My view exactly

Hi Ben,
I don't think you can look at dominance without looking at submission/deference and hierarchy as they are intrinsically interlinked.

As you rightly state imo, dominance is a function of behaviour, not of being.

However some individuals dominant situations and other individuals much more frequently than others, so I think peopel sometimes, wrongly, "shorthand" it by referring to such an individual as "dominant", rather than restricting that description to their behaviour (i.e a response to a stimulus), at certain times, under certain circumstances.

The best I can come up with as a definition atm, off the cuff so to speak, and I am sure it won't be perfect, is what I posted before which also saves me doing much retyping of it )?

It means each individual uses what it has (i.e. it's influence/ability to control outcome/dominance by various strategies), including learning, charm, manipulation etc , to its best advantage to reach its position of greatest comfort (be that psychological and/or physical), which inevitably includes reaching an agreement ("consensus") whereby it is in least conflict with other individuals in its environment.

Dominance theory and hierarchy accounts then for all the procedures involved in getting to that point (experience, personality, learning, association etc, etc) in one neat, simple explanation.

"Dominant" to me simply means most influential.

Even in genes you can have degrees of dominance with co dominant genes and some genes being masked if others are present, but dominant if they are not.

Even recessive genes can "dominant" when in pairs, much like the difference between basic rank and dependent rank with dogs etc.

Some tasks can only be performed by the dominant hand with help from the other hand, such as clapping and hand washing.

When the dominant hand is busy with something else the less dominant hand can be delegated other jobs e.g write/type with your right, while eating with your left .

If the dominant hand is incapacited the less dominant may well fill the breach.

So even when we apply the term in other vastly different fields many of the variables still apply in the same way as when correctly applying it (as I see it) to dog behaviour, i.e. in the simple, plain-English meaning of the word: to be the most prominent, influential or controlling factor (with the caveat of at that time, under those circumstances)

I hope that makes sense?

Nicely put.

I totally agree with all that you have said here.

I know what you mean, our small dog tries to get the elder dog to play and he is normally successful so he does get his own way. At the same time he is patient while the elder dog is not. The elder dog wants what he wants right away and he acts like a spoilt brat sometimes. But again, you can not say he is domineering all the time as when I am eating he just lies patiently in the hope that he will get some left-overs, but with my wife he gets impatient and barks at her to hurry up. The small dog does not even expect left-overs , even though he always gets half, or he certainly does not beg. So on the sliding scale of expectation of getting your own way there is a definite difference.
I would say she was impatient and expectant and maybe even manipulative?

Thats right----but that doesn't negate that a particular dog is being dominant within its group does it?

We have two groups here and both have a top dog. when the two groups mingle one stays top the other doesn't---which used to cause problems when I was the primary carer of both because it is my dog who is demoted---and he felt I would back him up whereas if Tassle was 'in charge' it wasn't an issue at all.

Most people don't have that problem anyway---much smaller groups, far less interaction with other dogs.

The huge difference between our pet dogs and wolves is that the dogs are willing to accept other dogs into their groups----as a general rule that is. Not many dogs approach a group of dogs on their own territory with huge confidence though, most will use a lot of calming signals and appease everyone for a length of time---how long depends on the dog.

The other big difference is the barking----where did that come from I wonder?

rune

Hi Rune,

I do not know if you saw the short video about taming foxes? I have posted it below if you are interested.

When they selectively bred foxes for tameness they actually started to look and act like dogs; curly tail, floppy ears, patches of colour rather than a uniform colour coat and of course barking. So it became apparent that the genes for tameness just happened to be the genes for floppy ears etc. The traits of tame foxes and dogs for that matter, are traits that before taming were only seen in infant foxes. So the tame genes are actually infantile genes. For example only wolf cubs bark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t74B6S1kzc

Sorry that isn't correct, although it is not infrequently stated (incidentally they are now referred to as wolf pups, bears and foxes have cubs).

Adult wolves bark less frequently than most adult dogs (although I have known at least one dog who very, very rarely barked i.e. about one single bark once a year!) but they can and do bark if the occasional merits it.

