The
dominance debate: is thew wolf pack model helpful as model for living
with our pet dogs?
Paddy
Driscoll
The debate
around the owner as a
‘pack leader’ has been argued for a number of years. As dog
training and
behaviour counselling has become a profession in the last 30 years or
so, so
the issue has polarised into 2 camps. Although it can become a rather
dry
academic debate, hotly argued by both sides, the outcome is important
to the
subject of the discussion; the domestic dog. How the dog is treated and
how his
relationship with people is viewed can have a huge impact on the
dog’s well
being. A misunderstanding of the nature of the relationship between
dogs and
people can, and does, lead to aggression and upset and ultimately to
dogs being
rehomed and put to sleep and people being bitten.
The pack
leader model
The
adherents to the theory suggest
that the dog is a domesticated wolf that is governed by an innate drive
to
become ever higher in the pack hierarchy and to become the pack leader.
They
base their ideas on observing behaviour amongst wolves and how they establish a rank order and a
hierarchy. Using those observations, they suggest ways humans need to
behave
towards the domestic dog to establish the same pack order in the home.
They
suggest that for order in the domestic environment to exist and for the
relationship between dog and owner to remain trouble free, the dog must
understand
he is bottom of the hierarchy and the humans must adapt and use those
behaviours an alpha wolf would use in order to ensure that happens.
Some go so far as
to suggest that all behaviour problems that occur in the home are
caused by
this relationship not being as it should. Jan Fennell, one of the more
recent
exponents of using a pack model to explain the human/dog relationship
says in
her book, The Dog Listener, “In the course of the last few years,
the many dogs
I have worked with have suffered symptoms ranging from biting to
barking to
bicycle chasing. Yet in each and every case, the root of the problem
lay in the
dog’s misplaced belief about its place in the pack.”[1]
This idea is not new. Highly respected
trainer and author, the late John Fisher, also viewed the dog/owner
relationship as one that demonstrated a need for the owner to be a
‘pack
leader’ and referred to the ‘human pack’[2].
Although there is some suggestion that he came to change his views
before his sad and
untimely death, at the time of writing many of his books in the 1980s
and 1990s,
he took the view that it was important for the human to maintain the
higher
status and rank in the family hierarchy.[3] The language of books and advice from
trainers and behaviourists using a pack model is littered with terms
like ‘pack
leader’, ‘leadership’, ‘rank’,
‘hierarchy’, ‘pecking order’,
‘dominance’, ‘alpha’
etc etc. They recommend clear and absolute
rules
which need to be stuck to if the dog is to learn how to behave and
relate to
its owner in an appropriately respectful way. Trainers vary slightly in
those
rules, but the underlying philosophy is that owners need to emulate the
behaviour of
the alpha male wolf. The human owner takes over the role of the wolf
pack
leader and behaves accordingly, so the dog understands that the human
is the
boss. There are extremes promoted by some trainers (eg
Cesar Millan, The Monks of New Skete)
which demand the human shows physical superiority by using a technique
called the ‘alpha
roll’ which demands the owner physically holds the dog on the
ground, either
using a knee or hand to pin the dog’s neck to the floor, until
it shows the appropriate behaviour a submissive wolf would show to
a higher ranking wolf.
Although the
rules vary to some
extent, and some trainers would not advocate or use the more coercive
and
aggressive techniques, most are likely to include some or all of the
following
The
behaviours that suggest the dog is ‘dominant’ and so
suggest the rules need to
be established are those which have allegedly been seen in the wolf
pack
leaders as ways he would establish control over the lower ranking
wolves in the
pack. Again, proponents of the pack model do not agree what all those
behaviours are, but they are likely to include
Many
would suggest the truly dominant dog /wolf never needs to show
aggression to
maintain his position as pack leader, but many trainers do view an
aggressive
dog as a dominant dog.
The
results dog owners experience in sorting out their training and
behaviour
problems putting these rules in place have been mixed. That problems
have been
fixed, and in many cases the dog’s behaviour improved, as a
result is
indisputable. But is that due to the establishment of the owner as a
‘pack
leader’? Or might those successes that did
occur work for other reasons? And if the pack model is correct and
universal,
why does it work for some dogs and not others? There is little research
into
the subject, but anecdotal evidence suggests in some cases aggression
has
increased; the dog has become withdrawn; the dog has become stressed,
and
worse, in many cases the relationship between dog and owner has become
confrontational and abusive. Physical domination of the dog by an
owner, to
show the dog who is boss, either by alpha rolls, or scruff shaking, is
often
recommended and used as a technique by those who take the more extreme
view of
the human as pack leader. Underlying such techniques is the implication
that
the dog must submit to him or her. That wolves ultimately depend on
their superior
strength to physically stop challenges to their authority, and will use
it to
establish control should it be necessary, through aggression, suggest
this
ultimate physical disciplining of the dog is totally consistent with
the wolf
pack model. The perhaps naïve belief that wolf pack leadership
relies solely
and completely on more subtle, non-confrontational and cooperative
behaviours
which never uses aggression
is a somewhat specious argument. It is an anomaly
that sits uncomfortably in the pack theory model.
