I’m afraid I have reached the decision that I don’t believe in this “dominance” theory. I don’t believe in the “feeding after the family" thing, or the “going through doors first” thing, or the “never let your dog on the sofa” thing. I have done all of the above and I have never had seen any of this dominance theory (I do have a hairy sofa though – not doing that again! lol). So, is it a big campaign started by behaviourists to justify their existence, or, do you really believe in it? When a dog is on the sofa and he growls when you try to get him off, is that “dominance” or does he just not want to get off?!

Thoughts please – do you believe in dominance or not?

Edit - I am talking dog-human relationships here, not dog-dog

Erm ..am I being dim here or did you say you have DONE all those things? 'Cos surely , if you have done them , then you WOULDN'T have had any dominance issues ...would you?

Sorry if I have copped hold of the wrong end of the stick ;)

Melody

But as you are asking ..then yes , I do believe in the dominance theories ..I also know that some dogs just are not dominant and others are VERY dominant

lol... I see your point... no, i mean I have let my dogs on the sofa and not follwed any of the other rules - Willis eats at the same time we do - although not at the table obviously :D

To be honest, no I don't go for this dominance theory that is so fashionable at the moment. I can understand that occasionally a pup is particularly bolshy, but they are very few and far between - one in a hundred, maybe? My dogs get off the furniture when we say "Oy - off!", (maybe with a mutter as they settle on the floor!); they generally eat before us, then they settle on the floor or in their beds when we eat.

But then I've never felt the need to 'prove myself the boss'.
:)

I think dogs used to be trained very much after a military fashion and then we had Barbara Woodhouse and it really started off the whole idea that pet dogs too could be trained :) There were lots of different ideas, one was that a dog was "dominant" if it basically did something the owner didnt want. So the idea then was to be physically dominant, because after all if one's dog was dominant what else was there to do?

It was as fare as i know John Fisher who researched and came up with the pack leader ideas of keeping the dog off the sofa etc, but this was I feel because he wanted people to understand dogs as pack animals who had a hierarchy like the wolf and that it wasn't necessary to be physically dominant over a dog to get a response and have a well trained family companion.

JOhn himself changed his views before he died, felt that perhaps all was not so clear cut as he had first thought. But he didn't have time to write about this as he died from a brain tumour in 1997 :(

Now there are lots of people and scientists/behaviourists currently who have researched dogs, village dogs, pet dogs, and both Southampton Uni and other places have done extensive research on the whole dominance thingy. A book that discusses much of this is the one bu the Coppingers', called "Dogs: a startliing new understanding...."

My view is that true dominance is about mating, and as dogs know we aren't other dogs there is no reason for dominance in that sense ..... :D I do feel there are certain bolshy individuals but with training the problem can be solved. I agree I don't think it is about dominance, if a dog is bolshy, but more like a "Kevin" thing. I mean, do we call children "dominant" when they are being naughty and pushing at the boundaries......?

It's a very interesting subject and for me the jury is out re. dogs and hierarchuy between themselves.... i feel that can be very fluid rather than fixed, although Southampton Uni I think it was did say that in their research Northern breeds tended to be much more pack/hierarchy orientated.....

I look forward to the next 10 years of research and knowledge gained,. it will be fascinating :)

Lindsay

That’s interesting Lindsay.

I think what worries me is the effect that all the dominance theories have on people with new puppies. I think they are so desperately trying to make sure they don’t have a dominant pup, ergo dominant dog, that they miss out on all the fun in puppyhood. Would be interesting to know how many pups are handed over to rescue with tales of dominance and aggression, when perhaps most of them are displaying typical “Kevin” puppy behaviour?

Do you mean dominance being different from pack leader tho ?

Daisy

I think I mean both to be honest... is there any need to be "pack leader" if your dog sees you as "owner" and knows his place in the family?

