"Your argument is based on the assumption that all dogs of the same sex view resources equally and also don't view dogs of the opposite sex as competitors for those resources."
Erm... no? My assumptions are that there is an evolutionary reason for getting a competitor "out of the way". And since eating and mating are the two basic instincts in every living creature (self-preservation and preservation of the species), these are the most important ressources. Defending them from strangers that do not belong to the group or pack is inalienable to survive. It is also inalienable for group animals to form social alliances and groups like packs to survive. This also refers to dogs. This ressource guarding is very common among dogs (we all know not to wave around with treats in a group of stranger dogs for example). Even though they do it in different variations and levels of aggression (or not at all), nearly all dogs do some kind of ressource guarding. And of course mating partners are considered ressources for a lot of dogs. I did never say that ALL dogs see mating partners or other ressources worth guarding and I never said that ALL dogs get along with dogs of the opposite sex...
The reason I talked about evolutionary senses about ssa was because Brad said something about ssa being "senseless" or something... In fact it is not. The changed living conditions and the breeding and socializing makes it less important, less obvious and less intense maybe, but at some point ssa was necessary and had a reason. I believe that a predisposition for ssa or ressource guarding is inherited because it is such a necessary trait. The fact that this behaviour comes in such different shapes and intensities is that it is no longer a trait necessary for surviving, since dogs are fed by humans and the mating partners are decided by humans etc, so dogs are no longer selected for this trait (by nature). And most breeds are not selected for this trait either, so with bad socialisation and "bad" genes you can have an aggressive ressource guarding Lab or with "good" genes and good socialisation a very laid-back Akita... And of course the way dogs value ressources is very different. One gets mad about pieces of food, one about a female in heat, one about mommys hand bag, one guards everything and one thinks nothing of the above valuable.
All dogs are different, yes. Some of their traits go back to socialisation and some to the genes. The predisposition for this trait goes back to genes I think.
"Some of their traits go back to socialisation and some to the genes. The predisposition for this trait goes back to genes I think."
I might be that resource guarding comes from the genes, the congenital behaviors or whatever we want to call it, but I don't believe that socialization doesn't play a big part (I'm not saying you're denying that, Laura), since dogs are so able to learn and alter behavioral patterns. Even with the wolves in the wild or wild dogs long time ago, there must've been some of them, who was less guarding, or just weaker. Either way, some were held off of the fallen prey until the stronger animals had eaten. Did these fall back because they were less prone to resource guarding, because they let the female with pups have first choice or just because they had learned, that they would get a beating, if they tried to get at the food while the others ate?
You wrote: "The fact that this behaviour comes in such different shapes and intensities is that it is no longer a trait necessary for surviving, since dogs are fed by humans and the mating partners are decided by humans etc" If they, as you stated, had resource guarding as a default mode, then why would some fall back from the food and not keep trying to guard their resources? Because of the pack instinct, or because they had lower resource guarding instinct or?
I don't think it does go back to the genes. I found the Coppinger book on dog evolution fascinating on this subject, esp. since one of the things they noted is that dogs don't pack in the same way wolves do. When they talked of the village dogs (dogs that were not really domestic--feral I suppose, except that they had never been tied to people so it wasn't that they reverted to this state), they noted that the dogs tended to act as individuals and did not work cooperatively. They had territory they guarded, but their didn't appear to be a lot of fights either, and certainly not to the death. There are plenty of studies that back this up: dogs don't form true packs, and if you've ever watched truly feral dogs any place (I think about how many I saw in Bali, for example) it seems that there are very few fights, and mostly a lot of individual dogs who frequent certain places.
Also, since multiple males can sire a litter, what would the evolutionary advantage be of guarding one female? It's not the same kind of competition for breeding that we would see in primates, I wouldn't think.
I was trying to find the page linked quite awhile ago about a man studying feral/wild dogs, but I couldn't find it, but here are a couple of links regarding how dogs don't really have true packs (one is more on dominance, but...):
I would think that some resource guarding would be a more valuable behavior among pet dogs than among wild or feral dogs. A pet dog learns that resource guarding might work for him, whether it is guarding his crate/sofa/food dish. A feral dog always has to balance the risk of serious injury: is this place/bit of food worth fighting over? I would think there would actually be less fighting among wild dogs (posturing, maybe, but less fighting). I'm thinking about this partially because of the observations of the Coppingers in the way village dogs manage to get along, but also simply thinking of seeing feral dogs and how they tend to take the path of least resistance: snatch food and run rather than guard it. Again, not true of all dogs--that's such an important point about them being individuals.
eta: I did find the other link. He believes feral dogs do form packs. I've seen a lot of other articles that say that they don't, at least not in the sense that wolves do. Who knows? But here is the link anyway, even though it kind of undermines my argument! http://feraldog.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/is-dominance-always-bad/
I don't disagree that resource guarding has an evolutionary basis. That part makes perfect sense. The part I'm disagreeing with is the connection that resource guarding has to same sex aggression. Following your logic, the only evolutionary reason for ssa would be breeding. A female in heat is a limited resource that multiple males have to compete over. This may lead to more aggresion between males, but it boils down to resource guarding a resource that is specific to males (the bitch in heat) and therefore, I would not consider it a predisposition to same sex aggression.
Lisa >> Wauw I didn't actually know the difference from wolf packs to wild dog packs. That's very interesting. Because of the fact that they are so closely related, I'd have thought they'd be more similar in behavior... There's always something new to learn I guess ;o)
Since I'm also very involved in horses, I can't help but to compare. Wild horses have very forcefull instincts. They are prone to flee at any sign of danger, and they don't sleep deeply, as they could be surprised by a predator, there's always a guard, standing and alert, while the others sleep lightly. When we look at domesticated horses, they have the same instincts, but some more than others. It seems, that the instincts are dulled in some, when they are growing up with humans and our protective way of caring for them. The fenced pastures, the stalls, etc. They will never completely loose their congenital beahviors, but it is in fact possible to minimize them. For example you can see domesticated horses sleeping deeply, that would be all but impossible to see in the wild.
I think it's the same in dogs, they have their instincts intact, but when domesticated, some are dulled, or directed at other things than they would be in wild dogs. Since we take care of them, they can relax a bit, or whatever you want to call it...
"The reason I talked about evolutionary senses about ssa was because Brad said something about ssa being "senseless" or something... In fact it is not." >> I never wrote the term "senseless" in this thread, and so I never wrote that ssa was "senseless". So, if that was the bassists of all your comments on this subject they may be out of context.
Is this the comment that you are referring to? ...
It is not that they are wrong, their AA might be same-sex aggressive, or dog aggressive in general. This doesn't mean the breed as a whole is predisposed to be same-sex aggressive. You have to look at all the factors: Do you friends dogs live in kennels? Were they socialized with same-sex same-breed dogs during their socialization window? Did their dogs comes from a reputable breeder? Do these friends dogs share similar pedigrees? What do your fiends consider "aggression"? When they witness these same-sex aggressive displays are there other valued resources around which they may be guarding? Can they quantify the data - like they have had issues with this # of males dogs vs. this # of female dogs? Are the same-sex dogs they have issues with intact? Is their AA intact? Were they socialized with intact and altered adult and adolescent dogs?
