I concur with Brad's observations regarding a difference in value system...I do believe this may be an important aspect. I remember reading about the conclusions of someone who had studied packs of dogs (not wolves, but dogs). If I can find the reference again, I will post it. Essentially, the males quickly established a hierarchy and they stuck to it. The females on the other hand, came along and thought that it was all "subject to amendment"!
While it made me chuckle, I then realized why it seemed so much easier to incorporate males (castrated or uncastrated) into the mix. Tuli is a classic middle-ranked squabbling female (she was spayed around age 5). By and large, the males I have are laid back and THEY JUST DON'T CARE THAT MUCH. About anything. So they will often relent about whatever it is she is hassling them about. If she encounters another female, particularly with a personality profile much like herself...there could be trouble because they are each "amending" the "rules" all the time! Amend, amend, amend! She can and has co-existed with other females, but the start is a bit tumultuous and it's not as smooth on a day-to-day basis. If I were to get another female Laika, I think I would prefer to make things easier for myself and opt for a puppy vs. an adult.
I have witnessed two bitches retain animosity for each other (think arch nemesis for life!) but overall I think these circumstances are rare. I think that the majority dogs that fight with another and do damage, regardless of sex, age, or breed, come out with the attitude that tomorrow is a new day. In Slimm's (Australian Cattle Dog) mind, a new day was just a new opportunity to figure out how to kill Bailey (Border Collie). Of course their owner managed things such that this opportunity never presented itself! I have no idea what their original complaint with one another was.
Overall, there are a myriad of influences and dynamics to consider with multiple dogs. Just keep in mind that they aren't democratic as a species and that there is not a ‘dominant’ dog and a ‘subordinate’ dog. Roles can change based on the context and the individuals involved. In many instances of fights between same-household dogs, I have noticed that one dog is clearly giving into the other dog but is still being attacked. The attacking dog almost seems to be ‘bullying’ the other by following her around and instigating a fight even there is no direct competition between the dogs. Maybe some dogs "enjoy" intimidating others? Or, it works for them. The other common scenario is fights seem to happen in high arousal situations such as greetings, although a stable hierarchy seems to exist. This is similar to rough and tumble play escalating into a fight.
SO this always confuses me- sincerely confused, not pushing buttons- If 'there is no dominant dog and subordinate dog,' how can we describe a dog as 'classic middle ranked'?
It is really convenient to use these words. Speaking casually and carelessly to someone I meet on the street, they will know what I mean quickly if I said Reilly is a 'dominant female, in the most positive sense of the term' but we all know dominance isn't the right word because it implies assertive action like rolling and intimidation that she doesn;t use and doesnt express the fluidity of various encounters in which she may be acquiescent or (in most cases) just plain disinterested. How is there rank without order?
Hi Chrystal I see your confusion point. Male dogs see things in terms of very precise social hierarchy. No ifs, ands, or buts. There is a ladder with the top dog at the top, and the underdog at the bottom.
When females come in they immediately make amendments to the simple male hierarchy rule. the first amendment is, “I have it and you don’t”, and the second one is “If you have it, I want it”. Males like hierarchy, but females, even low- ranking ones, can easily keep a bone away from a very high-ranking male.
So, there is sort of a "scale within a scale". Of my dogs: Reilly sounds like Guska...confident, benevolent ruler, smart. Unlikely to get in a ruffle. Triepak is pretty much on the bottom. He's OK being there and he's not making any moves. No coup in the household. Tuli is just a busy body. She's the one that does the humping, she's the one that gets everyone riled up and convinces Guska to play with her. She would like to make all the decisions, so Guska lets her think that she can. Tuli and Tangent (newcomer) are in the middle. That's where there is the most 'discussion'. "I'm the biggest hoarder." "No, I'm the biggest hoarder". "No - you can't hoard that yet." Growl, grumble, grump, circle, piloerected hair, snap, snarl, carry on...carry on. "Sarah's home - super exciting! We've been dutifully napping ALL day! Now it's time to argue over the Blue Octopus!" (Even though Blue Octopus has been lying on the floor unbothered for the past 8 hours.)