Dog as a
wolf?
Underpinning
the whole ‘pack model’ is the fundamental thesis that the
domestic dog behaves
like a wolf. That, as a species, it demonstrates the same innate
behaviours
as a wolf does both towards other dogs and humans. And that humans can
play
the role of a wolf authentically and convincingly.
But
how valid is the former assumption? The latest theories proposed by
noted
ethologists James Serpell and Ray and
Lorna Coppinger
suggest the domestic dog is a separate species which evolved through
natural
selection from some kind of wolf to a semi-domestic scavenging canid, living alongside human
settlements. They
refute the idea that the dog is descended directly from a wolf that
early man took from
the wild and tamed, then selectively bred to perform certain functions.
Their
arguments are persuasive, but perhaps not critical to the debate, since
how the
dog evolved and developed into canis familiaris may not be
relevant because however it
occurred, we know they are now 2 different species. And rather than
being a
distinct species appearing only a few thousand years ago, recent
investigations
into dogs’ DNA supports the theory that the dog appeared as a
different species
more than 135,000 years ago. Indisputably they are very similar
genetically.
“…the dog and wolf DNA differ only by 12
mutations…”[4]
and those similarities are both significant and obvious. Csanyi[5]
suggests that the behavioural differences emerged before any physical
differences did. Which is logical, since the favoured theory for
the evolution of the dog is that those that showed reduced flight
reaction,
were more trusting of humans and willing to move closer to their
settlements to
eat rubbish and scavenge became the ancestors of today’s dog.
Their behaviour presumably
had to change before any physical changes were needed.
It
has been suggested that to use the wolf population as model for
domestic
dog behaviour would be like studying chimpanzees in a zoo and using
what we
learn from their behaviour as model for human behaviour. Using a wolf
pack
model certainly leaves some questions unanswered. Is the wolf enough
like the
domestic dog for this to be a helpful model? Are we making the correct
assumptions about the behaviours being observed in the wolf population
anyway? Csanyi,[6]
Coppinger[7]
and Serpell[8]
examine some of these questions and the consensus is that on balance it
doesn’t
offer us a valid model for the dog/human relationship and it’s
doubtful if
offers much insight in the way domestic dogs relate to each other
either. We do
not live with our domestic dogs in the same way wolves live together.
There is
no genetic ‘family’ relationship between dogs and their
owners, and only in
some multi-dog households between the dogs themselves. We neuter our
dogs; we
do not permit them to form relationships and mate freely; they are
captive in a
way that even captive wolf populations aren’t. We constantly
interfere and
intervene in ways a wolf pack leader wouldn’t or couldn’t
do. No wolf pack
leader ever puts a lead on another pack member and compels it to
follow. No alpha
male wolf places food in a bowl and demands the pack members perform
certain actions (eg a ‘sit’)
before giving permission to
eat. No wolf compels another wolf to stay with the pack or place
physical
boundaries around it to prevent it leaving.
There
are substantial physical and behavioural differences between dog and
wolf. The
way the dog has evolved has changed it to a different species. Whilst
dog and
wolf are very similar in many important ways; they are different in
other ways.
Csanyi suggests specifically that “It
is also clear
that the genetic selection carried out by humans has virtually stopped
the
wolf’s ceaseless attempts to become the pack leader.”
Dogs
have also been selected for their reduced ‘flight’ distance
and sociability.
The Coppingers make the point that
“Wolves are not an
animal I would portray as (very) tameable or (very) trainable. Wolves
can be taught to exhibit a few qualities (unfearful of humans, and tractable to a very
limited extent).
However, dogs are genetically tameable
and genetically trainable. Dogs are tame.
And that is a huge genetic
difference.”[9]
But
for the moment lets take up the hypothesis the two species are so alike
the
wolf is a useful model on which to
base our relationship with it. Let’s examine those behaviours
that are said to
be associated with the ‘dominant dog’. Take jumping up.
Fisher was of the
opinion that it starts out as a submissive greeting behaviour in a pup
but as
the dog matures “what starts off as a food soliciting/submissive
behaviour
eventually progresses towards being a dominant gesture.”[10].