My point is, unless someone can show some results of real quantified data on the subject, that's not derived from anecdotes, breed-hype, or hearsay, it's unjust and over-generalizing to say any one NK breed is predisposed to same-sex aggression when compared to the others.
What one might be able to say is that, for example, breed "x" require more socialization than other breeds due to their defensive nature and therefore, if not socialized or managed properly, can show more aggressive response, which, based on anecdotal evidence, in some cases can appear to be gender-triggered.
Please note that I was asking questions (to which you have given your opinion on) and writing specifically about comparing the NK breeds and not about dogs in general.
As for what you have written...
Remember that stranger dogs getting along well (like in dog-parks etc) is really unnatural and due to really good socialization. Especially with more "primitive" breeds like the NK, that have not such "degenerated" social skills like Labs or Golden Retrievers... >> I disagree, dogs are social creatures and, as Lisa pointed out, have formed various types of social structures in nature and in domestication - they don't always form "packs" (look at Coyote) and they don't always follow a rigid social structure, dominance based or not. So many of your points, which are valid for a specific type of canine social structure (the pack), are not valid when applied generally to canine (since all canine don't live in packs), IMHO. Also, many labs and retrievers are more social with other dogs and humans than other breeds, so how does a dog being more social give them "degenerated social skills"? I don't follow your logic.
My assumptions are that there is an evolutionary reason for getting a competitor "out of the way". >> I think its rather odd to use evolution as a model to explain why or why not a domesticated dog breed has some particular quality. As far as I understand evolution, which I am assuming you are referring to a Darwinist-type of evolution, it is a naturally occurring model (natural selection). Domestics dogs didn't evolve naturally via natural selection, they are selectively bred animals (via artificial selection). Why would the instincts of a wild animal, who has centuries of natural selection behind it, apply to a domestic animal who has been altered via artificial selection selection for 100s-1000s of years? I might base my argument off this if the subject was of wild canine, but its not, the subject is the NK breeds, specifically the AA.
Finally got around to watching the video. Was interesting for sure.
I guess when it comes to my dogs' safety, in many cases I think I'm quite fine with making type 1 errors. I'm quite happy to try and find patterns in my dogs' behavior. It's basically what I have to do all day long when training them, and hunting with them. Sometimes I get it right, and sometimes wrong. I leave allowances for that and try to be flexible. From an evolutionary standpoint, I guess humans/animals that erred on the side of safety (ie type 1 errors) probably had a better chance of not getting knocked out of the gene pool. When training hunting dogs, I don't have much room for mistakes, as it could get my dogs and possibly myself injured or dead.
I guess to answer the question in this thread, the only way to give a proper answer would be to actually crunch numbers. I think this could be interesting, so will try to work on it. Would have to figure out how to do it properly and not get a skewered sample.
Just for fun (but not an accurate sample) I listed up all the NK that I know fairly well, dogs that are owned by friends etc, and it comes out to just under 100 dogs. I just wanted to do a prelim and see if a majority lean either way. As far as the females go, I'd have to say I see absolutely no pattern. Most are fine with other dogs, some are not, and they're not too picky about which sex the other dog is. With the males I know I definitely see a majority that are not okay with other males, but are okay with females. There are probably multiple reasons for it, socialization etc. Some of the males are okay with males they've grown up with, but even those are not okay with strange males.
The only thing I could think of is that perhaps because they view pretty much all females as possible partners, perhaps that is what allows them to be more receptive of strange females. Seeing them as a resource may help to redirect their initial negative reaction to meeting a strange dog.
Shigeru, do you see a further breakdown between young males that don't know that a female is a potential breeding partner (ie. never been around a heat) vs. an experience male that knows what females can be for?
You know Dave, an old term for resource guarding is object aggression which is due to same sex presence (for female resource scenario). Object aggression makes resource guarding sound soo PC.
@Ann - I see where you are going with your question and its an interesting one. I'd like to expand it to altered males too...
I have met a lot of altered males who were said to be same-sex aggressive. Most of these examples are pets. So I think it is safe to assume these altered (pet) males have not ever mated, and so they don't have the same value system placed around intact females as a male dog who has mated. So then, why would they be same-sex aggressive too?
First: I'm not sure, if we really are on different tracks or if it just appeals to be, because we misunderstand each other in details... Please keep in mind, that english is not my mother tongue and even though I give my very best I might make some heavy mistakes in translating...
"I am assuming you are referring to a Darwinist-type of evolution" Yes, I do. I'm sorry for not pointing it out. Since in my country the Darwinist-type of evolution is the only acknowledged one (mostly due to the principle of "freedom of religion", which is taken very serious), I'm not used to talking to people for whom it is pretty normal to take other theories about evolution into consideration, so I simply forgot...
Actually I was not referring to the parts you (re)postet, Brad, but I was referring to these: "This is really where the core of this discussion is for me. Your comment implies that your friends have told you that same-sex aggression is instinctual in the AA breed. My question there would be: why? Why would same-sex aggression be instinctual in the AA breed? What value does same sex-aggression add to the breed as a whole - from a natural selection or artificial selection perspective?" I just think, that you ask the wrong way around... You ask about "What does it add?" But the right question would be "Why would it become extinct?" The reason I was referring to the "basics" of dogs (which would be wolfes, but I'll go on to domesticated dogs soon...) was because this is the "basic" gene pool from which genes get lost due to natural or artificial selection and some new are added by gene mutations. Normally traits only get lost, if they are lethal in the environment the animal lives in, because all carriers of this gene die out. Any animal that is overly aggressive towards the opposite sex doesn't mate and therefore it's genes get lost from the gene pool. That was the case thousands of years ago and it still should be today (even though artifical insemination is being a thread to this...).
The aggression towards competitors was necessary for a wolf to survive. A wolf that doesn't protect its food/mating partner/sleeping place doesn't stay in the gene pool because it starves, gets killed or simply doesn't get a chance to mate. Of course there might be wolves in a pack, that just feed on the leftovers of the others, but they don't mate. Since wolve-packs normally consist of mommy and daddy (and maybe one or two of their siblings) and their children, the children have two path' to choose: Stay in the pack (and probably don't find a mating partner) or wander off to start a new pack. If they wander off and don't have some kind of ressource guarding, their genes go extinct, because other carnivores steal their prey (they starve) or other wolves steal their mating partners (no passing on of the genes). So far for the "wolf-basics", but - as we all know - dogs are NO wolves any more. But what was the purpose for domestication? To have guardians. Wolves were domesticated to warn and defend their humans. - They were domesticated for aggression towards stranger humans/ wolves/ other animals. So they were selected for devotion to the group and aggression towards individuals not belonging to the group. But again, if they had been too aggressive towards the opposite sex, they wouldn't have been able to mate with other wolves/domesticated wolves/ dogs that do not belong to their group, so there genes would have gone extinct at once or after a while of inbreeding, causing illnesses to occur and let the line go extinct. So they were bred for stranger aggression BUT with the limitation to be able to mate. At this point I'd like to clarify what I understand of "same-sex-aggression"... Maybe it is better described as dog-aggressive with a soft (but not too soft!) spot for the opposite sex...? Now, this goes on and on and on, civilization goes on and dogs are more and more divided into "breeds" that fulfill different tasks, that desire different traits. Some breeds are still bred for "guarding", some are bred for "non-guarding", since they get in contact with other stranger dogs a lot (like hound-packs or dogs in cities like Dalmatians for example) and dogs that were bred for totally different purposes, where "guarding" or "non-guarding" didn't make a real deal, like hunting dogs, that only have to deal with stranger dogs rarely. The smaller NK would be found somewhere between "guarding" and "doesn't matter" (more with guarding if you consider Shigerus observations), while the Akita was used as a guarding dog sometimes if I'm correct, so it was bred for this as well. The AA, being bred from the JA, inherited a lot of its traits... The "problem" with the dogs being bred for totally different purposes, where guarding doesn't matter, is that the trait can still be inherited, since it doesn't matter, so guarding dogs are not excluded from the genepool.
