Is dominance always bad? Blog entry from Feral Dogs

Comments

  • KenshiKenshi
    edited November -1
    Still seems to me that we can never get around the problem of seeing dogs as dogs if use terms like "dominance." When you say or hear this word, it carries very powerful connotations of how a class of primates that include humans interact in social groups. It leads exhausted dog puppy owners to making primate anger displays which can cause more harm than good to the goal of bonding with a puppy and convincing them to be more obedient, for example.

    My pup who still wants to jump up and eat people to show them how much she LOVES LOVES LOVES and approves of them is described by some of my friends as "obviously very dominant" and yet when I go outside to bring her in, she wants nothing more than to initiate a game where she is the prey and I am the predator. This would be extremely confusing if I subscribed to a model where I had to rate her disposition on a scale of "submissive <--> dominant." Why is my dominant dog sometimes very eager to be submissive? But if I look at her on a scale of "mellow <--> intense" or "low drive <--> high drive" or maybe classify her as "the kind of pack member that runs to the side of the prey while the prey is puched forward by larger / louder pack members, then tries to circle around front to push the quarry towards the ambusher" it makes more sense to me.

    In short I think using this term encourages people to feel guilty when they let their dogs have what they want from time to time. "Oh no, by playing with my dog this way, I am letting her be the dominant one, that will result in her being a bad dog!"
  • BradA1878BradA1878
    edited November -1
    To me, again, this is an example of someone trying to explain the very vague term "dominance". He makes good points, but I don't see why we always have to come back to trying to shoe-horn this term "dominance" into a legitimate descriptor for all canine social structures and behaviors.

    In Mark's post, he writes: "I have captured and handled feral dogs around the world and feral dogs can run in packs and often do.", if they "often do" form packs then sometimes they don't, and if sometimes they don't for packs, then one cannot state that dogs *always* form packs, and if dogs do not *always* form the same social structure then why would every dog-dog relationship be based one type of social behavior: dominance.

    My feeling is that dogs are social creatures, some more than others. It is through physical communication that they define their individual rules, those rules are respected by other dogs as dogs (in general) do not want confrontation (if they did, they would fight more often and their would be way less dogs in the world). The respect of those rules in a group is a "Social Structure". Dogs form "Social Structures", some may be dominance based, some may be a nuclear family unit, others may be a loosely defined seniority based organization, or any other type of social structure. But not all of them are any one thing, and so its incorrect, IMHO, to assume they are all "dominance based" or that all dogs use "dominance" in their decision making.

    My (biased) interpretation of the point Mark is trying to make, if I can ignore the use of the term "dominance", is that dogs are social and need a social structure to be happy. A Social structure is a good thing, as it helps to define each dog's role in their "society". Yes, some dogs can be bullies and force a social structure, and some can be benevolent - both the negative and positive sides are an equally important part of a dog's pre-programmed model that makes them a social creature.

    ----
  • BradA1878BradA1878
    edited November -1
    PS: Nice post Cliff. Well said.
  • CaliaCalia
    edited November -1
    This still only talks about wolves and feral dogs, even if they follow a dominance structure whose to say that our domesticated dogs do. There are many major differences between that which is wild and that which is domesticated, what they need and what is asked from them are totally different. My dogs do not have to hunt for their food, it's served to them in a bowl every morning and evening, so procuring food isn't a struggle for them. They don't have to worry that something might come and eat them, so they sleep anywhere without worry. They are not wild, so they should not be compared to their wild cousins.
  • TheWalrusTheWalrus
    edited November -1
    On other thing that I think we should always keep in mind is that we humans have tinkered with dogs for thousands of years. Breeding for very specific temperaments, aesthetics etc, I can't help but imagine that we've changed a lot of the other wiring in their brains as well. It never surprises me that dog behavior doesn't seem to fit under one perfect label. How could it?
  • BradA1878BradA1878
    edited November -1
    True, he is writing more about feral dogs than domestic dogs - or are feral dogs domestic dogs that have become feral?

    Good point Shigeru, domestic dogs have been significantly altered over time - I agree, it must play a role in their social aptitude.

    ----
  • ShikokuSpiritShikokuSpirit
    edited March 2010
    I think "dominance" could mean lots of things...
    ...a very assertive, pushy dog...an "aggressive dog" (doesn't have to carry a negative canotation).
    ...it can be a dog who is very demanding and needy.

    - Some people consider dogs who ignore or "blow off" an owner's command to be a sign of "dominance".
    - It could also be a dog who bullies/harasses other dogs or animals...bullying is considered to be a "dominant trait" but thinking about it...it just seems like a prey drive trait for those with well...high prey drive =].