I agree that there is so much mention of "dominant pups" that the responsible new puppy owner is scared stiff and takes no pleasure in the puppy. It's all 'proving I'm pack leader' all the time. This was never done when I was a child, and our family dogs no worse behaved - probably better, because they were taken out and about more, and were an accepted part of life!
:)

Hi chloe

I have always done the pack leader thing. All the things you mentioned above. I believe it works. My dogs always wait for me to decide directions or which door etc they never go first and they dont beg for food and they dont go up on the seats. The only exception I make to the rule is when either myself or my wife get up in the morning the dogs are alowed to come into the bedroom and jump all over the bed for a few minutes. I never reward my dogs for good behaviour as I expect good behaviour all the time. I send them to there corner for bad behaviour though and they know they have done wrong. I know it sounds tough but my dogs are happy and very rarely get told off as they do what they are meant to almost all the time. I do give them treats when I feel like it but not for being good. They see me as the pack leader and accept it without question as its the way it always was and thier life is easy for it.
I think with certain game type dogs you have to be the pack leader due to the dogs strong will.
You are probably right in saying that a lot of people get dominance and normal cheeky puppy behaviour mixed up.

Regards Mick

I think it is important to remember, with this 'pack hierarchy' theory, that in prehistory, when Man and Dog started living in closer contact with each other, that many of the traits of adult wolves were totally unacceptable. Therefore the ones that displayed the most dominant/fierce/unsafe tendencies were not allowed to hang around. It was the more amenable ones that were kept.

Gradually over the millenia this same selection has taken place, so that most breeds of modern domestic dog have been neotonised to the extent their behaviour is very different to that of adult wolves. Their adult mentality is more on a par with the ancient cubs. And the cubs do not challenge the leadership!
:)

Um ..JG ..what does *neotonised * mean? I looked it up on Dictionary.com ..and it didn't know what it was either :)

Bred to retain juvenile characteristics. To retain puppy-like looks and behaviour. Which is why many breeds have pendant ears and like to play.
Edit: Sorry, I spelled it wrong - it should be "neotenised" :o
:)

Hi JG

This may be the case with many breeds. However there are still breeds that have the ancient prey/dominence thing and this is where the problem comes. Certain breeds need a dominant leader. This doesnt mean frightening the dog into doing what you want, it means showing it that you are much more clever and able to lead in a manner that makes the dog secure in the knowledge that it is safe to follow you and do your bidding without question, as well as the fact that you are also stronger and superior. This is why I dont recomend my dogs to anyone, as I dont know if they are cpable of proper control. You would be surprised at the level of my dogs behaviour without me having to say or do much in others company and they are only 11 months and 17 months. I dont realy believe in dog behaviourists, only in common sense.

mick

It is a subject that is hard to get ones head around sometimes (m, and i will insist on replying to things like this at silly oclock in the morning, which doesnt help!).

I dont think its a yes or no answer, its not that type of question.

I find the comparison between dogs and young children a very good one (sorry if i offend any parents here, i am not one) they have many similarities, and certainly at a very young age, a big similarity between the two species is the lack of ability to clearly communicate with adult humans.
So if you take a young dog, who has found it rewarding to lie on the sofa, or to steal food, or barge through doorways first, you will indeed find certain people, some of them calling themselves behaviourists, who will say that it is 'dominance', although what they most frequently mean is 'attempted dominance'. (If it were actual dominance the dog would be allowed to do these things unhindered by the owner).
If you take a 3 year old child, who lies on the sofa, steals food, or barges around the house, would you see that as dominance? Well, I certainly wouldnt, i would view it as a child who had no manners, or, a child for whom the behaviours it was performing were more rewarding than the behaviours it was expected to perform.

But, as we all know, dogs are not children, and children are not dogs.

That said, dogs are not wolves, and wolves are not dogs too. So, to base our theories on how dogs interact with humans, on how wolves interact with other wolves is, in my opinion silly.

As mentioned in a previous post, dogs are a 'puppy' version of the wolf (that is a very simplified version of it, they are in fact a distinctly different branch of the evolutionary tree from wolves and are NOT direct descendants). So to make a fairer comparison, we should really be looking at how wolf cubs interact, rather than how adult wolves interact.

If we do this, we can see a lot of comparisons, wolf cubs lick around an adult wolfs mouth as an act of appeasement, and to ask for food.
Dog puppies do this too, both to older dogs, and to humans.
But, ADULT dogs do this as well, whereas the adult wolf grows out of this behaviour the domestic dog does not.