"Also, many labs and retrievers are more social with other dogs and humans than other breeds, so how does a dog being more social give them "degenerated social skills"?" This was due to my translation fault... I didn't mean "degenerated" as being weakened, but I meant "denaturalized". The natural tendency to aggressiveness towards strangers is being altered into stronger social skills and more "tolerance" towards stranger dogs. I used the wrong word, sorry...
NK are more "primitive" breeds, as you put it sometimes, Brad. I mean... We all agree on the fact, that you have to socialise the heck out of most NK-pups to have a nice, social dog in the end while most Labs need a heck of bad experiences to become really aggressive towards other dogs... So NK are more predisposed for stranger-aggression, than other breeds, aren't they? But the ones being aggressive towards both genders wouldn't (or couldn't) be bred, so they would fall out of the gene pool. Therefore I think that same-sex-aggression is quite logical in primitive breeds (and guarding breeds etc). But since Akitas are no longer bred for guarding I don't think that all of them have to have a natural tendency towards ssa. Some might have a predisposition inherited, some might not have it inherited, but be ssa due to false socialisation (like the type I error).
I did never want to say, that AAs MUST be ssa, but this discussion did take a route that seemed to absolutely neglect the possibility of ssa being inherited in this breed and I wanted to add, that there are indeed logical reasons for inheritance of a predisposition ssa in dogs in general and in this (or these) breed(s) in particular. A predisposition of ssa is in my opinion much more likely than a predisposition of overall aggression.
"Also, since multiple males can sire a litter, what would the evolutionary advantage be of guarding one female? It's not the same kind of competition for breeding that we would see in primates, I wouldn't think." Being the only one, that sires the litter? A female just has a limited number of ovules (is that the right word?) and every male that mates with the female lessens the chance of the others. It's simple math. If a female has four ovules and four males mate with her, they will theoretically all have one pup that inherits their genes and gives them on. But if one of these males guards the female and is the only one that mates with her, there'll be four pups, that might inherit his aggressive guarding of females, while the other three males, that do not try to compete with him will have no offspring (or at least less). It is no question of sense, it is a question of efficiency. The one that guards "his" females the most aggressive will have the most offspring, that inherit his traits and perhaps his aggressive guarding and they will be the ones that have the most offspring in the next generation etc...
Lisa, I don't think you can compare feral dogs to domesticated dogs... Feral dogs have a totally different reducing element than domesticated dogs. Feral dogs HAVE to get along. Overly aggressive individuals will soon get in trouble and be killed (and whiped out of the gene-pool) whereas the ones with good social skills towards strangers can keep themselves out of serious trouble. Domesticated dogs are leashed and lead by humans. If the dog is being overly aggressive it is simply kept away from strangers, so it does not get into heavy trouble....
Alright, that's it for now... I might have missed some points in the discussion, because i was focussing too much on others. If it happened - that was no intention, I'm sorry... I tend to get swept away discussing about details, missing other important parts. Even though I try to get everything it still happens sometimes, when I get really excited about something. This topic is really fascinating I think. And it is great to be able to share my thoughts with you guys. Even though we don't seem to share the same opinion. It's very helpful, that you point out where my thoughts appear illogical to you, so I can check if I made mistakes in thought or with the translation...
Jessika, what do you mean by "makes it sound so PC"? I'm sorry, I don't know the term... lol
"Please keep in mind, that english is not my mother tongue and even though I give my very best I might make some heavy mistakes in translating... "
Funny, I was just thinking about that last night, and I think you and Tanja have GREAT English writing skills.
PC=Politically Correct, I like urban dictionary's 1st definition
*******Warning word usage maybe offensive*********
A way that we speak in America so we don't offend whining pu$$ies. Only pathetically weak people that don't have the balls to say what they feel and mean are politically correct pu$$ies.
Laura >> You wrote: "It is no question of sense, it is a question of efficiency. The one that guards "his" females the most aggressive will have the most offspring, that inherit his traits and perhaps his aggressive guarding and they will be the ones that have the most offspring in the next generation etc..."
Yes this would be the case from an evolutionary standpoint, like you said, but this doesn't really affect dogs today, other than that their ancestors was bred this way, as we select breeding partners for our dogs today. But I wonder, some of the non-resource-guarding dogs must have gotten their go too, as we do see dogs with no aggression? If it is passed on in the genes, and only the aggressive males, guarding their females, mated, then we would have only aggressive dogs right? Apart from the changes we can affect with proper socialization of course, and the given differences in personality of the dogs... God I'm confused! Haha ;o)
Jessika >> Thanks for the complement. Assuming, I'm the Tanja you wrote about ;o) A german once thought I WAS english, but I'm not that good, so I must've just been better than her ;o) Anyways, I try my best...
@Laura (ala-chan) - That was a long and detailed post, which I enjoyed reading, I'm not going to pick it apart and respond to things that I agree or disagree with as I think this topic may have gone off in a different direction that what the original question was. I'll write this tho...
I agree with your assessment on the value of ssa in wolves and why it may be a pre-programed quality that is passed on to their post-evolutionary counterparts.
Having written that, and maybe you are saying this too (not sure), IMHO ssa is simply resource guarding in canine (wild or domestic). Canines guard objects from other canine for fear of that object being taken from them. Each canine has their own value system, some canine value some things more than other canines - its a matter of personal taste. A canine guards his family (pack, family, whatever) from other creatures for this same reason - the family is a source of good stuff for him/her, and so he/she protects it from being taken from him. In the family exists female canine, other female canine are not going to "take" the female canine from the family and so the males don't perceive other female canine as a threat to their females. Male canine from other families may "take" (breed with) females tho, and so they perceive strange male canine as a threat, and are aggressive in their defense.
As Dave was saying, this IMHO is not ssa, it is resource guarding. The instinct passed on is resource guarding instinct, not an instinct to be aggressive toward males for no other reason than to simply be aggressive toward them (ssa). This is where I have issue with the concept of ssa being instinctual in any breed.
