I've been doing extensive research on pack theory lately and I find it fascinating. I've also been reading alot about "calming signals" (body language dogs use to communicate submission). I'd like to know what you think? Does pack theory really work or is it misleading and doesn't apply to our pets? What about calming signals? Do you think they are effective?

The whole pack theory is fascinating, and there will be plenty of people who have their own views, adopted because of the way they live with their dogs, various successes and failures, etc.

Personally i don't follow the pack theory any more, in the sense that I don't bother about dogs on chairs, (well I did start off not allowing dogs on chairs, but to be honest i decided I liked to cuddle them in comfort :o)going before me through doors, etc....I have successfully broken all these rules, had dogs sleeping on my bed all their lives, and had a great relationship with those dogs, and plenty of others have done the same.

In my view, what matters far more is the abillity to be a good leader, and to have good control of the dog, and for the dog to have manners. For some, it is easier to instigate the pack rules because it does give boundaries and the dog knows what's what. In some families it may even be much fairer on the dog to do this, as it does give the dog some structure to its day, with no confusion.

I do feel dogs have a hierarchy between themselves, but then again I feel we may often misinterpret what we see.

Did you read the recent work done on wolf packs in a natural environment? Apparently previous work done, on which a lot of pack theory was based, was on captive wolves, which tend to have different pack structures and habits to genuine wild wolves.

I also feel that some dog breeds are much more susceptible to pack theory than others; gSD's seem to respond very well for example.

RE hierarchy in dog packs, I tend to feel that a lot depends not only on the individual dog, but on th e resources available and so on......I still think we have much to learn and that we can miss so much subtlety. One problem we as humans have is understanding the relationship dogs may have between themselves. So often i hear people saying "This is the dominant dog..." when in fact that dog is the middle ranking one, fighting because he or she is unsure of their position....and so on. Using the pack theory in a misunderstood way, could then lead to more problems.

I've read Turid Rugaas on calming signals, but not anybody else. I sometimes use her methods with dogs but not very often, I do feel they work. My pal who is a dog warden had to get hold of a very scxared and snappy dog and used her calming signals, and said she is certain they made a big difference :)

What are your views on pack theory? :)

JMO

LIndsay

Lindsay,
I agree with a lot of what you said :) Esp. about the individual dog and the various breeds having more/less of the pack theory applied. :)

I also have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the time, it doesn't affect the dog/human relationship as much as everyone thinks :) Seriously.... there are leadership roles the owner has to fulfill in some way where a dog can learn and rely on his owner. But they're fairly generic and similar to a micro manager at work ;) :)

However, pack theory is based on the supposition that the owner is replacing the Alpha male/female in an canine hierarchy...and the dog views that person as no different from another dog.

Well, speaking for myself, all the dogs I've known realize that humans are not just hairless dogs ;) We don't 'talk' right. We don't greet them right. We don't smell like another dog. And we certainly don't act like they do. Heck, we can't figure out many times who exactly is a pack leader vs. a middle dog by observation :rolleyes: Dogs aren't dumb. I think they've figured it out by now :)

For instance: What's the first thing that dogs do when meeting up with one another? Do the alternating sniff butts and posture around thing. Well, even when I've dealt with loose strays, my butt was never bothered by a dog. At the most, my feet or hands were sniffed, but that was about it ;)

They're perfectly happy that we are not like them. They accept us for what/who we are (which is much better than I can say than for people in general :D )

I think that as long as the owner sets some type of rules system, especially when dog is puppy....and keep to it for some time, the majority of dogs will do quite fine in it :)

It's a type of 'Lateral Leadership' position, not really a substitute for the specific alpha :) So you don't have to act exactly or anywhere near what an actual dog does to gain the 'leadership' role... just make things clear that the dog is not in charge of the 'pack' of the household. Instead it's the owner who does some of the traits of the alpha, but not all are required.....like regurgitating food for pups :P :rolleyes:
hmm, I hope I'm making sense
toodles