To Fennell, jumping up is part of the sequence of behaviours dogs and
wolves
use to establish status and leadership “Dogs use their physical
presence to
establish superiority” and “…looking to establish
some form of psychological
advantage even before the physical warfare begins.”[11]
In examining the case of a dog called Simmy,
she
views the encounter as one of conflict. “If we were fighting
World War 2, then
I had achieved the D Day Landings”.[12]
The theme of the dog being in perpetual conflict with the humans in the
household is constant. However, does the greeting behaviour John Fisher
recognises
really change into a confrontational, controlling gesture intended to
‘dominate’? A persuasive argument can be made that views
jumping up as no more
than the logical extension of the dog’s desire to reach the face
and mouth,
replicating the innate greeting gesture that canids do
have in common. In order to reach the human face to carry
it out though, the dog needs to jump and like any behaviour, is subject
to the
laws of operant conditioning. If jumping up is reinforced by the owner
showing
it attention, affection or touching it any way it is more likely to
occur;
ignored or punished it is less likely to occur. But the motivation
behind the
behaviour is undeniably that the dog is trying to be friendly.
What
about the dog that pulls on the lead or wants to get ahead of the
owner? The
suggestion is that this dog is trying to lead the ‘pack’ by
determining where
he and the owner go. But it is more feasible perhaps that a dog pulls
an owner
because it has a) learnt it can and b) the owner
permits it to be reinforced or reinforces the behaviour. I.e
operant conditioning is occurring. Jean Donaldson gives a particularly
robust critique in her ground breaking work the Culture Clash.
“My favourite
myth is the going through doorways first thing. What deranged mind came
up with
the notion that a dog would understand, let alone exert dominance, by
preceding
his owner out of the front door?”[13]
What
about the dog not doing as it is told? Disobedience is often seen as
the dog
challenging the owner’s authority or leadership and therefore
attempting to be
dominant. But it is also possible that the dog has not understood the
cues or
commands or there is lack of appropriate feedback when the dog does, or
doesn’t, comply. Many owners overestimate their dog’s
understanding of commands
and the human language and if the rules of operant conditioning have
been
ignored or misapplied then the dog is untrained;
not dominant. It isn’t trying to control anything, it just
doesn’t understand
or perhaps isn’t motivated enough to want to comply.
That
there are a number of ways to try and explain a dog’s behaviour
is
indisputable. Those that suggest the dog is governed by innate
behaviours that
make him want to strive to become some kind of ‘pack
leader’ and all
interactions with the dog must recognise that ignores the similarities
between
dog and human. It doesn't take into account the possibility that the
dog's desire for social, companionable interaction, perhaps has no
hidden agenda for control. It ignores their
cooperative nature. Their sophisticated communication systems for avoiding conflict and optimising their
survival and safety. Moreover, they tend to ignore what we are
increasingly
coming to realise is a critical part of the dog’s make up. His
emotionality.
His ability to feel fear, stress, happiness, upset and other emotions
we take
for granted in humans but only recently accepting are part of the
canine
make-up. Many behaviours attributed to ‘dominance’ like
inappropriate
urination, unwillingness to be handled, touch sensitivity, and
irritability are
increasingly recognised as signs of a dog under stress.
Does
it matter how we interpret these behaviours? Does it matter whether we
attribute them to the dog trying to be the ‘pack leader’ or
whether they mean
something else? Well, yes. Because owners are recommended to put in
place training
programmes which, if the motivations of the dog are misinterpreted or
misunderstood can, and do, do a lot of harm. Dogs can be subjected to
inappropriate and potentially harmful human behaviour for example
pinning a dog to the ground, ignoring the dog, or even correcting it for showing
friendly or submissive behaviour if we base
our training
and behaviour modification on an incorrect understanding of what is
happening.
Owners are led to believe that ‘dominance’ is some kind of
character failing in
their dog which needs to be crushed and subdued. Rather than
recognising their
dog might be confused, anxious and upset by their owner’s
behaviour towards
them, they are recommended to behave in such a way that stress and
confusion
are more likely to increase, not decrease. That there are
elements of
behaviour that are common to both wolves and dogs is inescapable, but
dogs are
not wolves and it does them a disservice if we treat them as if they
are. However
similar or disimilar the dog is to the wolf, there are also plenty of
similarities between dog and human, both physical and behavioural, and
maybe we should be celebrating that more.
Bibliography
Raymond
and Lorna Coppinger (2001) Dogs: a startling new understanding of
canine
origin, behaviour and evolution. Scribner.
Vilmos Csanyi (2006) If
dogs could talk: exploring the canine
mind. Sutton Publishing
Jean
Donaldson (1996) The culture clash.
James and Kenneth.
Jan
Fennelll (2000) The dog listener. Harper
Collins
John
Fisher (1991) Why does my dog? Souvenir Press
James
Serpell (ed) (1995)
The domestic dog: its evolution, behaviour and interactions with
people.
©
P. Driscoll 2008