Now, regarding wolves, sure we can use them as a model for some wild canine, but I have a little issue with using them exclusively as the model because it is not 100% proven that wolves, and wolves alone, are the base for all domestic dogs - after all, there are other wild canine, and domestic canine could be a product of the domestication of wolves and, for example, Coyote. Other wild canine (Foxes, Coyote) do not form packs in the same way wolves do, so to assume all the rules that apply to wolves would then apply to the building blocks of domesticated canine seems like a logical leap to me. JMHO
Now when we start to talk about some breeders producing dogs with ssa and others producing dogs who are not ssa that starts to really muddle with the argument all together, IMHO - I mean, if some breeders (or bloodlines) produce dogs that are ssa while others do not, then you cannot really say all the dogs of that breed are ssa or predisposed to ssa... I mean some CC are human aggressive, while others aren't, so you can't say that all CC are human aggressive, right?
Brad said "I have met a lot of altered males who were said to be same-sex aggressive. Most of these examples are pets. So I think it is safe to assume these altered (pet) males have not ever mated, and so they don't have the same value system placed around intact females as a male dog who has mated. So then, why would they be same-sex aggressive too?"
I can only try to answer simple, short posts. The long posts just spins my head. :-)
With male-female interactions, I don't think actual mating would be the pre-requisite for the light bulb going off in a male (if it does). It is more with being around a female in heat that changes a male dog's perception of a female dog from rival/competitor to something else.
If so, then the extrapolation that altered males should not have SSA doesn't quite work. It's still what they know and not what they do.
Do you really think, that males only detect females as possible mating partners when they are in heat? Until now I always thought it didnt have to be... Like the female scent identifies them as "worthy" and the heat-scent giving the reason for the actual mating...
"I mean, if some breeders (or bloodlines) produce dogs that are ssa while others do not, then you cannot really say all the dogs of that breed are ssa or predisposed to ssa..." No, you cannot. - And I didn't. As I said: The reason I started talking about this was because this thread took a turn towards "no, ssa is NOT inherited and NOT in the AA", which I had the feeling was a bit short-visioned. I just wanted to point out, that there IS a good possibility for ssa being inherited, at least in some lines. And this is the point where I think that both theories mentioned (inheritance and type-I-error) fit together perfectly: You have four lines of AA - 1 has ssa inherited and 3 do not have it inherited. Now people see the aggressive Akitas, being told, that this is "normal" in this breed by the breeder. Word spreads and people having pups of the other four lines make type I errors, when their pup gets in trouble with another dog of the same sex (propably by chance). They make all of the mistakes you mentioned above and therefore - because of just one line being predisposed to aggression towards the same sex - their dogs "become" ssa too. Not because of the genes, but because of the mistakes - and this leads to people assuming that the breed as a whole would be "same sex aggressive".
I find it hard to believe that the ssa-myth just popped out of nowhere. I think it is most likely that it is based on a combination of (few) dogs really being ssa and (many) people wrongly applying the scheme on their dogs too... Does that make sense?
Laura--yes, your last post makes a lot of sense and is what I think is most likely happening regarding same sex aggression. I don't think it necessarily is genetic--in fact I lean towards thinking it is not--but it could be "passed down" in a line because of expectations/socialization, etc. Then, people make the next logical error by assuming what is true of some dogs is true of all dogs of the breed.
re: comparing domestic dogs to feral dogs, I agree that we can't assume that they are the same, however, it seems to me that people make lots of assumptions about domestic dogs by comparing their behavior to wolves (even here in this thread) which to me is even more "off" than comparing pet dogs to feral dogs. At least in the latter case we are talking about the same species! Like Brad, I'm not at all convinced that dogs came from wolves in the conventionally accepted sense. Certainly the Coppinger book gives plenty of room for doubt on that issue, and I was totally convinced by their belief that the idea of dogs as "domesticated wolves" is simply not true at all....
One of the difficulties of this discussion has been that if we assume that some temperament traits might be genetic (a huge and possibly incorrect assumption in the first place) then we begin talking about the evolutionary traits of canines, and yet the comparisons we make between canine species are also huge assumptions, as well as the fact that how well does the idea of evolution even work in a species so manipulated by humans? I still find the discussion of great interest, but when we examine it on the basis of logic (not something I always do, I must admit!) I think we're making a lot of leaps that might not actually make sense. (Which actually makes the conversation even more interesting to me).
SSA is really kind of puzzling. I could see it as resource guarding in unaltered dogs, but otherwise, it doesn't make much sense, esp. in altered dogs, and I kind of have to think, then, that it is something somehow socialized into the dogs.
And I have no idea about the issue of altered dogs. Would they think of opposite sex dog as a potential breeding resource? Why? I don't know how much of sex-related behavior disappears with altered dogs. Does it depend on when they were altered? What about a neutered male who has never encountered a female in season? Why would altered dogs have any SSA aggression?
I'm beginning to really doubt the phenomena. Meaning, I know it exists, but I am beginning to believe it is artificial in the sense that it is something people created through assumptions and socialization.
"Do you really think, that males only detect females as possible mating partners when they are in heat? Until now I always thought it didnt have to be... Like the female scent identifies them as "worthy" and the heat-scent giving the reason for the actual mating"
>> I think males can tell female dogs from other male dogs, sure. Do I think they value females as potential mates w/o the female being in heat, maybe. They do seem to be more tolerant of female "bitch-ness". I've seen females do things to males and the male just ignore them, things that would result in an epic fight if a male did that to another male.
So, yes, I do think males treat females differently than they treat other males (and females treat males differently than they do other females). What I do not see in male dogs is intolerance of other male dogs (which is what ssa applies). I do not see any added "aggression" between our males vs between our females vs across the sexes.
Here at our house we have 5 intact males and 4 intact females. We also have 2 altered males and 3 altered females, we NEVER see males guarding females from other males if the females are not in season. We also see NO added aggression between the intact males (or altered males). In the past we have had 2 intact male Akita Inu also, and we so no added aggression in them either. I have never owned an AA for comparison tho, but I would be FLOORED and SHOCKED if there was such a huge difference (the existence of ssa) in the AA breed vs other breeds.
When a female comes into season here on the ranch, males become excited, and if allowed to interact with a female when other intact males are around we do see resource guarding - but we don't allow that to happen, we manage the situation so that the males do not compete over mates. We do this by removing the resource (the in-season female). I have seen altered males show interest in in-season females, but with a much lower intensity than intact males and we have never seen altered males fight over breeding rights (but we have seen that in intact males once due to a management error).
Perhaps we do not see male-male aggression here because we do not allow them to compete over breeding rights (or any other "rights", like food), we remove the stimulus, and so they do not learn the need to compete over females. This, IMHO, goes along with my feeling of ssa being resource guarding and nothing more.
This is all JMHO and based on our observation of our dogs on our property.
Having written that, it is based on our observation of intact animals living free-range-style on our ranch, which is a unique situation. If I didn't have the ability to view the behavior of such a wide range of dogs in a free-range like environment I may have a differing open on all this - because it would be based off anecdotes and hearsay and not off real observation of a relatively wide sampling.
Also, I didn't know that neutered males will still attempt to breed....I mean I'd heard of it, since a friend had a neutered male that still did manage it, but I didn't know if that was common, an exception whatever. I have so little experience with unaltered dogs....