So that at first glance would lead one to believe that dogs do treat us as other dogs. But look at it more closely. How else CAN they interact with us???

Dogs must use the communication devices they have, barking, biting, yapping, whining, mouthing, licking, pawing, rolling over, facial expressions........ In the same way that we try to get them to understand our very different body language, and vocal sounds.

Here is an example of my own dogs, and my cat.

My dogs know that the cat is not a dog. The cat treats teh dogs in a manner that the dogs would not allow from another dog. He sits on them, he holds their heads down with a paw, and washes them. If they were NOT capable of the understanding that the cat is NOT a dog, then they would balk at this treatment, and retaliate. But they dont.

Both the dogs and the cat can only use the languages they possess, but they are capable, i believe of understanding that not everyone communicates in that way.

Therefore, i beleive that whilst a dog can and will attempt to communicate with us as it would another dog, it knows that we are NOT dogs.

And, on that basis, since we are NOT dogs, and we are NOT competing for food/mates etc, there is no real reason for dominant behaviour.

BUT, and this is a big but. Man hath meddled, as man is wont to do. And there are, as Mick says, dogs out there who are more likely to get away with becoming a dominant dog, than others.
This, i suspect, reflects more on a humans lack of understanding than a dogs. Dogs do things because they are good, they are rewarding.
Humans do as well, but humans find a lot more complex things rewarding than a dog does.
There are people out there that enjoy dominating others, the bully at work, the man who beats his wife, for two examples. They find these behaviours rewarding in a way that a dog could never begin to comprehend.

Having previously said, that there is no real reason for dogs and humans to compete, there is one reason.

That reason is because an owner has given the dog a reason.
My personal belief is that the majority of dogs who really are dominant, are the smaller terrier types. The ones who are easily forgotten as being dogs, but are viewed as maybe a child substitute, or a 'toy'.
These are the snappy yappers, who defend chairs, toys, food, prevent their owners from leavin the house, prevent guests from entering etc. These dogs have found it extremely rewarding to behave in a basically obnoxious way, and are in fact dominating the owners.

That said, that is not the dogs wish, the dog does not think '''mmmmm, i shall dominate my owners as i wish to be boss' it is more a case that the owner has given the dog the impression that he is the boss, and must act as the boss, and the dog has been rewarded for behaving in such a manner.

The reason that this happens more commonly in small dogs, is that basically owners are much more likely to put up with it. If it were a dog the size of a GSD behaving in that manner, then a few bites down teh line, and its a one way trip to the vet!

So, my conclusion (since im still trying to sort this out in my own head) is that dogs are not naturally 'dominant' towards people. But, a 'people dominating' dog can be CREATED by its owners.

I think most people will find that the average 'dominance reduction program' will work, simply because it instills good, well mannered behaviour in a dog.
Because there are so many different breeds, bred for such different purposes, from the tiny companion dogs, to the huge molosser types, and the gangly sighthounds, they all have different drives or urges, and will need owners with differing personalities. Somes dogs have very strong willed characters, others are more accepting of the owners wishes.

Mick? would you think that this change of your sentance means the same thing?

you said ' Certain breeds need a dominant leader.', if i change that to 'Certain breeds need a firm and positive owner' would that not mean the same thing?
The very word 'dominant' brings to mind all kinds of power struggles and nastyness. I certainly wouldnt disagree, that certain types of dogs, and individual dogs do need a firmer handler than others.

So, no, i dont think that dogs are dominant, or are trying to become dominant over people. But i do think that dogs need to have a firm, positive owner, who they will respect and obey. Without this, i believe the vast majority of dogs are unhappy, unguided, and this is in fact what causes a lot of the problems in the relationship between man and dog.

Em

Excellent post Em! Very much what i feel but you put it so much better :)

When research was done on the dominance reduction programme, it was discovered that some dogs got depressed, not all but a few. And the main conclusion was that if it does work (with some dogs) it is because the dogs basically know what is expected of them and for that reason are well behaved.

Lindsay

Hi Em,
Brilliant! If you're that good at silly o'clock, you must be s***-hot when you're awake!