HI Sara :)

Totally agree with you too, especially the bit about dogs realising that humans are not just hairless dawgs.I'm glad as, much as I love my dog, I don't really want her to sniff my butt, or for me to be expected to sniff hers LOL :D

Lindsay

Lyndsey, I was pleased to read your post, you echo my thoughts exactly. All my dogs have always got on the sofa/bed with me, even new rescue dogs, without any problems, in fact I find they form a close bond much quicker.
As far as the pack hierachy is concerned, I do believe that a lot of people misread this, they think that the most aggressive/dominant dog should be pack leader. In fact I believe there are very few true Alpha dogs, they are not the ones that fight or throw their weight about, they are the ones quietly watching, ready to sort out trouble if necesary, true alpha dogs rarely start a fight within the home pack & can stop one with just a quiet approach and a certain look, a truly amazing thing to see. Ingrid

Hi Ingrid, agree about the pack leader being quietly watching, and that the control a good one exerts, without appearing to do much, is amazing. I think you can often spot a future pack leader/high ranker from early puppyhood because they already have something different about them, but I can't describe what it is. Confidence, fearlessness and intelligence all come into it, but there is more - an attitiude, the way the pup/dog carrys itself - that I can't describe in human terms.

Agree with the others that it's a daft dog that doesn't know humans are a different species. They may be useful for a problem dog but I've never bothered with the standard behavioural stuff about not letting dogs on furniture, humans going through doors first, feeding humans first etc.

I think that the most we humans can do is gain a very basic knowledge of how to 'speak dog', and suspect that dogs interpret human voice and especially non-vocal signals far better than we understand their communication. Even if a human had perfect understanding of canine communication, humans just don't have the anatomy to 'talk back' in any but the most superficial way. I'm a bit suspicious of transferring observations of wolf packs to domestic dog packs en masse too. The more I read about wolf pack behaviour, the more I'm convinced that while established dog packs may have some similarities, thay have plenty of differences too. (It may be different with 'casual' dog packs, eg street dogs?). So while I don't know much about calming signals, I'd be chary of depending on them

I too agree about the pack leader being the strong silent one <g>; I fell in love with the leader of my breeders pack of BSd's, he was huge, gorgeous, very hairy and never ever had a problem with any of the dogs (pack of 11, mostly BSds but one Afghan, one Rough collie and one Shih Tzu). He would happily share tous and bones but would just saunter over and take what he wanted when he wanted :)

HOwever! :D interestingly, I still don't feel i have it fathomed yet - because I know someone who has small dogs - Spitz's - and she is totally convinced her little black one is the pack leader, even though she swears a lot at the other dogs....!! After some discussion I had to agree with her, that her dogs react in a slightly different way again, because the leader is small and cannot rely upon intimidating physical presence, and so makes up for it by getting shirty from time to time.I believe her dogs are mainly Spitz's but she has a BC too.

Sharon i agree with what you say about transferring the wolf pack behaviour to domestic dogs, I've recently been reading a book called "Dogs" (great title!!! :D) which goes into all this in great detail, including up to date studies on street dogs in places where they have been tolerated for hundreds of years, and are still the genuine article. It' s a fascinating read and really makes you question much of what we tend to take for granted :)

LIndsay

To be honest Lyndsey, I don't really believe that all pet dogs have a pack leader, I know in my house the hierachy changes depending on who has something they want. The littlest makes the most noise and is normally totally ignored by the other 2, they all take things off each other, feed from the same bowls, & sleep together.
I've only ever had one true alpha dog and he had such a presence it was amazing. Ingrid

Wow, I have to say im surprised with the exceptional knowledge everyone possesses on the subject.

I can't say i disagree with any of the opinions everyone has posted, Ingrid especially.

I particularly agree with the fact that the alpha dog does not need to excercise physical dominance over their pack. It's my opinion that whoever controls the food, water, toys, and basically whoever has power over the basic needs and resources has control over the rest of the pack.