"Perhaps we do not see male-male aggression here because we do not allow them to compete over breeding rights (or any other "rights", like food), we remove the stimulus, and so they do not learn the need to compete over females. This, IMHO, goes along with my feeling of ssa being resource guarding and nothing more."
The males I know, that are ssa are ALWAYS ssa. It is not resource guarding, because it happens without a resource being present. Plus, what I am talking about all the time is aggression towards stranger dogs, not dogs that live together in a group. Of course, every dog in your group has at some point been "stranger", but they ain't no longer, so the observations most interesting would be the ones when a new dog enters your group.
And I find it really unrealistic, that ssa just popped out of nowhere. I don't believe that it is only due to people "believing" it. There must have been a source somewhere. And there are dogs that are ssa without their humans being able to influence it. Etsu for example started being ssa without me "knowing" it. He started getting in trouble with some dogs and getting along with others and I looked/asked for the gender when they had already been in contact (getting along or not), so I cannot have influenced him, because I didn't know if they were male or female before Etsu started interacting with them.
What i find plausible is that there actually is a natural explanation for ssa at least in some dogs (being due to genetics or hormones or whatever), but good socialisation turns it unrelevant.
"I still find the discussion of great interest, but when we examine it on the basis of logic (not something I always do, I must admit!) I think we're making a lot of leaps that might not actually make sense. (Which actually makes the conversation even more interesting to me)." Yes, I agree. We all put up possible theories (the one of the type-I-error is only just a theory, that can hardly be proved) of what it might be, but noone of us really knows - no one of us CAN know. This makes this discussion really fun, because it is mostly a discussion of which theory is the most plausible one - but not which one is the "right" one, because none of us can ever know...
You (Laura) think all dogs have ssa but via proper socialization we alter their association with same sex dogs and therefore minimize the appearance of ssa. While I think all dogs aren't born with ssa and they develop it via improper socialization and negative associations.
I think we're having a good old fashioned Nature vs. Nurture debate, huh?
I've been thinking for awhile that we're basically discussing Nature vs. Nurture, but because I think we all know it's both, we're getting to a more detailed examination of the issue.
Comments
Erm... no?
My assumptions are that there is an evolutionary reason for getting a competitor "out of the way". And since eating and mating are the two basic instincts in every living creature (self-preservation and preservation of the species), these are the most important ressources. Defending them from strangers that do not belong to the group or pack is inalienable to survive. It is also inalienable for group animals to form social alliances and groups like packs to survive.
This also refers to dogs.
This ressource guarding is very common among dogs (we all know not to wave around with treats in a group of stranger dogs for example). Even though they do it in different variations and levels of aggression (or not at all), nearly all dogs do some kind of ressource guarding. And of course mating partners are considered ressources for a lot of dogs.
I did never say that ALL dogs see mating partners or other ressources worth guarding and I never said that ALL dogs get along with dogs of the opposite sex...
The reason I talked about evolutionary senses about ssa was because Brad said something about ssa being "senseless" or something... In fact it is not.
The changed living conditions and the breeding and socializing makes it less important, less obvious and less intense maybe, but at some point ssa was necessary and had a reason. I believe that a predisposition for ssa or ressource guarding is inherited because it is such a necessary trait. The fact that this behaviour comes in such different shapes and intensities is that it is no longer a trait necessary for surviving, since dogs are fed by humans and the mating partners are decided by humans etc, so dogs are no longer selected for this trait (by nature).
And most breeds are not selected for this trait either, so with bad socialisation and "bad" genes you can have an aggressive ressource guarding Lab or with "good" genes and good socialisation a very laid-back Akita...
And of course the way dogs value ressources is very different. One gets mad about pieces of food, one about a female in heat, one about mommys hand bag, one guards everything and one thinks nothing of the above valuable.
All dogs are different, yes. Some of their traits go back to socialisation and some to the genes. The predisposition for this trait goes back to genes I think.
I might be that resource guarding comes from the genes, the congenital behaviors or whatever we want to call it, but I don't believe that socialization doesn't play a big part (I'm not saying you're denying that, Laura), since dogs are so able to learn and alter behavioral patterns. Even with the wolves in the wild or wild dogs long time ago, there must've been some of them, who was less guarding, or just weaker. Either way, some were held off of the fallen prey until the stronger animals had eaten. Did these fall back because they were less prone to resource guarding, because they let the female with pups have first choice or just because they had learned, that they would get a beating, if they tried to get at the food while the others ate?
You wrote:
"The fact that this behaviour comes in such different shapes and intensities is that it is no longer a trait necessary for surviving, since dogs are fed by humans and the mating partners are decided by humans etc"
If they, as you stated, had resource guarding as a default mode, then why would some fall back from the food and not keep trying to guard their resources? Because of the pack instinct, or because they had lower resource guarding instinct or?
I find this subject very fascinating!
Also, since multiple males can sire a litter, what would the evolutionary advantage be of guarding one female? It's not the same kind of competition for breeding that we would see in primates, I wouldn't think.
I was trying to find the page linked quite awhile ago about a man studying feral/wild dogs, but I couldn't find it, but here are a couple of links regarding how dogs don't really have true packs (one is more on dominance, but...):
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:O-axS0beiaYJ:www.societyandanimalsforum.org/jaaws/full_articles/7.4/verkerkhove.pdf+feral+dogs+do+they+form+true+packs&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjrwKlF3k_tQ0rkRdqDgsgeeDqm0h-SkzTOtOEV9nT70zLhIZROfySYIKeMAKOOMhat99toP8NPPtWEVJUac6R7hGSrz1-_yJ1HjMxbpQTBiKkjcQrSTefu-4jFdQDISbsIqSXR&sig=AHIEtbSydMmAiBBU
http://jeandonaldson.com/jeans-blog-mainmenu-51/64-are-dogs-pack-animals
I would think that some resource guarding would be a more valuable behavior among pet dogs than among wild or feral dogs. A pet dog learns that resource guarding might work for him, whether it is guarding his crate/sofa/food dish. A feral dog always has to balance the risk of serious injury: is this place/bit of food worth fighting over? I would think there would actually be less fighting among wild dogs (posturing, maybe, but less fighting). I'm thinking about this partially because of the observations of the Coppingers in the way village dogs manage to get along, but also simply thinking of seeing feral dogs and how they tend to take the path of least resistance: snatch food and run rather than guard it. Again, not true of all dogs--that's such an important point about them being individuals.
eta: I did find the other link. He believes feral dogs do form packs. I've seen a lot of other articles that say that they don't, at least not in the sense that wolves do. Who knows? But here is the link anyway, even though it kind of undermines my argument!
Does that make sense?
Wauw I didn't actually know the difference from wolf packs to wild dog packs. That's very interesting. Because of the fact that they are so closely related, I'd have thought they'd be more similar in behavior... There's always something new to learn I guess ;o)
Since I'm also very involved in horses, I can't help but to compare. Wild horses have very forcefull instincts. They are prone to flee at any sign of danger, and they don't sleep deeply, as they could be surprised by a predator, there's always a guard, standing and alert, while the others sleep lightly. When we look at domesticated horses, they have the same instincts, but some more than others. It seems, that the instincts are dulled in some, when they are growing up with humans and our protective way of caring for them. The fenced pastures, the stalls, etc. They will never completely loose their congenital beahviors, but it is in fact possible to minimize them. For example you can see domesticated horses sleeping deeply, that would be all but impossible to see in the wild.