    I'm sure if we were to break down all those "dominant traits" we could connect them to whatever drives make that individual dog "tick".


    Essentially, I'm sure you can find something for EVERY dog and they could all be considered/labeled as dominant. Just as I'm sure every human can be labeled with some kind emotional/psychiatic disorder =p.
  • WrylyBrindleWrylyBrindle
    edited November -1
    Feral = domestic animal that has reverted to a wild state.

    I suppose a similar but opposite would be a wild animal in captivity- its "sortof tame" but you can't get the wild out of it entirely. Is a feral animal "sort of wild" and in some cases handicapped in either a physical, mental or emotional way due to its domestic heritage? "you cant get the domesticity out of it entirely?" A feral springer spaniel would be handicapped/less fit by its specialization: long coat that catches burrs, twigs, snowballs, etc., pendulous ears, for example. (although I can tell good stories about one springer I know could feed herself hunting)
  • HeidiHeidi
    edited November -1
    Strict heirarchies don't actually work that well for domesticated dogs, because their survival does not depend on how far up the totem pole they can climb, but rather, how well they fit into human society. Since we feed them and choose which ones procreate, and generally view "dominant" behaviour negatively, it really makes sense that a tendency to act dominant or even a sensitivity to the dominance of others would not be passed down.

    Humans don't live in strict, closed heirarchies, and neither do their dogs. Domesticated dogs are expected to go to new places and meet new people and dogs all the time without causing any trouble. They are expected to accept welcomes visitors into their homes and share their resources without putting up a fuss.

    Also, one characteristic of dominance-driven societies is that individuals are always trying to move up. I think this is what leads to the dominance paranoia, because people think of their dogs as little usurpers just waiting for their opportunity to dethrone their owner. Then they think they have to put the dog in its place every opportunity. I think a truly dominant, status-seeking dog is rare. I can't think of any I know personally.

    I think simple consistence matters more than dominance to a dog. I think that because of the way my dogs and my children interact, and the fact that a lot of people have said that the dogs (Rakka especially, because she interacts with the kids the most) are acting dominant toward the kids. When Rakka knocks a kid down, for example. Since children are inconsistent and have poor communication skills (even with other humans, so how can you expect them to communicate with another species?), dogs tend not to respect them much. I say respect because I think that child behaviour is so nonsensical to a dog (and let's face it, to us adults, too) that their attempts to communicate just become white noise, so to speak. I've never seen my dogs actively try to dominate my children, but if a child tells them "no", or otherwise expresses displeasure, the dogs will generally ignore them. And the same goes for other people who are inconsistent or nonsensical when they try to communicate with my dogs. Their attempts to communicate get disregarded because they don't make any sense.

    Anyway, I'm really going off on a tangent here... I need to sit on my hands.
  • EdgewoodEdgewood
    edited November -1
    Actually, Heidi, I like and agree with the last part of your post. Although my dog isn't around children much, when he is around my nephews, he totally doesn't listen to them, but he listens to adults. I think it is because they make so much noise, calling his name continuously, calling commands continuously, that he tunes them out.

    Otherwise, I agree with everyone's post and don't really think of dogs in terms of dominance per se.
  • ShikokuSpiritShikokuSpirit
    edited November -1
    Heidi, respect is the one and most important thing that is necessary in a dog-human relationship. Reguardless of the dog's temperment/nerves/disposition...if a dog respects you, you'll have that dog's undivided attention. I think that's the problem with most dog-owner relationships...when the owner is inconsistent and dog doesn't understand what s/he's suppose to do, the dog looses respect for the owner and "problems/issues" begin to develop because there is no clear communication happening.


    Oh and Brad, I also like the variety in Social Structures...just as with humans...not all households are run the exact same. I think this is another problem with trying to understand dogs. This way of thinking that each and every dog are no different from another and that they are "programed" genetically to behave socially in a certain way. When in reality, just like humans, dogs must learn and be taught how to behave within society...even amongst their own kind.


    This is also a difficult concept for people to understand but there are infact dogs that prefer to live alone and not interact with other dogs. And it's not that they are incapable of interacting socially, it's just because they choose not to. There are also humans like this...who just like to be left alone. They might interact with another species but prefer not to interact with their own kind. Just like humans (I think we have a few on this forum! =p) who prefer to hang out with their pets (cats, dogs, lizards, birds, rats, bunnies, etc) rather then hang out and "socalize" with other humans =].
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2024