I think its a good thing!

Jeanette

So on the basis of Coppinger’s research, as we provide our dog with sufficient food, water is always available, they have five star accommodation, exercise is provided and their health cared for, why would they form a pack with us?

Because those are the functions/services that wolves provide for each other!

But domestic dogs are not wolves - there are vast differences!



"We don’t have to be Alpha, dominant or pack leader, and neither does our dog. All we need to be is an owner responsible for guiding our dog, shaping and influencing its behaviour through correct socialisation and training so they can live in harmony with us."

This correct rearing of dogs is exactly what will establish the human members of a household as being higher ranking pack members.

Only if you believe in the pack theory. I don't and my dogs are happy and well adjusted with no need for any "dominance theory" training

I don't agree with his observations regarding feral dogs. Perhaps that was a one off case. I can tell you that I have witnessed dogs who have been abandoned by their owners form packs. These packs will usually scavenge for food, from dustbins etc, but there is still a social heirachy even though they haven't hunted and killed their food (though it has been said that they will kill and eat the feral cats if they catch them). The dominant male and female will eat first. I've even seen dogs with an owner one day, then the next (when the owner has buggered off) it has joined up with 1 of the packs. Sometimes the new addition can fight his way to being the alpha.

"They lived semi-solitary lives or in small groups, probably mum and her offspring"

His point was that when observing dogs that have a plentiful supply of food and those that are not suffering - they do not have a need to form a pack - compare that with the lives our domestic dogs have?

How was the observer to know that the small groups consisted of a mum and her offspring? He doesn't state whether or not within those small groups there was a social structure.

"Therefore dogs and people cannot form a pack in the true sense of the word; a social group yes, but not a pack. "

What is a pack if not first and foremost a social group? Just because dogs may not hunt anymore (though my dog has killed rabbits, he does not go ahead and start eating it, but brings it back to me first. I never instructed him to do this as I didn't realise he would be able to catch and kill a rabbit, and when he brought it to me I was more than a little shocked! Oh, and it wasn't because he didn't know what to do with a dead rabbit, he is on a raw diet and the rabbits he kills himself sometimes form a part of it), they still show all the other traits of being in a pack. They bond to us as they would other dogs, why else would they guard our territory and us? We protect, feed and love them, they do the same for us (apart from the feeding, no way am I eating a rabbit my dog has killed :smt078 )

My dogs catch and kill rabbits - always have - but they would happily eat them. Not sure what this proves?

My dogs even 'fight' amongst themselves for the top spot beneath the people in the family (one dog always has the best bed, best spot in sun....). You must have noticed that as a dog gets older it tends to lose its higher rank. Even if the older dog is fed first by the owner, gets the best bed, is petted and played with first, the younger dogs will find ways of asserting their dominance over it; you may find that it gets moved out of its bed by the others. I've noticed that younger dogs don't have to growl, they'll just use their body to push an older dog out of the way (say when the dogs are arguing over who gets petted first, the younger dog will just push the older dog out the way so that it gets petted first). Of course younger dogs will always be trying these sorts of things, but the difference is the older dog will stop fighting back, it just submits to the younger one.

No, my dogs don't fight nor have a particular order in the grand scheme of things. They are fed at the same time in the same room, share food bowls, sleep on beds and sofa's together - we have no problems there


For every argument "for" there is an "against". Nothing will ever make me see dogs as pack animals because mine have never displayed that behaviour. They are just "dogs" to me My dislike regarding dominance theories is that they were pushed as a miracle treatment for aggressive dogs who had simply not been taught basic manners as pups. All they did was make submissive dogs more submissive and ruin relationships between other dogs and owners who worried far too much about normal behaviour and being "pack leader"!

"But domestic dogs are not wolves - there are vast differences!"

How do you know that there are vast differences in the way dogs and wolves think and interpret body language? You only need to watch the way wolves and dogs greet one another to see the similarities; dominant dog/wolf carries head and tail high, submissive wolf/dog lowers tail and head, maybe even tucks tail between legs. Submissive wolves/dogs will turn their head to the side, away from the dominant animal. If a dominant wolf/dog feels the need to assert his dominance and starts a fight, the submissive wolf/dog will tuck tail right between legs, head down, body all huched up and will urinate. Dominant wolf/dog will do all it can to stare out the other animal before a fight, if the other animal does not look away, the dominant wolf/dog will attack and prove that he is the stronger and more dominant. How can you say that wolves and dogs are so very different when they exhibit exactly the same body language? They are so alike that dogs and wolves can communicate, they even reproduce. Pet dogs have been mated with wolves, I'm sure you know this as there has been a lot of trouble over it, especially in USA. But it illustrates the point; if there are such vast differences between wolves and dogs, then how could they communicate and produce offspring?