I think it's the same in dogs, they have their instincts intact, but when domesticated, some are dulled, or directed at other things than they would be in wild dogs. Since we take care of them, they can relax a bit, or whatever you want to call it...
>> I never wrote the term "senseless" in this thread, and so I never wrote that ssa was "senseless". So, if that was the bassists of all your comments on this subject they may be out of context.
Is this the comment that you are referring to? ... Please note that I was asking questions (to which you have given your opinion on) and writing specifically about comparing the NK breeds and not about dogs in general.
As for what you have written...
Remember that stranger dogs getting along well (like in dog-parks etc) is really unnatural and due to really good socialization. Especially with more "primitive" breeds like the NK, that have not such "degenerated" social skills like Labs or Golden Retrievers...
>> I disagree, dogs are social creatures and, as Lisa pointed out, have formed various types of social structures in nature and in domestication - they don't always form "packs" (look at Coyote) and they don't always follow a rigid social structure, dominance based or not. So many of your points, which are valid for a specific type of canine social structure (the pack), are not valid when applied generally to canine (since all canine don't live in packs), IMHO. Also, many labs and retrievers are more social with other dogs and humans than other breeds, so how does a dog being more social give them "degenerated social skills"? I don't follow your logic.
My assumptions are that there is an evolutionary reason for getting a competitor "out of the way".
>> I think its rather odd to use evolution as a model to explain why or why not a domesticated dog breed has some particular quality. As far as I understand evolution, which I am assuming you are referring to a Darwinist-type of evolution, it is a naturally occurring model (natural selection). Domestics dogs didn't evolve naturally via natural selection, they are selectively bred animals (via artificial selection). Why would the instincts of a wild animal, who has centuries of natural selection behind it, apply to a domestic animal who has been altered via artificial selection selection for 100s-1000s of years? I might base my argument off this if the subject was of wild canine, but its not, the subject is the NK breeds, specifically the AA.
----
I guess when it comes to my dogs' safety, in many cases I think I'm quite fine with making type 1 errors. I'm quite happy to try and find patterns in my dogs' behavior. It's basically what I have to do all day long when training them, and hunting with them. Sometimes I get it right, and sometimes wrong. I leave allowances for that and try to be flexible. From an evolutionary standpoint, I guess humans/animals that erred on the side of safety (ie type 1 errors) probably had a better chance of not getting knocked out of the gene pool. When training hunting dogs, I don't have much room for mistakes, as it could get my dogs and possibly myself injured or dead.
I guess to answer the question in this thread, the only way to give a proper answer would be to actually crunch numbers. I think this could be interesting, so will try to work on it. Would have to figure out how to do it properly and not get a skewered sample.
Just for fun (but not an accurate sample) I listed up all the NK that I know fairly well, dogs that are owned by friends etc, and it comes out to just under 100 dogs. I just wanted to do a prelim and see if a majority lean either way. As far as the females go, I'd have to say I see absolutely no pattern. Most are fine with other dogs, some are not, and they're not too picky about which sex the other dog is. With the males I know I definitely see a majority that are not okay with other males, but are okay with females. There are probably multiple reasons for it, socialization etc. Some of the males are okay with males they've grown up with, but even those are not okay with strange males.
The only thing I could think of is that perhaps because they view pretty much all females as possible partners, perhaps that is what allows them to be more receptive of strange females. Seeing them as a resource may help to redirect their initial negative reaction to meeting a strange dog.
I have met a lot of altered males who were said to be same-sex aggressive. Most of these examples are pets. So I think it is safe to assume these altered (pet) males have not ever mated, and so they don't have the same value system placed around intact females as a male dog who has mated. So then, why would they be same-sex aggressive too?
----
I'm not sure, if we really are on different tracks or if it just appeals to be, because we misunderstand each other in details... Please keep in mind, that english is not my mother tongue and even though I give my very best I might make some heavy mistakes in translating...
"I am assuming you are referring to a Darwinist-type of evolution"
Yes, I do. I'm sorry for not pointing it out. Since in my country the Darwinist-type of evolution is the only acknowledged one (mostly due to the principle of "freedom of religion", which is taken very serious), I'm not used to talking to people for whom it is pretty normal to take other theories about evolution into consideration, so I simply forgot...
Actually I was not referring to the parts you (re)postet, Brad, but I was referring to these:
"This is really where the core of this discussion is for me. Your comment implies that your friends have told you that same-sex aggression is instinctual in the AA breed. My question there would be: why? Why would same-sex aggression be instinctual in the AA breed? What value does same sex-aggression add to the breed as a whole - from a natural selection or artificial selection perspective?"
I just think, that you ask the wrong way around... You ask about "What does it add?" But the right question would be "Why would it become extinct?"
The reason I was referring to the "basics" of dogs (which would be wolfes, but I'll go on to domesticated dogs soon...) was because this is the "basic" gene pool from which genes get lost due to natural or artificial selection and some new are added by gene mutations.
Normally traits only get lost, if they are lethal in the environment the animal lives in, because all carriers of this gene die out.
Any animal that is overly aggressive towards the opposite sex doesn't mate and therefore it's genes get lost from the gene pool. That was the case thousands of years ago and it still should be today (even though artifical insemination is being a thread to this...).
The aggression towards competitors was necessary for a wolf to survive. A wolf that doesn't protect its food/mating partner/sleeping place doesn't stay in the gene pool because it starves, gets killed or simply doesn't get a chance to mate. Of course there might be wolves in a pack, that just feed on the leftovers of the others, but they don't mate. Since wolve-packs normally consist of mommy and daddy (and maybe one or two of their siblings) and their children, the children have two path' to choose: Stay in the pack (and probably don't find a mating partner) or wander off to start a new pack. If they wander off and don't have some kind of ressource guarding, their genes go extinct, because other carnivores steal their prey (they starve) or other wolves steal their mating partners (no passing on of the genes).
So far for the "wolf-basics", but - as we all know - dogs are NO wolves any more.
But what was the purpose for domestication? To have guardians.
Wolves were domesticated to warn and defend their humans. - They were domesticated for aggression towards stranger humans/ wolves/ other animals. So they were selected for devotion to the group and aggression towards individuals not belonging to the group.
But again, if they had been too aggressive towards the opposite sex, they wouldn't have been able to mate with other wolves/domesticated wolves/ dogs that do not belong to their group, so there genes would have gone extinct at once or after a while of inbreeding, causing illnesses to occur and let the line go extinct.
So they were bred for stranger aggression BUT with the limitation to be able to mate.
At this point I'd like to clarify what I understand of "same-sex-aggression"... Maybe it is better described as dog-aggressive with a soft (but not too soft!) spot for the opposite sex...?
Now, this goes on and on and on, civilization goes on and dogs are more and more divided into "breeds" that fulfill different tasks, that desire different traits.
Some breeds are still bred for "guarding", some are bred for "non-guarding", since they get in contact with other stranger dogs a lot (like hound-packs or dogs in cities like Dalmatians for example) and dogs that were bred for totally different purposes, where "guarding" or "non-guarding" didn't make a real deal, like hunting dogs, that only have to deal with stranger dogs rarely.
