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 male or female. The problem is, biologists have never come close to agreeing on what dominance means. Therefore until an in depth study is carried out it will all be conjecture and theories, which leads me neatly onto recent theories. 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 fact, which the very word “Theory” discounts.

The latest bandwagon that some of these trainers and behaviourists have jumped on is that dominance does not exist, it is all a figment of our imagination and dogs cannot strive for dominance as they are conspecific, therefore can only relate to their own kind. In fact if these theorists that 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 be speculative guesswork.

This is from www.reference.com an online encyclopaedia: “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, 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 that two separate notations stand for the same sound. For example, the enharmonic spelling of 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.

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 canids that live in packs. 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.

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 three 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:
“One of the most important issues to a dog is the stability of the pack. Without leadership, the stability of the pack is threatened. It is also of great benefit to be the leader. The leader gets to eat first, has the best places to sleep, has reproductive privileges and, in general, has all the best “stuff”. The leadership status is not a gender issue. Both males and females can and do achieve a high status within the pack”.

Scientist’s, behaviourists, and biologists, are now questioning the validity of the pack rule theory in two main areas. First, because it does not seem to occur in the wild, the strong dominance hierarchy that has been described for wolves may be a by-product of captivity. If true, it implies that social behaviour even in wolves may be a product more of
environmental circumstances and contingencies than actual instinctive directives. Second, because feral dogs do not exhibit the classic wolf-pack structure,

However 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”

The first question we have to consider is whether the dog is a pack animal. According to ethnologists Raymond and Lorna Coppinger, it isn’t. They studied a group of feral dogs that lived in and around a village on the Island of Pemba. They had all the means of survival readily available, food from the village dumps, water, and shelter so there was no reason for them to form a pack. They lived semi-solitary lives or in small groups, probably mum and her offspring. We know dogs are social animals as are we, which is why we can live together under the same roof. So on the basis of Coppinger’s research, as we provide our dog with sufficient food, water is always available, they have five star accommodations, exercise is provided and their health cared for, therefore should we not be asking ourselves “why would they need to form a pack with us”?

The Coppingers theories are interesting informing 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 canids that hunt as a pack.

I believe this has some fundamental flaws, on the dump at chake chake, where these village dogs had better resources, then hierarchical and resource disputes broke out far more often, dominance status and rank allowed the top dogs to get the richest pickings and I believe that is where his theory starts to show some anomalies.

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.

Barry Eaton has also written an interesting book called Dominance “Fact or Fiction” which is very readable and makes some interesting points but unfortunately did nothing to convince me that dogs have nothing in their psyche that could be related to the “Dominance” or “Status”.

Our domestic dogs are always competing for resources, we in some cases are the resource, hierarchical disputes do break out. 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 and outdated and irrelevant, but sympathising does not mean that I agree with their arguments or their logic, which I believe to be seriously flawed.

Advances in our learning and scientific studies have shown that our previous knowledge base did not give us the full picture, and was based on studies that were at best incomplete and at worst totally incorrect in their findings. 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. The advent of clicker training has proved a revelation to many of today’s obedience and behavioural trainers. The style of training that insisted that the dog should be subservient and that reward or treat based training is bribery is fortunately now dying out in many areas, though their is still places and organisations that believe it is the only way to train.

But 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
Monday, 20 March 2006