However, there is the "TULI ONLY" Squeaky Piggy. Triepak likes to lay on the couch. Guska doesn't come along and steal squeaky piggy, bump Triepak out of the way, and sit on the couch with him. He probably could, but he doesn't care enough about squeaky piggy or couch to do that. The social hierarchy serves to regulate which dog can have priority access to resources such as toys, food, favorite resting places and attention from the owner. The subordinate dog in the relationship tends to acquiesce to the other, and uses social signals such as looking away or avoiding the other dog in order to appear non-threatening. In many relationships however, there is not a ‘dominant’ dog and a ‘subordinate’ dog. Roles can change based on the context and the individuals involved. So despite the general hierarchy, one dog may be able to control the tennis ball, but the other always gets to lie on the bed.
I'll be back later...(work always gets in the way of all the fun I'd like to have!)
Sweet, this conversation is getting really interesting!
I'll add a few things:
Jess said: "To put it in human perspective, woman on woman fights have been documented often more violent than opposite sex scuffles or even man against man. But we don't fight just because we are women. Something has to inspire an act of violence."
Chrys followed it up with: "I have to get off my chest that I have about had it with the dog fancy / breeding community's "Not For You" hype machine overall."
I think, taken together, these two points are actually really telling about the "don't put two females together" question (the original question of this thread IIRC). In my limited observations, what Jess says is true. When there is an altercation, the intensity is higher between two dogs of the same sex than if they are different. Not a rule though, each dog is an individual. And the point is that at some point in your dog's lives they are likely to get into an altercation about *something*. Like Sarah suggested, a high valued sleeping spot, a favorite plush toy, maybe a pile of rabbit poo in the yard. *SOMETHING* will trigger a disagreement.
Now, add in the hype machine (which, BTW, I have to agree with Jess does play an important role. I've said before I'd rather steer potentially good homes away from my favorite breeds if I am able weed out all of the bad homes in the process...but I digress). The hype machine can be a tool to protect dogs (and unfortunately can also be a detriment to dogs for things like BSLs, but that's another digression). So, the hype surrounding same-sex aggression in certain breeds is probably a result of the following thought processes.
When two or more dogs live together, the potential for competition to spark an "argument" exists.
Arguments between two dogs of the same sex tend to be of greater intensity.
With higher intensity in arguments, the possibility for a real fight increases
Real fights are bad for the breed (and dogs) as a whole
Thus, warning potential owners against same-sex pairs is a way to reduce the chances for a breed damaging event (like a serious fight)
Point being. Yes, it's hype. But, it's not completely without a point behind it. It's up to you to decide if you're in a situation to manage things appropriately or not.
I think you make some excellent points about dynamic hierarchies. I have to agree with Chrys though, I think using classic dominance/alpha language to describe it is confusing. Perhaps changing your terminology would make sense. For example, you might say "assertive" rather than "dominant" or "appeasing" rather than "submissive". Those words I think are good descriptions of the behavior but aren't preloaded with an existing connotation from the alpha-dominance theory. There may be better choices, but I too don't have time to write a book right now. :-)
This has gotten interesting, seems I missed a lot.
I agree with Dave's (and others) point that conflict between same sex canine is more intense than opposite sex canine conflicts. I also agree that this is similar to us humans, and I think the obvious trigger/differential ingredient is testosterone (just like in humans).
I also agree with Dave's point on why breed hype exists, and, while I absolutely hate the propaganda and trash-talk that comes with the hype, I do agree that its original purpose was born from good intentions, it was just very poorly worded and/or created.
----
Chrys...
You asked: "What motivates same-sex aggression in dogs?" >> My response would be this:
The same things that motivate any dog-dog aggression.
The intensity may be higher in same sex fights, but I think the core triggers are the same as any dog-dog disagreements. In other words, excluding the guarding of an in-season female by a male dog (which is not an every day thing - females are only in heat ever 6 months and usually all the females that live together go in around the same time), same sex dogs don't fight over anything specific to their sexuality. And, IMHO, dogs don't fight over social hierarchy, the disagreements / fights are all triggered by the same basic set of things (usually resources) and, if a social structure actually exists, the outcome of the argument may be influenced by a social structure (but is not because of a social structure).
