Just because something seems to work dosent mean you shouldnt find the reasons why it works. Beating a dog in many cases would 'work' as a training method because dogs learn to do things that are rewarding and avoid things that make bad things happen - but does that mean that is a good way to teach??


ah right - fair nuff, I thought you were saying you were leting your older dog disciplin your pup. Sure it is interesting to watch interactions but 1st we are humans and cannot totaly understand everything that has gone on in the lead up to the interactions, and 2nd watching our own dogs although interesting does not give us an insight into natural behaviour because our training and interactions has changed the way our dogs behaive

I would say it is fluid too - although we do assume primates to have a more heiracichal (SP!) structure - although that could well be us looking for one and shaping the results to fit the model
More than likeley in people and animals you just have different personalities and different skill sets - depends on the situations and the individuals around at the time

Yes - If you look for heirachy then you will see it - dosent mean it is really there.
When I had a boss sure they are the boss of you at work but that dosent mean they are dominant to you out of work
Someone in your social group might be the one with all the bright ideas and plans nights out more than other people, then you will have the social butterfly who is more likely to chat to strangers, the person who is most likely to get the forst round of drinks in and the one who prefers to be the driver
Dosent make a structure - and noone as set out these roles its just what the individuals find the most rewarding for them in that group situation

Nope
In my house I am the human, my dogs are the dogs, they dont have an order amongst themselves and I am not in any position above or below them - they are dogs and I treat them as such - and they treat me as a human

Fantasticly well put! I cant give you reppies at the mo but if I could I would give you thousands

But this quote above isn't what i was actually saying

Tango asked the historical origins of the pack theory, to which i posited the first reason:

schenkel captive wolf study

and someone else followed that up with second reason:

2. its a human construct, as human society is based on heirachy

to which tango replied, not it is not, their are no leaders in his community or family

I replied that you need to consider the historical context when these theories were created, when society was a lot more rigid and heirachal, then gave examples today whereby it is clearly still so.
My examples were not social/family/community based (as these influences, church, neighbours, family, etc, have lessened.........(althogh one can argue they are still very strong in some harsh working class council estates with the local 'hard family' being the head).

The examples clearly being work - which is still heirachal based in practice, theory, policy, law etc, etc.
NB EDIT BELOW: I wasn't cross-referencing a work boss into the social sphere, but saying that as work is a major factor in life, it does infuence and inform you a great deal as a person.

The other example being politics - we never like a politician how isnt a 'strong leader', firstly of his own 'party' (ie, company) before the country.

So, yes, leadership and heirachy are still, even today, albeit in less areas, major components of human society, and therefore lays the source of the average person's instinctive and automatic acceptance of heirachy theory with pets.

NB EDIT: thought better of statement above. The heirachal leader role of the boss can and does transfer to the social scene, when you give t some thought.
Example 1: Ask yourself, how many people actually feel comfortable hanging aorund socially with their boss?
Example 2: how many people invite their boss and wife over to dinner to impress them in view of promotion etc?

There are many examples of differently structured groups in human society. I question their relevance when considering a creature with no spoken or written language.

Sorry don't agree with that statement at all Our two most definately see us (mere) humans as part of the pack and Bara who is a very dominant dog only sees OH as her superior, in the wild she would definately be the pack leader of that I have no doubt having closely observed her for four years.

You can quote 'ethology' and any other 'ology' you want to it won't alter Bara's attitude to the pack and it won't make her less dominant.

Also, I don't care whether the original research was 'flawed' (Because it was done with wolves in captivity) the fact remains that there are dominant and submissive dogs and where ever a dominant dog ends up in a pack it will always want to be the leader unless there is another creature (i.e. a human) who can and is fulfilling that role.

The original research may have had some 'technical' flaws but just beacause itis over 50 years old doesn't make it totally worthless.

Modern research is not automatically correct just because it is 'modern' if you want proof of this just look at the millions that are wasted by unniversity graduates who think they are doing 'original' research on how stroking your dog is beneficial to us humans.

Every year some 'graduate' on one side of the pond or the other comes out with a PHd paper on this when in reality it was discovered decades ago. They still think they are the bees knees for publishing a paper on it

There's no actual basis for hierarchy, we know this now.

You have to go right back to where it started.

Why do you think you are pack leader?

Wys
x

I think this is very true - as humans, we like hierarchy and try to make it so. Take the army and the church, 2 excellent examples of hierarchy.

We try to give other species, etc hierarchy too, because in our eyes, that is what we see, and that is what we like to see, as humans.

It makes us comfortable with things.

One study actually refers to this need of humans to put things into a linear hierarchy. I think it's this one if I recall:

http://www.nonlineardogs.com/

I think it's so interesting that when studying animals, we forget to look at our own human leanings and preferences!!!!! which can so strongly influence our views/perceptions of what our dogs and animals are doing.

I believe the author is going to be at the UKRCB sumposium (unless it's already been and gone).

Wys
x

but you can get exactly the same effect by trial and error learning and association, too!!! which is nothing to do with pack stuff.

.....

No, the original research was not correct, as scientists who USED to support it, now believe and acknowledge

Indeed, these exact same scientists who to their own chagrin, used to support the theory!

Science moves on, those who got it wrong acknowledge this, so why can't we?

...




Wys
x

i agree

im just saying heirachy and leadership are quite normal in human society, so its no surprise that humans find this easy to apply to dogs

Oh well we'll have to agree to disagree then, that's my opinion based on scientific facts, but you can carry on believing what you like, makes no difference to me! I'm not sure why you have to be so rude about it, you don't have to be hostile and patronising to try and have a discussion so what's with the bold and the red?

Ethology is the study of animal behaviour, your sentence doen't make any sense?

What's your background out of interest, as you seem to be quite dismissive of modern non-pack leadership and dominance approach, so I assume you have some specialist knowledge of animal behaviour?

I don't mean that to come across rude, I'm genuinely interested.

Kruse, Sorry sometimes whe I quote some one what comes underneath is a rambling thought that came from that post - I agree with you, basically humans see these structures because to an extent that is/was how our socity is


Losos
In what ways do you see Bara behaving as a dominant dog?
and what behviours does she exhibit that make you believe that she is seeing your OH as her superior?
I have asked this question several times on forums, not to ridicule the person or to pick holes in, but to find out 1st what the people are actually seeing, and to 2nd see how that behaviour holds up to other theories of dogs behaviour
I do have a paper to write on this subject and I am truly interested in peoples experiences with their dogs.
How what people perceve as dominance can be totaly different and how people read certain behaviours in certain ways - and respond to them