I also believe that dogs have a "social ladder" consisting of three levels. I refer to the top level as, alpha status; the middle level aspiring alphas; and the bottom of the ladder as either adolescent pups or accepted substandards.

Allow me to elaborate on why I chose the names I did. The top level is pretty obvious. Whoever reaches that level is the Alpha dog. I also tend to agree with the fact that the alpha dog rarely exhibits any aggression towards it's other lower counterparts. To do so would be lowering it's status on the ladder because only aspiring alphas tend to quarrel. Thus the name "aspiring alphas." They are always unsure of their position and therefore incessantly bicker with each other in an effort to determine their position in their social heirarchy. Accepted substandards are the dogs at the bottom of the ladder. I entitled them with this name because i believe they accept their position as followers. Pup adolscents also fall under this category because they have no choice. They are usually smaller, inexperienced, and mentally inept at this point in their lives ( in comparance to their adult counterparts that is).

However, these are simply my beliefs and not written law or facts. I derive my information from what i've researched and from what i've observed. Pack theory is a very controversial subject and that is why i decided to post it. That is why it's called pack theory instead of pack law. For example, the alpha dog does not necessarily have to be a male. Furthemore, gender plays a substantial role in pack theory. For example, i believe that in a dog pack there is a alpha male and an alpha female. This pair is usually the pair to mate. This makes sense because according to the concept of natural selection under which only the most competent individuals of a species live to reproduce and give birth to their offspring. Thus, ensuring the survival of the species and moving closer to perfection.

In addition, in regards to the issue of whether or not you should allow the dog on the bed with you, I have mixed feelings. I feel it's effective only when dealing with a particularly aggressive or power hungry dog. This communicates to them that they are not the leader, and therefore, are not allowed on certain furniture without permission. When the dog finally realizes that it needs your permission, he has no choice but to either consent to your rules or blatantly defy you. If he defies you, he gets locked in the cage. Eventually, he will pick up the association of being defiant with being isolated. Eventually, the dog may be allowed on restricted areas as he gradually corrects his behavior. I feel this disciplining tactic works so well because a great deal of learning occurs through association in dogs. However, they also learn through example and trial and error, even though this usually takes substantially longer because most dogs do not have advanced reasoning skills like humans possess.

However, I don't feel this style of discipline is often necessary. However, I never allow my dog out the door without sitting, eat without sitting, play fetch without sitting, etc. It's just common manners that every dog should learn. Furthermore, this CLEARLY communicates leadership to your dog. In effect, eliminating any confusion or mistaken identity that may arise. By forcing your dog to comply to your rules you are effectively controlling the resources and therefore clearly communicating your leadership to the dog. Hence, successfully incorporating pack theory to your advantage.

These are but a few of my beliefs on the subject, yet, i'm very new to the notion of pack theory. Thus the reason i started this discussion. I'd like to learn more about the subject, and therefore encourage any feedback from anyone. Let me know what you think! = )

HI BullBoxer4Life

I do feel it can be a very good thing, as you have said, to ask a dog to Sit or at least to do something for you, before you do something for them :) It's a part of the nothing in life is free policy and can be very good for pushy dogs. I tend to use this with my current youngster, but have not had to particularly implement it in the past, or at least I don't remember doing so anyway :)

I['m starting to realise more and more now that we need to be very flexible in our approach to what is going on with our dogs, and to really lose preconceptions and try to access some of the wonderful subtlety and language that dogs display, and to interpret that correctly.

It seems that so much depends on the breed, environent etc that maybe there can be no real hard and fast rules....???

JMO

Lindsay

Hi Ingrid, I agree that the hierarchy varies depending on the 'subject', with a very food/toy/comfort orientated dog ranking - or appearing to rank :-) - much higher when those things are in dispute, but I've always had a very definite overall leader. Even the inept and now superceded male's position was quite obvious. I wonder if this comes down to the number of dogs, or if it is breed related?