I've read that article several times in the past, and I read it again just now, and every time I read it I am left feeling 2 ways:
1) After I read it I have a general feeling that the people who ran that study (for 10 years) and the person who wrote that article didn't come to enough conclusions to actually publish anything of value. It seems to me they came to more questions than conclusions.
2) At what point should one abandon this "linear hierarchy" the article refers to? The article spends more time giving examples of where their "linear hierarchy" broke-down or changed. I mean, its like "Yes there is a linear hierarchy, except for this and that and this and that and this and that"... Why didn't they just concede that they really have not found a "linear hierarchy"? It either exists or it doesn't, it can't exist when it "feels" right and not exist when the concept breaks, ya know?
I've read that article a few times, and others like it, and it always ends with me feeling the same way.
That's where my original dislike for the Alpha/Dominance stuff came from. You read the old David Mech articles and find he spends lot of time saying 'the dominance based social structure can be "circular", or "linear", or "joint", but really, trust me, its a pecking order!'... Well, it either is a linear pecking order or it is not, it can't be linear, circular, and split/joint and still be linear.
Why can't everyone just agree that dogs for a "social structure", and then leave it like that. A social structure doesn't imply direction or system, it just implies that dogs can live in a society. A lot like humans!
I hate to be the guy that is always posting my annoying videos of my dogs to make a point but...
Here is a situation where things got a little too intense with our dogs, note who are the ones having the most conflict (Kona & Masha, male & female):
Another opposite sex issues:
Another example of mix gender arguing and same gender arguing (save for differences in personality, it pretty much looks the same among the difference and sameness in gender):
This is the perspective that I view the situation from, our group of dogs seem to be argue amongst themselves equally - no matter sex or race.
Very interesting overall. It does seem to me that the mix depends on the individual dog rather than the sex of the dogs...
I'd like to go back to the original poster's questions: how do breeders and others do it when they have to manage multiple dogs? It's great to see Brad and Jen's pack doing well together, but I wonder how common this is (and clearly, it takes a lot of effort and attention on the part of the people too). I'm wondering if a lot of breeders who have multiple dogs simply keep the dogs separate? (hence the need to ask a breeder how the dogs get along). And can dogs that have been kept separate be reintegrated? (Would depend on the individual dog, I imagine).
What about the idea from Dogstar daily article that pups have social structure established irrefutably by 8 weeks of age? What are your thoughts on that, and even if it is true, I'm wondering how useful it is for us to consider, since most pups are not going to stay within their litter, but are going to go on to join other packs. They'd have to relearn their place. In the end, I'm wondering how useful the idea of rank and hierarchy is for us in interacting with our dogs. (I know it exists, I'm just wondering how we can use that information).
I've always had a difficult time figuring out the pack structure in terms of my Shibas. Toby thinks he is the most assertive, for sure, but he does a lot of the posturing and growling of middle rank dogs. Bel's challenges to him were indirect--she usually let him have his way, except with one important resource--going in or out of the door, and thus greeting me (even though often that was less a greeting but just me being the door slave for the shibas). She often hung on him or nipped at him then, and he ignored her. (Their bad bad fight did occur at the door). Kai, my GSD, is clearly so low in the ranking that he never challenges either Shiba for anything, though I have noticed Toby lets Kai nip at him going in or out of the door. My perception of their ranking was Toby on top (though he was definitely more dictator than benevolent ruler) with Bel challenging him, and Kai quite secure in his place as most low-ranking dog. But even if I'm right about that, can this help me in managing them or in training them? Or is it just an interesting observation?
1) After I read it I have a general feeling that the people who ran that study (for 10 years) and the person who wrote that article didn't come to enough conclusions to actually publish anything of value. It seems to me they came to more questions than conclusions.
Ha! Imagine being the dude's graduate students!
2) At what point should one abandon this "linear hierarchy" the article refers to?
When the girl says so, Brad...when the girl says so!
All joking aside, at least it points out that their is fluidity in the social structure as well as the concept of relative importance. I think by that very virtue it dispels a bunch of the strict dominance theory, which is good. We can only observe what dogs do and by and large, they do a good job of working things out. It is our "language" and our human tendencies to inflict "fairness" that tend to get in the way.
