Home › Blogs › gcpets's blog

Dog Dominance NOT a Fact ?

Posted February 5th, 2010 by gcpets
in

I received this as a reply to a comment I made on a YouTube video:

neither wolf nor dog dominance is not a fact. Read dunbar, Coppinger, Mech, Semyonova, McConnell, McDevitt, Overall among others. Aggressiveness, yes, but not dominance. resource guarding yes, but the same dog (a) that guards a food resource against another dog (b), will have no problems vacating a sleeping place to dog b, if that resource is not important to him or if it is more important to dog b. So dogs themselves have no concept of dominance.

Thus really.. it is all about "drive" and finding the type of drive your dog has + using that to train?

Comments

re: Dog Dominance NOT a Fact ?

Aidan's picture
On February 5th, 2010 Aidan says:

It's become very popular amongst modern dog trainers to confuse the issues surrounding dominance just as traditional trainers did before them.

Let's begin with a definition: dominant - "exercising the most influence or control"

So if an animal, any animal, exercises the most influence or control over another they are the most "dominant" of the pair at that time. This does not mean that they will ALWAYS be the most dominant of the pair, or that if they go and do something else entirely that they will have any control or influence over the other animal, but it does mean that AT THAT TIME they are in the dominant position.

Dogs and wolves and every other organism will tend to repeat what works for them. If you put a bunch of wild wolves from different families in a confined space some of them will seek continued access to resources through violence and force.

This does not, as has been assumed in the past, mean that wolves are status-seeking organisms who are always trying to fight their way to the top. It just means that some of them will figure out that it's a good way to make sure they get fed, somewhere to sleep, and hopefully the chance to pass on their genes through copulation. Others will figure out that avoiding getting beaten up is their best chance of survival and play that role.

Put those same animals back in the wild and they rarely need to do that. They just find a nice guy or girl, settle down and make a few babies who they raise quite a bit like us humans do. This is what L. David Mech has observed in over 30 years in the wilderness as a research scientist:
http://www.positivepetzine.com/node/361

So do we subscribe to a "dominance theory" based on these observations of captive, wild wolves (that it turns out rarely applies to wild wolves) or do we apply the Law of Parsimony and accept the simpler explanation, Operant Conditioning and learning theory?

In the past we have created rituals in order to 'treat' dog behaviour problems using 'dominance theory'. No doubt this made us feel more confident in what we were doing, whether the rituals helped at all or not. When you don't know enough about something but want to believe that you have an answer you tend to fill in the blanks, it's how magicians succeed in fooling us in their shows.

Some of these rituals worked purely through operant conditioning, sometimes enough to actually solve problems (and many didn't work at all). There is a video of Cesar Millan kicking a dog in the bum then choking it when it turns and bites him. He describes the whole thing in terms of dominance, the dog was dominant, Cesar showed the dog who was boss and this removed the responsibility from the dog, allowing him to be in a calm and submissive state.

In Operant Conditioning terms we would say he elicited the response then punished it. He got the result he wanted, which reinforced his belief system (thus he repeats this approach).

The dog's owners, not knowing anything about operant conditioning, believed the story. They HAD to believe the story, their brains filled in the blanks for them. They are probably otherwise intelligent people but, seeking a solution to a serious issue and believing they have found one, they cannot see the gaping holes in CM's story, the failures of the most basic reasoning, and the horrific physical and psychological abuse that their dog suffered.

Regarding drives: yes, you should find what your dog finds motivating and use it. Remember though that ALL dogs must eat, all organisms work for food and food is a very convenient reinforcer. If a dog is not working for food there is something wrong, either they have eaten too much already or they are stressed or sick.

Sometimes it is more practical to use other reinforcers; e.g a sheep dog working sheep, why would you get them to run back for food when they love to work sheep and would do anything for the chance to work sheep? You take a sheep dog out to a mob of sheep and you have "established operations" for working those sheep, not eating dinner. It is similar with, say, some flyball dogs, mushing dogs etc. I have one dog who will ignore food if she is tracking, another who only tracks because there is food.

It all comes down to conditioning. Dogs tend to repeat what has worked for them in the past, remember that above all else regarding dog training.

Regards,
Aidan
http://www.positivepetzine.com

Dominance

Ginchen's picture
On February 8th, 2010 Ginchen says:

Hi Aidan,

Thank you for the answer re "Dominance". RE training I got my k....in a bundle because everyone told me I am not "bossy" enough and I should make clear who's the boss. A lot of people interefered, all of a sudden being all training experts. Turned out our "softie" style, with patience, consistency and food treats, works just fine.

We have two dogs and were watching them anxiously, trying to find out who the heck is the "dominant". Guess what: After 1 1/2 years, we haven't found out yet.

Sometimes Gina growls at Anton when he is too boisterous or wants her toy. Then Anton ducks down. Sometimes it's the other way round. So we stuffed all the expert books into the garden shed and go with what works.

By-the-way: They wait until we open the door and let us walk through first (which is awkward, you need long arms). We never trained them to do so. And we make a point of not watching dear Cesar.

>>We have two dogs and were

Aidan's picture
On February 9th, 2010 Aidan says:

>>We have two dogs and were watching them anxiously, trying to find out who the heck is the "dominant". Guess what: After 1 1/2 years, we haven't found out yet.<<

Hahaha, very good. I'm glad your brain didn't feel the need to "fill in the blanks" for you. No doubt others would claim to see which one was dominant and which one was not, and they might even be right for about a minute or two...

I prefer my dogs to go through doorways first, it's these darned "short arms" I have ;-) My rule is that they can't go through the kitchen or front doors without being asked first. Purely a practical matter.

Regards,
Aidan
http://www.positivepetzine.com

Back to top