the only way to train. I believe a dog should know its place, and it is up to us to teach that Ignoring bad behaviour and only rewarding the good only covers half of the problem. Putting yourself in control through controlling resources is not brutal or aggressive it is common sense. Please lets not allow political correctness to creep into dog behaviour or training lets be realistic and look at what we have in front of us, sometimes a joy, other times pushy and dare I say sometimes “ dominant” . Irrespective we love them all even with their strange and irritating idiosyncrasies. Stan Rawlinson
Quotes and mentions: Donna Brander BSc(Hons), Honorary Fellow(R(D)SVS Patricia McConnell- The other end of the leash Coppingers- Dogs A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behaviour and Evolution Barry Eaton. Dominance Fact or Fiction
|
How we can dismiss the fact that both dogs and ourselves are derived from animals that live in a controlled and carefully organised social system, and that within that system there are leaders and there are followers. Status is important to dogs, in fact to most canid's that live in packs.
That begs the question do domestic dogs pack up like their wild cousins? We certainly see Fox Hounds that are far more suited to pack life than as individual animals. Beagles to some extent fall into this category as do Otterhounds and Harriers. But are they not packing up for the joy of the chase rather than need to survive and procreate?
Our domestic dogs are always competing for resources. We can be in some cases the resource and hierarchical disputes do break out over those resources.