It has also occurred to me that some aberrations in dog behavior may be the result of how dogs are now managed. Beyond "nature vs. nuture", the fact is that the majority of dogs are kept as solo pets or in pairs. Brad is a distinct minority with numbers around 15. So dogs that would be a total disaster in a pack scenario (quarrelsome bullies that end up injured or ousted or dead) live to ripe old ages in the comfort of their relative solitary lifestyle and even contribute their genes to future generations. I think you touched on this a bit, Brad when you were questioning how a breeder keeps her dogs. How do the dogs live/how are they mixed/how are they separated?
I'm going to flip that over and say that by the same token I think that certain dogs who live alone or in pairs may have fewer behavioral aberrations if they lived with more dogs. Sage is much more comfortable with his group of dog friends around him. I think he would be even crazier than he is, if he was an only dog and that a good pack is comforting for 'low rank' dogs. Some books contend that the humans are = dogs as packmates, but I think this only goes so far and that we are not quite dogs to them in the way that other dogs Matter. Two dogs can hang out in the yard doign dog things, but i am not in dog world 24 hrs a day like another dog would be, or take a hike doing things that matter to dogs, but the humans alongside are in another world. even well-intended humans who try really hard. We are in a different sensory plane and social plane that overlays the dog social plane. We've seen different movies.
Not to say an only dog can;t be happy- very many are very happy. But it depends on the individual personality. Maybe breed tendencies too- are foxhounds or beagles happier in a pack or alone? Is a pyrenees happier in a pack of dogs or alone? Are sheep really packmates, or like humans, a community? We know the LGD is bonded to them, raised among them, but I dont think they think of them the way beagles think of canine packmates/teammates. but a flock is good enough for a pyrenees companionship.
I totally agree Sarah, the article did do some justice to the dog community in helping to debunk the dominance ideas. Yea, I mean, don't get me wrong, I appreciate the study and the article and I think it does have value, I just find it odd how humans have such a strong need to compartmentalize everything... Dogs are social, they form social groups - some resemble a rudimentary society, some have a linear hierarchy, some don't. End of story.
It seems to me the dog is one of the most versatile and adaptive animals on earth, why is it so hard then to believe the dog may not always, like us humans, form exactly the same type of social structure?
That's really my stance on the topic of canine social structures: It varies from social structure to social structure. Perhaps some are more like a family, maybe others are linear, maybe some change constantly, some canine may be loaners, I dunno... but I do know it feels wrong try and give it an over-generalized label (like "Dominance Social Structure" or "Linear Social Structure") and then force it on all dogs - and the resulting inconsistencies from all the studies certainly reinforces my feelings. Ya know?
----
On the topic of dog management, this is a topic I find very interesting (I guess that is probably obvious). I get asked a lot if our dogs get along and I recently had a discussion with Dave, as he is planning to ad a few more pups to his family, and he was asking me about management.
I've kinda came to the conclusion that, yes, I can say all our dogs get along, but by saying that I may be over simplifying the situation. I mean, we have a few dogs that we can have in the same room and have no issues as long as they are supervised, but we would never leave them alone, and unsupervised, together... So, can I really call that "getting along"? I think I can, but maybe I shouldn't. (???)
That came up in conversation when I told Dave that Masha pretty much wanted to kill JJ when they were both in the house together, but they were fine outside together. That lead to the discussion of temperament management. That is what we do all day, we are constantly moving dogs from group to group based on their mood at that time - something triggers the guardians to get up set and really start guarding and we know its time to move Kona into a separate area from Luytiy. If Kona and Ahi are very playful we know we need to move Fuji to a separate area. Those are just 2 examples, but we literally have 100s of rules like that and we manage the dogs based on them. And so, how much of our success is management and how much is temperament?
I strongly believe that if dogs are not allowed to freely and openly coexist with each other, especially before they reach maturity, they cannot be expected to get along. I actually believe kenneling dogs, due to the amount of frustration that comes from that, creates a social deficit (the dogs never learn to be social) and therefore sets them up to fail. That is why Jen and I spend so much time moving our dogs around and making sure that each one spends time together so they learn how to get along (because I do not see dogs as animals that inherently do not want to get along).