The smaller NK would be found somewhere between "guarding" and "doesn't matter" (more with guarding if you consider Shigerus observations), while the Akita was used as a guarding dog sometimes if I'm correct, so it was bred for this as well. The AA, being bred from the JA, inherited a lot of its traits...
The "problem" with the dogs being bred for totally different purposes, where guarding doesn't matter, is that the trait can still be inherited, since it doesn't matter, so guarding dogs are not excluded from the genepool.
"Also, many labs and retrievers are more social with other dogs and humans than other breeds, so how does a dog being more social give them "degenerated social skills"?"
This was due to my translation fault... I didn't mean "degenerated" as being weakened, but I meant "denaturalized". The natural tendency to aggressiveness towards strangers is being altered into stronger social skills and more "tolerance" towards stranger dogs. I used the wrong word, sorry...
NK are more "primitive" breeds, as you put it sometimes, Brad.
I mean... We all agree on the fact, that you have to socialise the heck out of most NK-pups to have a nice, social dog in the end while most Labs need a heck of bad experiences to become really aggressive towards other dogs...
So NK are more predisposed for stranger-aggression, than other breeds, aren't they?
But the ones being aggressive towards both genders wouldn't (or couldn't) be bred, so they would fall out of the gene pool.
Therefore I think that same-sex-aggression is quite logical in primitive breeds (and guarding breeds etc).
But since Akitas are no longer bred for guarding I don't think that all of them have to have a natural tendency towards ssa.
Some might have a predisposition inherited, some might not have it inherited, but be ssa due to false socialisation (like the type I error).
I did never want to say, that AAs MUST be ssa, but this discussion did take a route that seemed to absolutely neglect the possibility of ssa being inherited in this breed and I wanted to add, that there are indeed logical reasons for inheritance of a predisposition ssa in dogs in general and in this (or these) breed(s) in particular. A predisposition of ssa is in my opinion much more likely than a predisposition of overall aggression.
"Also, since multiple males can sire a litter, what would the evolutionary advantage be of guarding one female? It's not the same kind of competition for breeding that we would see in primates, I wouldn't think."
Being the only one, that sires the litter? A female just has a limited number of ovules (is that the right word?) and every male that mates with the female lessens the chance of the others.
It's simple math. If a female has four ovules and four males mate with her, they will theoretically all have one pup that inherits their genes and gives them on. But if one of these males guards the female and is the only one that mates with her, there'll be four pups, that might inherit his aggressive guarding of females, while the other three males, that do not try to compete with him will have no offspring (or at least less).
It is no question of sense, it is a question of efficiency. The one that guards "his" females the most aggressive will have the most offspring, that inherit his traits and perhaps his aggressive guarding and they will be the ones that have the most offspring in the next generation etc...
Lisa, I don't think you can compare feral dogs to domesticated dogs...
Feral dogs have a totally different reducing element than domesticated dogs. Feral dogs HAVE to get along. Overly aggressive individuals will soon get in trouble and be killed (and whiped out of the gene-pool) whereas the ones with good social skills towards strangers can keep themselves out of serious trouble.
Domesticated dogs are leashed and lead by humans. If the dog is being overly aggressive it is simply kept away from strangers, so it does not get into heavy trouble....
Alright, that's it for now... I might have missed some points in the discussion, because i was focussing too much on others. If it happened - that was no intention, I'm sorry... I tend to get swept away discussing about details, missing other important parts. Even though I try to get everything it still happens sometimes, when I get really excited about something.
This topic is really fascinating I think. And it is great to be able to share my thoughts with you guys. Even though we don't seem to share the same opinion.
It's very helpful, that you point out where my thoughts appear illogical to you, so I can check if I made mistakes in thought or with the translation...
Jessika, what do you mean by "makes it sound so PC"? I'm sorry, I don't know the term... lol
Funny, I was just thinking about that last night, and I think you and Tanja have GREAT English writing skills.
PC=Politically Correct, I like urban dictionary's 1st definition
*******Warning word usage maybe offensive*********
A way that we speak in America so we don't offend whining pu$$ies.
Only pathetically weak people that don't have the balls to say what they feel and mean are politically correct pu$$ies.
All in jest!!
You wrote:
"It is no question of sense, it is a question of efficiency. The one that guards "his" females the most aggressive will have the most offspring, that inherit his traits and perhaps his aggressive guarding and they will be the ones that have the most offspring in the next generation etc..."
Yes this would be the case from an evolutionary standpoint, like you said, but this doesn't really affect dogs today, other than that their ancestors was bred this way, as we select breeding partners for our dogs today. But I wonder, some of the non-resource-guarding dogs must have gotten their go too, as we do see dogs with no aggression? If it is passed on in the genes, and only the aggressive males, guarding their females, mated, then we would have only aggressive dogs right? Apart from the changes we can affect with proper socialization of course, and the given differences in personality of the dogs... God I'm confused! Haha ;o)
Jessika >>
Thanks for the complement. Assuming, I'm the Tanja you wrote about ;o) A german once thought I WAS english, but I'm not that good, so I must've just been better than her ;o) Anyways, I try my best...
I agree with your assessment on the value of ssa in wolves and why it may be a pre-programed quality that is passed on to their post-evolutionary counterparts.
Having written that, and maybe you are saying this too (not sure), IMHO ssa is simply resource guarding in canine (wild or domestic). Canines guard objects from other canine for fear of that object being taken from them. Each canine has their own value system, some canine value some things more than other canines - its a matter of personal taste. A canine guards his family (pack, family, whatever) from other creatures for this same reason - the family is a source of good stuff for him/her, and so he/she protects it from being taken from him. In the family exists female canine, other female canine are not going to "take" the female canine from the family and so the males don't perceive other female canine as a threat to their females. Male canine from other families may "take" (breed with) females tho, and so they perceive strange male canine as a threat, and are aggressive in their defense.
As Dave was saying, this IMHO is not ssa, it is resource guarding. The instinct passed on is resource guarding instinct, not an instinct to be aggressive toward males for no other reason than to simply be aggressive toward them (ssa). This is where I have issue with the concept of ssa being instinctual in any breed.
Now, regarding wolves, sure we can use them as a model for some wild canine, but I have a little issue with using them exclusively as the model because it is not 100% proven that wolves, and wolves alone, are the base for all domestic dogs - after all, there are other wild canine, and domestic canine could be a product of the domestication of wolves and, for example, Coyote. Other wild canine (Foxes, Coyote) do not form packs in the same way wolves do, so to assume all the rules that apply to wolves would then apply to the building blocks of domesticated canine seems like a logical leap to me. JMHO
Now when we start to talk about some breeders producing dogs with ssa and others producing dogs who are not ssa that starts to really muddle with the argument all together, IMHO - I mean, if some breeders (or bloodlines) produce dogs that are ssa while others do not, then you cannot really say all the dogs of that breed are ssa or predisposed to ssa... I mean some CC are human aggressive, while others aren't, so you can't say that all CC are human aggressive, right?