HI Ingrid

In spite of what i have said about hierarchy in packs i do believe that the pack leadership for some may be very fluid/fluctuating, and that much may depend on the resources available at the time, too :).

Ongoing research at Southampton university apparently shows that different breeds of dog organise their pack structure in very different ways, and that what is important to one seems to be unimportant to another. So I suppose that in certain homes, the dog pack may be very laid back about everything and have no real need of a leader (except the human one <g>).

My experience seems to be similar to yours, not that I have ever had very large packs, 3 being the biggest! Very occasionally the male Terv would nick a bone off the bitch, but then she would run to the door and bark, and he just HAD to see if there was anyone there...and lost his bone, and this time she kept it ;)

Lindsay

Our ESS lived with up to 7 Sibes and she never really understood their pack hierarchy....the Sibes all understood it perfectly and she was just sort of there if you know what I mean :D

That illustrates it all perfectly Sara :)

Lindsay

Hi Lindsay, I think the way dogs behave in packs is fascinating :-). I tracked the book down despite the title, and have ordered it (Dogs - A New Understanding of Cannine Origin, Behaviour [$ Evolution by R Coppinger] pub University of Chicago Press; ISBN 0226115631 if anyone else is interested). My now 'retired' previous pack leader is male, but all of the others have been bitches and I've only ever known one male top dog (belonging to someone else) that was any good at the job. That's what started me thinking about how accurate observations on wolf packs are when transferred to stable domestic dog packs. I have mostly giant breeds, so interested to hear if anyone has the same experience as your friend with small dogs.

HI Sharon

All i can say is that you will really love this book and find it absolutely fascinating :) Sorry not to have given the full title/authors, didn't know anyone would be that interested :D

Let us know what you think when you have read it :)

LIndsay

Sharon, I'd love to know where you have traced the book, I'd be interested in getting a copy myself, cheers Ingrid

Hi Ingrid, I found the full title via Google and ordered the book from amazon.co.uk for £9.12.

If anyone would like to do some research on pack theory try visiting google.com (a very strong search engine) and typing in "dog pack theory" in the search box. You will get about a dozen very reliable sites after the search. You will recieve a variety of different opinions on the controversial subject. It's up to you to decide what version you want to believe in. Good luck!

Seems from the google links that for some operant conditioning (plus psychobabble) is coming 'in' and behaviourist pack theory is going 'out'. The world does move in circles :-).

Hi

Did you find it easy to read Coppingers book?  I have read it but found it very 'dry' in parts.  He has a very different slant on pack behaviour to that which has gone before. Although I take on board a lot of what he says I do have trouble accepting ALL he says.  If I understand him correctly, he does not think that dogs and wolves share the same ancestor.  But from research work I've read, dogs and wolves have only 0.2% difference in the mitrochondrial Dloop (DNA) which has been traced back approx. 12,000 years to the same ancestor so it pretty darn close as far as I can tell!!

Hi Lindsay, thanks for mentioning the Coppinger book. I've had a quick first read through and agree that its fascinating. He makes a very convincing case for the evolution of the domestic dog and says a lot of things that made me sigh with relief at not being alone in doubting things so many dog books repeat as absolute fact. Think he took his arguments on closed stud books a bit far in places, but can't disagee with him on the basic contention. Also thought that he was maybe too clear cut on 'hard-wired' responses but I'll be helping an 18 and 20 day pup in the next litter to 'get lost' to see if mum retrieves the first and ignores the second :-).

The book left me frustrated that I couldn't discuss some of the contents with the author (always a good sign :-)). For instance on the 'hard-wiring' he suggests that breed motor responses are fixed and says for a hound they are:

Orient>> Mark>> CHASE>> GRAB-BITE>> KILL-BITE

I'd more or less agree with that, but if circumstances demand many hounds are quite capable of:

Orient>> Mark>> STALK>> CHASE>> GRAB-BITE>> Kill-Bite

I'm going to start on the second 'proper' read this evening and would be interested in your 'review'.