I also think 15 dogs is WAY to many to expect to get along w/o conflict. A really safe number range, IMHO, is 5-8 dogs (depending on the size of the space). Some breeds may do better with a larger number (like huskies), other may not (like Shiba).
Ok, I have to go... Sorry Chrys, I want to write something about your points too - they are super interesting - but I have a meeting to go to. :oT
Interesting re: management, and is one of the things I was wondering....how do people manage dogs that might not get along? I have noted, also, that my Shibas that want to kill each other in the house are not interested in one another outside, and in fact, sometimes play quite well outside. (This was a discovery that came through an accident....somehow both were outside at the same time. I had a moment of panic, but they were playing well, and I just calmly called Toby in and that was that).
I also believe kenneling would be detrimental to their social growth, thus creating socially inept dogs who would not know how to interact with others.
Comments
While it made me chuckle, I then realized why it seemed so much easier to incorporate males (castrated or uncastrated) into the mix. Tuli is a classic middle-ranked squabbling female (she was spayed around age 5). By and large, the males I have are laid back and THEY JUST DON'T CARE THAT MUCH. About anything. So they will often relent about whatever it is she is hassling them about. If she encounters another female, particularly with a personality profile much like herself...there could be trouble because they are each "amending" the "rules" all the time! Amend, amend, amend! She can and has co-existed with other females, but the start is a bit tumultuous and it's not as smooth on a day-to-day basis. If I were to get another female Laika, I think I would prefer to make things easier for myself and opt for a puppy vs. an adult.
I have witnessed two bitches retain animosity for each other (think arch nemesis for life!) but overall I think these circumstances are rare. I think that the majority dogs that fight with another and do damage, regardless of sex, age, or breed, come out with the attitude that tomorrow is a new day. In Slimm's (Australian Cattle Dog) mind, a new day was just a new opportunity to figure out how to kill Bailey (Border Collie). Of course their owner managed things such that this opportunity never presented itself! I have no idea what their original complaint with one another was.
Overall, there are a myriad of influences and dynamics to consider with multiple dogs. Just keep in mind that they aren't democratic as a species and that there is not a ‘dominant’ dog and a ‘subordinate’ dog. Roles can change based on the context and the individuals involved. In many instances of fights between same-household dogs, I have noticed that one dog is clearly giving into the other dog but is still being attacked. The attacking dog almost seems to be ‘bullying’ the other by following her around and instigating a fight even there is no direct competition between the dogs. Maybe some dogs "enjoy" intimidating others? Or, it works for them.
The other common scenario is fights seem to happen in high arousal situations such as greetings, although a stable hierarchy seems to exist. This is similar to rough and tumble play escalating into a fight.
If 'there is no dominant dog and subordinate dog,' how can we describe a dog as 'classic middle ranked'?
It is really convenient to use these words. Speaking casually and carelessly to someone I meet on the street, they will know what I mean quickly if I said Reilly is a 'dominant female, in the most positive sense of the term' but we all know dominance isn't the right word because it implies assertive action like rolling and intimidation that she doesn;t use and doesnt express the fluidity of various encounters in which she may be acquiescent or (in most cases) just plain disinterested. How is there rank without order?
Is there a better way to describe this?
I see your confusion point.
Male dogs see things in terms of very precise social hierarchy. No ifs, ands, or buts. There is a ladder with the top dog
at the top, and the underdog at the bottom.
When females come in they immediately make amendments to the simple male hierarchy rule. the first amendment is, “I
have it and you don’t”, and the second one is “If you have it, I want it”. Males like hierarchy, but females, even low-
ranking ones, can easily keep a bone away from a very high-ranking male.
Have a read of this: http://www.dneprimport.com/dog-obedience-lessons/positive-and-negative-reinforcement_2
and this: http://www.dogstardaily.com/training/social-hierarchies
So, there is sort of a "scale within a scale".
Of my dogs:
Reilly sounds like Guska...confident, benevolent ruler, smart. Unlikely to get in a ruffle.
Triepak is pretty much on the bottom. He's OK being there and he's not making any moves. No coup in the household.