I love your comparison of a dog with a small child (and I'm a parent!) - there are many similarities. They both need leadership, they both need training, they both need to be taught manners. And they can both be spoilt! I've known children who rule the roost at home, and the parent's life revolves around the child's wishes. The result is generally an unhappy and discontented child. I firmly believe the same holds true with dogs. But neither the child, nor the dog, is "dominant". They are only making the decisions because nobody else will - it's not a situation of their choosing - it's one that has been foisted on them.

I'm rambling. I'm going to have breakfast.
:)

You wont get an argument out of me on that one. You have put it down in a manner that makes sense to me, and you are right that dominance is not the correct word. Its used too often in the wrong context.

Mick

Em - excellent post :)

Superb, but I'm going to have to print it and sit down with a coffee :D

Julia

I agree with you, Em, also on the point you mentioned that the very word "dominant" has negative, aggressive overtones. To me it implies tyranny, despotism - even bullying. None of which I want to have anything to do with.

Perhaps if people were encouraged to exercise leadership rather than dominance the whole thing wouldn't be so misunderstood.

Just a thought.
:)

fasinating subject!!. how about the same breed of dog but with different characteristics(same as humans?). reef nearly always obeys first time. hamble (lying on the couch at the moment !)...studies me intently and then goes of and does her own thing anyway!!:o :o.bulldogs are renowned for their stubborness...i wouldnt call it trying to be dominant,,they just think it over....lol...and then decide...nope....not doing that!!.we havnt spoiled them(honest!) reef behaves like a star in the showring so we must be doing something right.

I know there are people on here who i respect who would probably refer to a dog as "dominant" and I understand why, but wonder too if it may in some cases just be a case of the wrong word being used.

I've just re-read that and it doesn't make sense! although i know what i mean ;)

Lindsay

:d :d :d .

Thats what worries me the most - and thats the reason I brought this up - a typical example being the thread from SueT "Who is the alpha dog?" or words to that effect... I just feel that this "alpha" business leads people completely down the wrong track, and in that particular case the poster was looking at her problem as one of dominance and not one of lack of training!

I often think that people should throw all these theories ('alpha', dominance, the lot) out of the window and just concentrate on training and enjoying their dog.
:)

Blimey, i made sense?

thats gotta be a first. Unfortunately, no, i make most sense at that time of day,a dn very little the rest of the time.

Em

Don't put yourself down, Em! :)

Cheers!

Yes, 'dominant' is the wrong word, i am struggling to find the right one though. That is what i mean by me not making sense, i know in my head what i mean, but for various reasons, find it hard to pick the right words to say it.

Em

maybe too many ilegal substances em

lol, word gets round dunnit! tee hee, no no, im a good girl! And i dont drink the alcohol!

Em (ITS A CIGARETTE!!!) :D

Hi Em

I know from experience.

Mick

Hi, I agree with a lot of what has been said, but I do want to make a teeny point!! I think the word 'behaviourist' is as much misused as the word 'dominance'! People are talking as though dominance is a word trotted out by behaviourists who use jargon to con money out of people.
I think the problems come when any idiot can read a Jan Fennel book, enrol in a distance learning course and call themselves a 'behaviourist' without ever going near a dog!!
A real behaviourist is just as practically experienced as they are academically, have the ability to look at things critically and analyse and question their own opinions and knowledge, know all the right questions to ask, are superbly knowledgeable in all aspects of dog behaviour and body language and can diagnose a problem and provide a treatment programme without using any jargon but by explaining things in english and by using common sense.

Hopefully this is all going to change because a new certification system is being set up, but until it does I do feel I need to make a distinction between behaviourists and those who just spout a few words they remember from their course to try and trick people into thinking they know what they're talking about.

Because of the very different way we are now living with our dogs, we need behaviourists more than we ever have done before, we just need to use our common sense and judgement when picking one.

regards,
Jo

Have to agree with you there Jo,

Also, i think that to be a particularly effective dog behaviourist, one would need to have an interest at least, if not a good working knowledge of human psychology, its no good trying to work out what goes on in an inter species relationship, if you only understand one of the species involved!

Em (who wants some of what Micks got! hehehe)