In my house it`s the littlest one (the terrier) that starts the barking.
I think he barks because he`s the most threatened. Being the smallest.
IME confident dogs don`t bark much.

In my opinion and experience, huge amounts of what passes for knowledge in the dog training world isn't knowledge at all but fashion. Every few years someone comes up with a new, fashionable theory and all the old stuff (whether it was effective or not) is thrown out of the window while the "new" stuff becomes mainstream. Currently we are going through a period of this with the celebration of positive reward training (much of which is based on Pavlovian and Skinnerian behaviourist theories which have been laughed out of court for fifty years in human psychology) and the demonisation of the use of negative reinforcement (punishment for want of a better word). Negative reinforcement is the big no-no in today's dog training mainstream (as it has been in western social life for the past 30 years. We have seen the results of that on our streets over recent days with hordes of feral youth who have never been taught that actions have consequences and that acquisition of wealth involves hard work, literally running riot).

IMHO the best way to look at dog psychology is to see what works, try and find out why it works and use it, no matter what theoretical perspective it comes from. Pack theory is a good example - for years people have taken the work of people like David Mech as gospel, when in reality some of it was flawed in several respects. Instead of retaining the useful and ignoring the rest, people want to throw the whole thing out - losing the baby with the bathwater!
We need to be very careful in how we use theories. For me, there is no "pack theory" only pack practice (as I live with a pack of between 12 and 15 Siberian Huskies).
It is foolish to directly compare the social behaviour of a pack of wolves in the wild with a pack of domesticated Siberian Huskies in someone's home or backyard. In a wolf pack, the Alpha is a WOLF and that wolf controls the resources of the pack in a variety of ways - usually completely non-violently. A pack of sibes may also have an alpha dog/bitch, but they also have something that wolves don't have and which affects the whole pack structure enormously - a human leader (or leaders) who control(s) the resources of the pack in a more complete way than an Alpha wolf ever could. So the nature of a Siberian Husky "pack" is very different from that of a pack of wolves - primarily as it is based, not around survival in the wild, but about the husky pack's relationship with its humans and with each other. It is still very much "pack" behaviour nevertheless and the fluidity of the relationships within it and the changes which occur as a result of additions or subtractions to the pack are fascinating to watch. Having a pack of 12 dogs of our own and an endless procession of rescue fosters joining and leaving the pack, we have been privileged to observe the pack behaviour of Siberians at close quarters for many years.
In my opinion, humans are not part of the pack and human leadership of the pack is totally different to the "internal" leadership of the pack leader (or alpha dog). Human leadership is (or should be) separate from and above canine pack leadership. You can see this clearly when I or my wife Terry walk into the pack - immediately everything changes and our laid back alpha will be trampled in the rush of the younger dogs to greet us, despite his grumps. Yet when we are not around he will keep order amongst the youngsters with a look, or by putting himself between youngsters spoiling for a fight, or if it is really serious, with a bloodcurdling growl. He has never needed to bite or attack one of the other dogs to keep order - his natural alpha status does it for him.
Every pack will be different because it contains different personalities. A pack like ours will be more fluid than most because we have a constant flow of fosters in and out of it, but even a more static pack will still be fluid as dogs' personalities change with age and experience just like peoples'. Our pack leader, Ute is very much the alpha in the home territory. Merlin is his deputy and backs him up most of the time (he did challenge for alpha position for a while but soon realised he was on a loser and settled into his subordinate role). Anya is the female alpha, despite being incredibly laid back, although she is currently being challenged by foster bitch Mia whose confidence has grown enormously in the 9 months we have been fostering her. When we get out in the forest and get the dogs in harness, however, the roles change. Merlin is my top lead dog, paired with Summer (a low status girl until she gets in harness).

The whole "dominance" issue is a bit of a red herring. If you are showing appropriate leadership to your dogs, they will love you and want to please you above all. Things like going through the door before your dog are common sense, not signs of dominance. Similarly feeding yourselves before the dogs is a nonsense. Our dogs get fed first thing in the morning - even before I have had my first coffee. Again, nothing to do with dominance, simply convenience and I'm pretty sure that the dogs ascribe no more significance to it than I do!

Mick