Tuli is just a busy body. She's the one that does the humping, she's the one that gets everyone riled up and convinces Guska to play with her. She would like to make all the decisions, so Guska lets her think that she can.
Tuli and Tangent (newcomer) are in the middle. That's where there is the most 'discussion'. "I'm the biggest hoarder." "No, I'm the biggest hoarder". "No - you can't hoard that yet." Growl, grumble, grump, circle, piloerected hair, snap, snarl, carry on...carry on. "Sarah's home - super exciting! We've been dutifully napping ALL day! Now it's time to argue over the Blue Octopus!" (Even though Blue Octopus has been lying on the floor unbothered for the past 8 hours.)
However, there is the "TULI ONLY" Squeaky Piggy. Triepak likes to lay on the couch. Guska doesn't come along and steal squeaky piggy, bump Triepak out of the way, and sit on the couch with him. He probably could, but he doesn't care enough about squeaky piggy or couch to do that.
The social hierarchy serves to regulate which dog can have priority access to resources such as toys, food, favorite resting places and attention from the owner. The subordinate dog in the relationship tends to acquiesce to the other, and uses social signals such as looking away or avoiding the other dog in order to appear non-threatening. In many relationships however, there is not a ‘dominant’ dog and a ‘subordinate’ dog. Roles can change based on the context and the individuals involved. So despite the general hierarchy, one dog may be able to control the tennis ball, but the other always gets to lie on the bed.
I'll be back later...(work always gets in the way of all the fun I'd like to have!)
I'll add a few things:
Jess said: "To put it in human perspective, woman on woman fights have been documented often more violent than opposite sex scuffles or even man against man. But we don't fight just because we are women. Something has to inspire an act of violence."
Chrys followed it up with: "I have to get off my chest that I have about had it with the dog fancy / breeding community's "Not For You" hype machine overall."
I think, taken together, these two points are actually really telling about the "don't put two females together" question (the original question of this thread IIRC). In my limited observations, what Jess says is true. When there is an altercation, the intensity is higher between two dogs of the same sex than if they are different. Not a rule though, each dog is an individual. And the point is that at some point in your dog's lives they are likely to get into an altercation about *something*. Like Sarah suggested, a high valued sleeping spot, a favorite plush toy, maybe a pile of rabbit poo in the yard. *SOMETHING* will trigger a disagreement.
Now, add in the hype machine (which, BTW, I have to agree with Jess does play an important role. I've said before I'd rather steer potentially good homes away from my favorite breeds if I am able weed out all of the bad homes in the process...but I digress). The hype machine can be a tool to protect dogs (and unfortunately can also be a detriment to dogs for things like BSLs, but that's another digression). So, the hype surrounding same-sex aggression in certain breeds is probably a result of the following thought processes.
- When two or more dogs live together, the potential for competition to spark an "argument" exists.
- Arguments between two dogs of the same sex tend to be of greater intensity.
- With higher intensity in arguments, the possibility for a real fight increases
- Real fights are bad for the breed (and dogs) as a whole
- Thus, warning potential owners against same-sex pairs is a way to reduce the chances for a breed damaging event (like a serious fight)
Point being. Yes, it's hype. But, it's not completely without a point behind it. It's up to you to decide if you're in a situation to manage things appropriately or not.@Sarah,
I think you make some excellent points about dynamic hierarchies. I have to agree with Chrys though, I think using classic dominance/alpha language to describe it is confusing. Perhaps changing your terminology would make sense. For example, you might say "assertive" rather than "dominant" or "appeasing" rather than "submissive". Those words I think are good descriptions of the behavior but aren't preloaded with an existing connotation from the alpha-dominance theory. There may be better choices, but I too don't have time to write a book right now. :-)
I agree with Dave's (and others) point that conflict between same sex canine is more intense than opposite sex canine conflicts. I also agree that this is similar to us humans, and I think the obvious trigger/differential ingredient is testosterone (just like in humans).
I also agree with Dave's point on why breed hype exists, and, while I absolutely hate the propaganda and trash-talk that comes with the hype, I do agree that its original purpose was born from good intentions, it was just very poorly worded and/or created.
----
Chrys...
You asked: "What motivates same-sex aggression in dogs?"
>> My response would be this:
The same things that motivate any dog-dog aggression.