----
I can only try to answer simple, short posts. The long posts just spins my head. :-)
With male-female interactions, I don't think actual mating would be the pre-requisite for the light bulb going off in a male (if it does). It is more with being around a female in heat that changes a male dog's perception of a female dog from rival/competitor to something else.
If so, then the extrapolation that altered males should not have SSA doesn't quite work. It's still what they know and not what they do.
"I mean, if some breeders (or bloodlines) produce dogs that are ssa while others do not, then you cannot really say all the dogs of that breed are ssa or predisposed to ssa..."
No, you cannot. - And I didn't.
As I said: The reason I started talking about this was because this thread took a turn towards "no, ssa is NOT inherited and NOT in the AA", which I had the feeling was a bit short-visioned. I just wanted to point out, that there IS a good possibility for ssa being inherited, at least in some lines.
And this is the point where I think that both theories mentioned (inheritance and type-I-error) fit together perfectly:
You have four lines of AA - 1 has ssa inherited and 3 do not have it inherited.
Now people see the aggressive Akitas, being told, that this is "normal" in this breed by the breeder. Word spreads and people having pups of the other four lines make type I errors, when their pup gets in trouble with another dog of the same sex (propably by chance). They make all of the mistakes you mentioned above and therefore - because of just one line being predisposed to aggression towards the same sex - their dogs "become" ssa too. Not because of the genes, but because of the mistakes - and this leads to people assuming that the breed as a whole would be "same sex aggressive".
I find it hard to believe that the ssa-myth just popped out of nowhere. I think it is most likely that it is based on a combination of (few) dogs really being ssa and (many) people wrongly applying the scheme on their dogs too...
Does that make sense?
re: comparing domestic dogs to feral dogs, I agree that we can't assume that they are the same, however, it seems to me that people make lots of assumptions about domestic dogs by comparing their behavior to wolves (even here in this thread) which to me is even more "off" than comparing pet dogs to feral dogs. At least in the latter case we are talking about the same species! Like Brad, I'm not at all convinced that dogs came from wolves in the conventionally accepted sense. Certainly the Coppinger book gives plenty of room for doubt on that issue, and I was totally convinced by their belief that the idea of dogs as "domesticated wolves" is simply not true at all....
One of the difficulties of this discussion has been that if we assume that some temperament traits might be genetic (a huge and possibly incorrect assumption in the first place) then we begin talking about the evolutionary traits of canines, and yet the comparisons we make between canine species are also huge assumptions, as well as the fact that how well does the idea of evolution even work in a species so manipulated by humans? I still find the discussion of great interest, but when we examine it on the basis of logic (not something I always do, I must admit!) I think we're making a lot of leaps that might not actually make sense. (Which actually makes the conversation even more interesting to me).
SSA is really kind of puzzling. I could see it as resource guarding in unaltered dogs, but otherwise, it doesn't make much sense, esp. in altered dogs, and I kind of have to think, then, that it is something somehow socialized into the dogs.
And I have no idea about the issue of altered dogs. Would they think of opposite sex dog as a potential breeding resource? Why? I don't know how much of sex-related behavior disappears with altered dogs. Does it depend on when they were altered? What about a neutered male who has never encountered a female in season? Why would altered dogs have any SSA aggression?
I'm beginning to really doubt the phenomena. Meaning, I know it exists, but I am beginning to believe it is artificial in the sense that it is something people created through assumptions and socialization.
>> I think males can tell female dogs from other male dogs, sure. Do I think they value females as potential mates w/o the female being in heat, maybe. They do seem to be more tolerant of female "bitch-ness". I've seen females do things to males and the male just ignore them, things that would result in an epic fight if a male did that to another male.
So, yes, I do think males treat females differently than they treat other males (and females treat males differently than they do other females). What I do not see in male dogs is intolerance of other male dogs (which is what ssa applies). I do not see any added "aggression" between our males vs between our females vs across the sexes.
Here at our house we have 5 intact males and 4 intact females. We also have 2 altered males and 3 altered females, we NEVER see males guarding females from other males if the females are not in season. We also see NO added aggression between the intact males (or altered males). In the past we have had 2 intact male Akita Inu also, and we so no added aggression in them either. I have never owned an AA for comparison tho, but I would be FLOORED and SHOCKED if there was such a huge difference (the existence of ssa) in the AA breed vs other breeds.
When a female comes into season here on the ranch, males become excited, and if allowed to interact with a female when other intact males are around we do see resource guarding - but we don't allow that to happen, we manage the situation so that the males do not compete over mates. We do this by removing the resource (the in-season female). I have seen altered males show interest in in-season females, but with a much lower intensity than intact males and we have never seen altered males fight over breeding rights (but we have seen that in intact males once due to a management error).
Perhaps we do not see male-male aggression here because we do not allow them to compete over breeding rights (or any other "rights", like food), we remove the stimulus, and so they do not learn the need to compete over females. This, IMHO, goes along with my feeling of ssa being resource guarding and nothing more.
This is all JMHO and based on our observation of our dogs on our property.
Having written that, it is based on our observation of intact animals living free-range-style on our ranch, which is a unique situation. If I didn't have the ability to view the behavior of such a wide range of dogs in a free-range like environment I may have a differing open on all this - because it would be based off anecdotes and hearsay and not off real observation of a relatively wide sampling.
----
Also, I didn't know that neutered males will still attempt to breed....I mean I'd heard of it, since a friend had a neutered male that still did manage it, but I didn't know if that was common, an exception whatever. I have so little experience with unaltered dogs....
The males I know, that are ssa are ALWAYS ssa. It is not resource guarding, because it happens without a resource being present.
Plus, what I am talking about all the time is aggression towards stranger dogs, not dogs that live together in a group. Of course, every dog in your group has at some point been "stranger", but they ain't no longer, so the observations most interesting would be the ones when a new dog enters your group.
And I find it really unrealistic, that ssa just popped out of nowhere. I don't believe that it is only due to people "believing" it. There must have been a source somewhere. And there are dogs that are ssa without their humans being able to influence it.
Etsu for example started being ssa without me "knowing" it. He started getting in trouble with some dogs and getting along with others and I looked/asked for the gender when they had already been in contact (getting along or not), so I cannot have influenced him, because I didn't know if they were male or female before Etsu started interacting with them.
What i find plausible is that there actually is a natural explanation for ssa at least in some dogs (being due to genetics or hormones or whatever), but good socialisation turns it unrelevant.
"I still find the discussion of great interest, but when we examine it on the basis of logic (not something I always do, I must admit!) I think we're making a lot of leaps that might not actually make sense. (Which actually makes the conversation even more interesting to me)."
Yes, I agree. We all put up possible theories (the one of the type-I-error is only just a theory, that can hardly be proved) of what it might be, but noone of us really knows - no one of us CAN know.
This makes this discussion really fun, because it is mostly a discussion of which theory is the most plausible one - but not which one is the "right" one, because none of us can ever know...
You (Laura) think all dogs have ssa but via proper socialization we alter their association with same sex dogs and therefore minimize the appearance of ssa. While I think all dogs aren't born with ssa and they develop it via improper socialization and negative associations.
I think we're having a good old fashioned Nature vs. Nurture debate, huh?
----