"Only if you believe in the pack theory. I don't and my dogs are happy and well adjusted with no need for any "dominance theory" training"

But you have been training them to look up to you as the dominant one without realising it.

What do you think that dominance theory training is? I think that alpha rolling is a load of rubbish, it doesn't prove much to the dog other than you are a bit of a bully, and if a dog is alpha rolled for a disobedience, when it is already feeling a little stressed, the owner is way more likely to be bitten than if the dog was corrected through some strict OB. Alpha rolling causes way more problems than it solves. Is that what you mean by dominance theory training?

"His point was that when observing dogs that have a plentiful supply of food and those that are not suffering - they do not have a need to form a pack - compare that with the lives our domestic dogs have?"

Why don't they need to form a pack? In my own experience, watching the countless numbers of abondoned dogs in Spain where my parents own a property, they DO form packs. I believe this is mainly down to the comfort dogs get from being amongst others, but they still have to fight to get food, even if there is a 'plentiful' supply. Grass is always greener on the other side and all that; the alpha dog will always get the best bits of food and the most, though others may try to challenge him for it, since it must be better than theirs. People throw out all sorts of things, and dogs will eat everything from the food scraps to the contents of babies nappies. Obviously the more dominant ones get the meaty bits, whilst less dominant ones are left with excrement.


"My dogs catch and kill rabbits - always have - but they would happily eat them. Not sure what this proves?"

I take it you mean that they would happily eat them without bringing them to you first? In a wolf pack less dominant animals have to offer up their kills to the alpha, even though the alpha may not have played any role in the kill. By bringing the rabbit to me first, my dog was respecting me as the alpha member. He will do this every time, it was not just with his first kill. I tell him to take it away, and he goes off to eat it. (Is only the male GSDx that does this, the others wouldn't. I think this is mainly because he is much more dominant than the bitches, so I have to enforce all the rules about eating, where to sleep, minding my commands, me going through doors first....all the time, so in return he shows more respectful behaviour. I have never hit any of my dogs, or tried to dominate them through force; except once when he was a pup and he ran after sheep, that time he was shaken by the scruff of his neck, but not hit.)

"My dislike regarding dominance theories is that they were pushed as a miracle treatment for aggressive dogs who had simply not been taught basic manners as pups. All they did was make submissive dogs more submissive and ruin relationships between other dogs and owners who worried far too much about normal behaviour and being "pack leader"! "

I agree with this in part, but what of those puppies who have been brought up well, always do as they are told, then when they are maturing they turn into the evil dog from hell, always challenging the owner? These dogs will challenge younger members more than the older ones, even if the younger ones have had a lot to do with the dog.

All animals have a pecking order and a universal language, don't tell me there isn't a boss amongst your horses! Horses will include donkeys in their herds, donkeys can even be higher ranking than a horse. Why shouldn't people and dogs form a pack? They read our body language as well as they can read other dogs, it is the lack of understanding on some owners parts that causes the trouble.

Animals are put into unnatural environments when we domesticate them, and will generally bond with whatever they can: there have been several racehorses who are weaned with goats, these goats live in the stables with them, and many refuse to go to race meets unless the goat is going too. The goat belongs to the horses' herd. People belong to dogs' packs, or vice versa, however you look at it.

Do you think that when you are out for a walk with your dog off the lead, he comes back because he has to? Or because he wants to? Why would he want to unless he thought of you as his pack member? Do you think it is because he knows he is well fed and cared for at home? My dog couldn't care less about food, he wants to please me to gain favour, the way wolves try to gain favour with the alpha wolf. I think it is an insult to dogs to think they just stay with us because we feed them, their loyalty goes way beyond their hunger, they bind themselves to people as they would to other dogs in a pack in the wild.

Maybe this ought to be moved to the heated debates section? Dogs: Pack animals or not.

Lizzy.

PS. Chloe I respect your opinion, hope I haven't sounded rude anywhere, need to show some of the morons on other sites that we can have completely opposite opinions and still get on!

I agree with Chloe on this, but whatever your views on the issues, Coppinger's book 'Dogs: a new understanding of canine origin, behaviour, and evolution' is well worth reading.

Chloe - what a stunning dog!