The intensity may be higher in same sex fights, but I think the core triggers are the same as any dog-dog disagreements. In other words, excluding the guarding of an in-season female by a male dog (which is not an every day thing - females are only in heat ever 6 months and usually all the females that live together go in around the same time), same sex dogs don't fight over anything specific to their sexuality. And, IMHO, dogs don't fight over social hierarchy, the disagreements / fights are all triggered by the same basic set of things (usually resources) and, if a social structure actually exists, the outcome of the argument may be influenced by a social structure (but is not because of a social structure).
----
Sarah...
You cited the article "SOCIAL HIERARCHIES" from Dog Star Daily: http://www.dogstardaily.com/training/social-hierarchies
I've read that article several times in the past, and I read it again just now, and every time I read it I am left feeling 2 ways:
1) After I read it I have a general feeling that the people who ran that study (for 10 years) and the person who wrote that article didn't come to enough conclusions to actually publish anything of value. It seems to me they came to more questions than conclusions.
2) At what point should one abandon this "linear hierarchy" the article refers to? The article spends more time giving examples of where their "linear hierarchy" broke-down or changed. I mean, its like "Yes there is a linear hierarchy, except for this and that and this and that and this and that"... Why didn't they just concede that they really have not found a "linear hierarchy"? It either exists or it doesn't, it can't exist when it "feels" right and not exist when the concept breaks, ya know?
I've read that article a few times, and others like it, and it always ends with me feeling the same way.
That's where my original dislike for the Alpha/Dominance stuff came from. You read the old David Mech articles and find he spends lot of time saying 'the dominance based social structure can be "circular", or "linear", or "joint", but really, trust me, its a pecking order!'... Well, it either is a linear pecking order or it is not, it can't be linear, circular, and split/joint and still be linear.
Why can't everyone just agree that dogs for a "social structure", and then leave it like that. A social structure doesn't imply direction or system, it just implies that dogs can live in a society. A lot like humans!
----
Here is a situation where things got a little too intense with our dogs, note who are the ones having the most conflict (Kona & Masha, male & female):
Another opposite sex issues:
Another example of mix gender arguing and same gender arguing (save for differences in personality, it pretty much looks the same among the difference and sameness in gender):
This is the perspective that I view the situation from, our group of dogs seem to be argue amongst themselves equally - no matter sex or race.
----
I'd like to go back to the original poster's questions: how do breeders and others do it when they have to manage multiple dogs? It's great to see Brad and Jen's pack doing well together, but I wonder how common this is (and clearly, it takes a lot of effort and attention on the part of the people too). I'm wondering if a lot of breeders who have multiple dogs simply keep the dogs separate? (hence the need to ask a breeder how the dogs get along). And can dogs that have been kept separate be reintegrated? (Would depend on the individual dog, I imagine).
What about the idea from Dogstar daily article that pups have social structure established irrefutably by 8 weeks of age? What are your thoughts on that, and even if it is true, I'm wondering how useful it is for us to consider, since most pups are not going to stay within their litter, but are going to go on to join other packs. They'd have to relearn their place. In the end, I'm wondering how useful the idea of rank and hierarchy is for us in interacting with our dogs. (I know it exists, I'm just wondering how we can use that information).
I've always had a difficult time figuring out the pack structure in terms of my Shibas. Toby thinks he is the most assertive, for sure, but he does a lot of the posturing and growling of middle rank dogs. Bel's challenges to him were indirect--she usually let him have his way, except with one important resource--going in or out of the door, and thus greeting me (even though often that was less a greeting but just me being the door slave for the shibas). She often hung on him or nipped at him then, and he ignored her. (Their bad bad fight did occur at the door). Kai, my GSD, is clearly so low in the ranking that he never challenges either Shiba for anything, though I have noticed Toby lets Kai nip at him going in or out of the door. My perception of their ranking was Toby on top (though he was definitely more dictator than benevolent ruler) with Bel challenging him, and Kai quite secure in his place as most low-ranking dog. But even if I'm right about that, can this help me in managing them or in training them? Or is it just an interesting observation?
