Pack theory

Discussion arising from another thread.

Re pack theory---I live with a group of dogs and have done for many years ---over 30. I see much going on which reinforces the group structure and heirachy. Every day each dog finds out in quiet non confromntational ways where they stand still in the group. It might be as simple as being able to lie in a doorway and prevent another dog from passing just once, it could be eye contact which says 'stay back I am doing this first'. Every now and then it could be more obvious.

People will say that things change because some resources are more important to some dogs than other resources. Of course it does, but for some dogs whatever they decide they want they get. Some dogs will guard a bone or similar even though they are at the bottom of the heirachy----but it will only suceed if they are in a good position----a corner or similar. If they aren't regardless of noise and bluster they will lose it if a dog with more confidence wants it.

I have said before that I think most people don't ever see this, often it depends on how many dogs and what they are, how you aquired them and what resources you have around that can help strengthen the heirachy and make for a secure and stable group.

OTOH I don't think (except for one dog who has now died), that I am considered a part of it.

However is wanting your own way dominance? Would you consider a spoilt child to be dominant over its parents? If a parent comes in and wants a TV programme on and the child makes a fuss and watches what they want who is dominant in that situation?

Why is dominant a dirty word---it happens in all groups of all animals as do heirachies---otherwise the group doesn't function as a group. Why are people happy to describe dogs as bullies? Surely you can't have a bully unless you have someone wanting to dominate in situations?

Why are people so willing to not actually think about this?

rune

I suspect that 'dominance' has become a dirty word because Cesar Milan uses it to explain virtually all undesirable behaviours that owners encounter in their dogs.

I have never lived with more than two dogs at a time, and have no experience of being around a pack of dogs. So I shall be watching this thread with great interest

I have nothing to add as I totally agreed with everything you just said.

I never understood the dominant thing, I think dogs are not dumb, they know that we are different species altogether and we can coexist very happily.

Because taking the lead isn`t dominance?
When we work in groups the leader should not dominate - they should facilitate. The creation of a Leader role frees others to perform equally important work.
Also - creation of the Leader implies aquiescence. I mean that the group agrees to let one individual direct the group. Even in a fascist state - the Leader is only in place as long as the group supporting him choose to or are able to let him remain.
Group dynamics is something I`ve worked with for years. It is fascinating - but definitely not a simple as `1 dominant, the rest submissive.`
Even if you look at human dominance, in many cases the submissive is the one who is controlling the scenario. In other words - it takes two to tango.
With animals, pack theory is used - it`s simply that the D word has been subverted by Mr Millan to mean domination by force, backed up by pseudo-science with no basis in fact. This is why most dog owners eschew the D word.
Even so - I would still be loath to use the term Dominate with my pack (and, yes, they are a pack). Daisy lays down some rules and she is rarely challenged. In return she protects and keeps the peace. The others allow her to do this because she is good at it. It frees them to do other things and makes them feel safe (I assume). She does not posture, bully or threaten. But when hunting, Shamus takes the lead. And if male dogs enter our space, it is Shamus who becomes aroused. Daisy doesn`t see them as a threat so it is Shamus who warns them off.
We now have a Puppy to add to the mix and it is interesting to see him learning from the older dogs.
An interesting topic.

My view - speaking generally, to have a good honest, open discussion, there has to be a certain amount of trust and not ever any kind of "getting one over" on someone else. I think that then, peeps feel safe to put their thoughts on paper or on forum!

I know we've had some fab discussions over the years, Rune, and in the little groups we have been members of. That is what is conducive to great discussion - trust, (maybe small groups?) and an understanding of how to be pleasant to people along the way. Remember our wee "special" group? I think that is difficult to emulate on a big forum

Look forward to reading and maybe contributing - just off out now.

Wys
x

I agree that in order to be dominant you have to be allowed to be so, you need back up from others in the situation. If you stand alone it can't work as a stable group.

Many people with multiple dogs will describe that situation----that is where the 'bully' word comes in I think----a dog that is trying to be what it is either not or it is not allowed to be.

Thats why often---depending on the mix/number of dogs and their history----the majority of owners don't see so much going on.

Group dynamics is never going to be simple---the best leaders allow a member with better skills in a certain situation to take over----but they remain in the dominant position, just because they have allowed it doesn't mean they lose position.

rune

Personally, I think 'authority' would be a better (Maybe not the best.) word to use rather than dominance. Also, I fully subscribe to the pack=family model. This based on we have only one dog. Bearing in mind dogs are pack/group animals, it stands to reason that he hasn't got severe psychological problems because he also subscribes to the family=pack model.

Good post Claire! Much better worded than I could do!

I have a pack of dogs, 2 males, 3 females. Yes they are pack animals, but I see no clear hierarchy all the time... except Ollie is truly the lowest member of the totem pole. He is bossed around by the girls, and the other boy, though he growls at any dog near his food, and if he's feeling possessive, he growls over a toy. which I do nothing about, as he doesn't escalate. Though I do leash him when he gets this way playing off leash with other dogs, or we just dont play ball.

Between the girls, I really have no idea who's boss, Scout stays away from the other dogs, but will protect her covated lap from others, at times, though more often than not she will get up and leave too. Zoe gets deferred to alot, but then she also will give up space at times.

and the boys always defer to the girls, for the most part. But I could never give you a linear "Pack Structure" as it's so fluid. And not a single dog thinks I'm a dog, they know I'm human.

Dog packs are sooooo different from Wolf Packs, they're not co-operative hunters, they're scavengers, and thus form packs loosely. I would NEVER use a wolf model on dogs

I think sometimes you can use parts of the wolf model---I have had a very clear diffuser of situations----and that includes squirming round me to defect my anger from another dog----which would indicate that she does feel I am in some part a part of the heirachy and security of the group.

I have also have dogs who have done my job for me if someone else is trying to do the wrong thing----stealing food especially. The teaching job of the beta wolf.

if in our interactions with our dogs we want them to see us as leaders and guiders then we are expecting them to accept us as a part of the heirachy.

rune