SimpleThunda said:
Proverbial Jon said:
No. Just that there is no such thing as dominance and hierarchy within wolves/domestic dogs.
Could you then briefly explain as to why and how someone concluded this is the case?
Simply saying "dominance is a human trait" is not going to cut it, because there's 100s years of research that has proven quite the opposite.
Your last paragraph (of your big post) makes me think that you deny heirarchy because you percieve it as being cruel.
The fact is, domination doesn't have to go through force. Actually, it -shouldn't- go through force.
It should go through acceptance that you are the better leader.
You're quite right. My arguing specific points isn't really helping any. OK, so this is the most recent thinking the way I understand it:
The first research that was carried out on wolves in order to study their social interactions was performed on wolves in captivity. There are three main points that make this significant:
1) Captivity is not a natural setting, however much it tries to simulate one.
2) The wolves existed in a limited space with physical boundaries, unlike the real world.
3) The wolves would not have all been from the same family, they were taken from many places and were likely strangers to one another.
This artificial and unnatural setting caused behaviours to develop that today we use to typify the notion of dominance. Namely challenging other individuals for food or mating partners. No doubt the study of these behaviours gave rise to the idea of a dominant individual and those that ranked below him.
But many years later, when it was possible to study wolves in their natural habitat, it was discovered that everything we thought was wrong. Wolves certainly lived in groups, in "packs", but these groups were family units. Usually a breeding pair (mum and dad), their children and possibly a previous year's offspring and siblings of the breeding pair. Not only was their relationship familial but it was also cooperative rather than antagonistic; cooperation was more conducive to their survival. They would work together to hunt food and there would be no fighting over scraps because there was usually more than enough to go around. If any priority was given to any single individual it would be the youngest, they would eat first because their need was greatest, the breeding pair (parents in this case) would often eat least because of this.
When the offspring came of age and were ready to mate they didn't challenge their father or any other pack member for breeding rights. This would have been counter productive because even wild animals try to avoid mating within the family where possible. Instead they would simply leave the group to form their own pack elsewhere. This was something the captive wolves were unable to do and was the source of much of their aggression towards their pack.
Why am I going on about wolves so much? Well, everything we know about domestic dogs is based on our understanding of their closest cousins. For years we have believed that wolves work under a structured hierarchy, that the alpha male presides over the omegas. That there is a constant power struggle between pack members. We also believed that our own pet dogs saw us as part of their pack and treated us in much the same way.
The truth is that domestic dogs are nothing like wolves, even the breeds that most closely resemble the wolf on a genetic level have endured thousands of years of physical and environmental change, resulting in an essentially completely different species. Dogs aren't stupid, they know we're not dogs. So if we're not dogs how can we possibly be part of their pack, part of their family?
With it established that wolves don't work under a social hierarchy and that their interactions are cooperative rather than antagonistic, we must look at the domestic dog. In wolves the pack is simply a family unit formed to better survive the outside world. What does a domestic dog need with a pack? They have food, water, warmth and shelter all provided. They don't need to survive. The whole theory of dominance just falls apart with the application of the new research.
So let's look at a typical example: the dog that growls when you go near his food bowl or any form of food he is easting. Many people would say that this dog is being dominant, that you should control everything in your home. They would insist that you withhold food, that you only feed after your own human meal time to show him that YOU as master eat first. They will also say that you should be able to take your dogs food away without him challenging you.
Wow. OK, well firstly the dog won't give two hoots about whether you feed him before or after yourself because we've already established that they don't have a hierarchy system. HOWEVER, Food aggression in dogs is a real thing, it's known as resource holding potential (RHP). RHP is basically the amount a dog values any particular resource, be it food, a toy or a comfy place to sleep like the sofa. If a dog wants a particular resource enough, if his RHP is high, he will guard said resource. Why should he be given cause to guard it? Because every time he begins to eat some well meaning but misinformed owner snatches the food away. What is the dog to think of this? Next time the owner comes near the bowl he will defend his resource because he has been given reason to doubt and fear the owners presence. This is not dominance. He does not think he's better than you, he does not want to control you. He simply wants his food left alone. Besides, this dog might display this reaction to food but be absolutely fine with you removing a toy from his mouth or telling him to get off the sofa. A true "dominant" dog would challenge you on every one of these counts.
You asked before why I think dominance based training is cruel. If dogs worked under a social hierarchy system I'd say that sort of training was probably exactly what was needed. But we now know that they do not. I've heard some people say that you need to grab your dog, turn him on his back and literally lean over him to dominate him and show him who is boss. This idea is horrifying.
The dog in that situation doesn't understand what you want. You are not a superior to him, you are not a family member. You are another creature that lives with him and provides for him, often loves him. Now suddenly you have turned, you are displaying aggression for no reason, unprompted. This will make him scared, wary and constantly unnerved. He will not trust you and this may cause him to growl or bite next time. When that dog is forced to act this owner will think his dog is trying to challenge his authority and he will probably step up his dominance regime, further breaking the bond and damaging the dog.
The fact of the matter is that dominance cannot exist without a social hierarchy. Dominance infers one ruling over another, so without that structure dominance cannot realistically exist. If we accept the new research and understand that wolves do not have a social hierarchy, then dominating your dog is at best a waste of time and at worst a damaging and barbaric practice. The biggest problem with dominance is the way it can be all too easily assigned as a do-all answer to every problem. It's ingrained within our very culture now. For example:
You might recognise this as a submissive gesture, something a dog does when he meets another dog that he deems of "higher status."
Submission is the opposite of dominance and is therefore out the window. In truth it's known as an appeasement gesture, as gesture performed by a dog to literally appease the other dog. This dog is nervous or fearful of the other dog and has presented his most vital areas (the neck and abdomen) as a peace offering to the other dog. "I come in peace, I lay down my arms. I mean you no harm, please do me no harm." This is not a form of submission, it's a simple social cue to another dog that he is not a threat. Whether you see this behaviour or not depends entirely on the individual level of socialisation that either dog has received.
And yet, to some parties, this could still indicate that the alpha/omega dynamic is alive and well.
Sorry, that wasn't at all brief like you asked and probably doesn't explain anything coherently at all!
For further reading I highly recommend this article:
http://www.apbc.org.uk/articles/why-wont-dominance-die which also lists many of the references which have contributed to my current understanding of the situation.
