The whole "Wolf vs Dog" thing has been extensively covered in John Bradshaw's In Defence Of Dogs - much better than I've seen it presented anywhere else. In fact it was he who did the Dogs Trust study, I believe.

Alexandra Horowitz?
Alexandra Semonyova?

So what was his opinion/conclusion of the differences please?

So often people seem to say "there is no comparision" without any explanation as to how they differ .

This is a really good thread/discussion, BUT;

Why do we need to totally agree or totally disagree with one theory?

My domestic cats act like 'big cats' when hunting etc but they are still domestic cats. They have their own preferences and dislikes, tolerance levels etc. So I can just take each on their merit. A domestic animal who likes this hates that.....and so on.

Same with the dog. So what?!

There are times when he may be described as dominant, times when submissive (or whatever the words of the day are..) playful, mischievous.....lots of things.

Its just that as someone who has a pet dog and isn't a behaviourist etc, it looks like if someone agrees with something in Pack Theory then they are almost 'tarred' as a person who believes that 'dominance' is this, that and the next thing. When there may only be elements of a theory they feel they can agree with (and not the whole lot) Same with training books etc. Perhaps there is no training book that is the 'holy grail' but you take bits from each that work for you.


I don't know why we need to know everything! Cant we just take our pets as they are and use positive methods to help them live in our world as best we can? without being anti/pro-pack theory?



Sorry just taken that a bit OT

Good post.

I do think the "whole package" thing can add to the confusion and lead to throwing the worthwhile bits out with the bad.

As I said before, I agree with the zoology view of dominance theory, which fits my own experience and observations, and which is supported by some behaviourists.

However I don't agree with the behaviourist definition but in behavioural circles if you say you support the theory it will be assumed that means the whole behaviourist definition and then, as you say, you are tarred as some autocratic dictatorial bully who abuses dogs for fun!

Indeed I think it is that outlook, mis-perception and the all-or-nothing view that deters people from admitting to accepting or supporting any aspect of it.

There is a summary of it in this article on the Psychology Today website:
Wolves, Dingoes and (Other) Feral Dogs Cooperate, But Do They Coordinate?

Thank you

I'll go and have a look.

Again the examples quoted are of wild or feral animals---which dogs are not!

Huge difference. Foxes in the wild are solitary animals in the main----but in Dratmoor wildlife park they ahd a group of captive rescue foxes and they had a heirachy and group structure.

Dogs that are free to go wherever they like may well not have or need any structure---but our captive dogs do need it in order to survive in the situation we have put them in.

rune

OK, another thing to throw into the pot!

Do peeps think it's possible that we "see" dominance because we expect to see it?

Ach, that's not explained very well. I believe it's from James O Heare, but I've read it from several places. The Donaldson/Dunbar dvd on this subject covered it also.

Because we tend to be hierarchical (army, church, etc) do we also see this in animals?

This was also mentioned in the Alexandra (Smeynova?) study.(Thanks Merlin's Mum, it was her, not Horwitz )

Wys
x

I think there is a lot of that because people will see what they want to see

If someone is told they will see something and they do not question why etc then they will likely see it!

Amen, one of the main reasons I have not contributed to this thread really...........