1) After I read it I have a general feeling that the people who ran that study (for 10 years) and the person who wrote that article didn't come to enough conclusions to actually publish anything of value. It seems to me they came to more questions than conclusions.
Ha! Imagine being the dude's graduate students!
2) At what point should one abandon this "linear hierarchy" the article refers to?
When the girl says so, Brad...when the girl says so!
All joking aside, at least it points out that their is fluidity in the social structure as well as the concept of relative importance. I think by that very virtue it dispels a bunch of the strict dominance theory, which is good. We can only observe what dogs do and by and large, they do a good job of working things out. It is our "language" and our human tendencies to inflict "fairness" that tend to get in the way.
It has also occurred to me that some aberrations in dog behavior may be the result of how dogs are now managed. Beyond "nature vs. nuture", the fact is that the majority of dogs are kept as solo pets or in pairs. Brad is a distinct minority with numbers around 15. So dogs that would be a total disaster in a pack scenario (quarrelsome bullies that end up injured or ousted or dead) live to ripe old ages in the comfort of their relative solitary lifestyle and even contribute their genes to future generations. I think you touched on this a bit, Brad when you were questioning how a breeder keeps her dogs. How do the dogs live/how are they mixed/how are they separated?
Any thoughts on that issue?
Not to say an only dog can;t be happy- very many are very happy. But it depends on the individual personality. Maybe breed tendencies too- are foxhounds or beagles happier in a pack or alone? Is a pyrenees happier in a pack of dogs or alone? Are sheep really packmates, or like humans, a community? We know the LGD is bonded to them, raised among them, but I dont think they think of them the way beagles think of canine packmates/teammates. but a flock is good enough for a pyrenees companionship.
It seems to me the dog is one of the most versatile and adaptive animals on earth, why is it so hard then to believe the dog may not always, like us humans, form exactly the same type of social structure?
That's really my stance on the topic of canine social structures: It varies from social structure to social structure. Perhaps some are more like a family, maybe others are linear, maybe some change constantly, some canine may be loaners, I dunno... but I do know it feels wrong try and give it an over-generalized label (like "Dominance Social Structure" or "Linear Social Structure") and then force it on all dogs - and the resulting inconsistencies from all the studies certainly reinforces my feelings. Ya know?
----
On the topic of dog management, this is a topic I find very interesting (I guess that is probably obvious). I get asked a lot if our dogs get along and I recently had a discussion with Dave, as he is planning to ad a few more pups to his family, and he was asking me about management.
I've kinda came to the conclusion that, yes, I can say all our dogs get along, but by saying that I may be over simplifying the situation. I mean, we have a few dogs that we can have in the same room and have no issues as long as they are supervised, but we would never leave them alone, and unsupervised, together... So, can I really call that "getting along"? I think I can, but maybe I shouldn't. (???)
That came up in conversation when I told Dave that Masha pretty much wanted to kill JJ when they were both in the house together, but they were fine outside together. That lead to the discussion of temperament management. That is what we do all day, we are constantly moving dogs from group to group based on their mood at that time - something triggers the guardians to get up set and really start guarding and we know its time to move Kona into a separate area from Luytiy. If Kona and Ahi are very playful we know we need to move Fuji to a separate area. Those are just 2 examples, but we literally have 100s of rules like that and we manage the dogs based on them. And so, how much of our success is management and how much is temperament?
I strongly believe that if dogs are not allowed to freely and openly coexist with each other, especially before they reach maturity, they cannot be expected to get along. I actually believe kenneling dogs, due to the amount of frustration that comes from that, creates a social deficit (the dogs never learn to be social) and therefore sets them up to fail. That is why Jen and I spend so much time moving our dogs around and making sure that each one spends time together so they learn how to get along (because I do not see dogs as animals that inherently do not want to get along).
I also think 15 dogs is WAY to many to expect to get along w/o conflict. A really safe number range, IMHO, is 5-8 dogs (depending on the size of the space). Some breeds may do better with a larger number (like huskies), other may not (like Shiba).
Ok, I have to go... Sorry Chrys, I want to write something about your points too - they are super interesting - but I have a meeting to go to. :oT
----
I also believe kenneling would be detrimental to their social growth, thus creating socially inept dogs who would not know how to interact with others.