HI Sharon,

Sorry not to reply before, we have no central heating at the moment and only one portable fire,which is downstairs, and the computer room is freezin' .....!!!

I thought you would enjoythe book, I think what i like most about it is that there is a unique approach, because of the authors being biologists, and also very well travelled dog people. I feel it is very refreshing, challenging long held views, but also does leave the way open for new developments and because the authors are not totally dogmatic, but take on more of a questioning slant, I feel myself questioning them, which is what i like. I take it you have felt this way too :)

I was fascinated by Belyaev's experiments with the foxes which were selected for tame behaviour, and which exhibited coat changes, floppy ears and dog sounds which he was not expecting, in just 18 generations. I need to mull this over a lot more, in fact I need to mull the whole book over a lot morebecause there is so much to absorb and so much of it is new thinking based on what appears to be sound research and experience.

I love his description of living with Jane, his collie, and how it drives him mad. I'd like to send it to all prospective collie owners and say, this is what it is like, if you can cope, then you will be fine!

Did you notice his other pattern for hounds, on page 210, which is =:

Orient>>eye-stalk>>chase>>grab-bite>>kill-bite>>dissect>>CONSUME.

I did feel a bit out of my depth in some places but then I feel that is a good sign as it challenges the old grey matter ;) :)

I would love to hear about the 18 and 20 day pup "experiment" in your next litter, do let us know what you conclude, that would be very interesting.

<<The book left me frustrated that I couldn't discuss some of the contents with the author(always a good sign :) ) >>

Ray Coppinger was in Salisbury in April discussing and lecturing on his book...not sure if he will be around next year for a repeat.....

LIndsay

Hi Lindsay, saw the ref. on p 210, but skimmed over the section on 'walking hounds' on the quick read through. Once I saw otterhound, mink hound and wolfhound grouped together I knew I was going to have to concentrate on that bit on the second read :-). I saw a programme that touched on Belyaev's foxes ages ago, and dismissed it as typical TV distortion, but now I want to know more. Agree with you about Jane the collie. If the references to her were brought together it would make an excellent warning for unwary people thinking of getting a pet collie or other dog from real working stock. With any luck I'll have 18 and 20 day pups to "experiment" on in January, and will definitely post the results. If you ever hear that Coppinger is going to lecture in the UK, please let me know, because I'd do my best to attend.

I had heard of this book, but I think I'm definitely going to look out for a copy now
Anne

Hi Anne, I think you will enjoy it and find it a worthwhile read. It contains a lot of information but is easy to read because the author has a good writing style and illustrates the 'heavier' content with real-life anedotes and examples.

Hi Sharon,
That makes me even keener to read it as I like books that use case studies to give examples,
Anne

HI Sharon

<<If you ever hear that Coppinger is going to lecture in the UK, please let me know, because I'd do my best to attend.>>

I will certainly let you know if i do hear anything about it, Sharon :)

Lindsay

Interest is contagious, so I started 'looking around' to see what I could find online. Came up with:
Coppinger Interview
He's scheduled to speak at the Grey Wolf Conference Sept. 2003, Banff, Canada
His Faculty Biography at Hampshire College, Amherst, MA. provides an email address if you wish to directly contact him and ask questions. I'm sure he'd love to discuss his work :) :D

Thanks for that, Sara, I really enjoyed reading the interview :)

Lindsay

Yes I do think the signals work I use some of them and people can not believe that I can get my dogs to do things just by pointing and not saying anything to them. I started useing them when a friend of mine who is deaf used his sign language to get my rottys to do things, so I watched him. I can get them to calm down, sit, stand, lay, roll over, jump, beg, go to there bed and many more things, so if i were you id give it a go, it beats shouting instructions all the time.

DEBBIE :D

I have been reading this subject with interest because there is another thread similar to this going on at Taking the Lead with Gill Minter on her website. I will be looking for the book mentioned. Anyone else interested in this subject?