Post by Jurate on Mar 27, 2007 9:40:41 GMT 1
I read this article and thought I would share it there as I liked it...
THE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE OF DOMINANCE
By Werner Rapine. SV Performance/Working Judge/LG07
Dominance is a condition known in biology wherein some individuals have a higher social status than others. Those with a lower status will reach in a submissive manner to those with a higher standing. The opposite of dominance is submission. Dominance hierarchies are found amongst many animals, including primates and humans.
In psychology, we talk about dominant behaviour when one individual tries to control or rule the behaviour of one or more other individuals. The word dominance does not describe the character of a single animal. It describes the situation between two individuals. Dominance is not a hereditary condition but one that is earned. It is the result of several interactions, between two partners, where each gathered and stored information about weaknesses and strengths about the other partner. The dominance theory as far as dog behaviour is concerned the most controversial subject at the moment.
Research in the last few years has led to new considerations as to how dogs perceive a human being, especially in terms of the dog/dog handler connection. The theory, that the dog strives to better his position in the human pack as soon as he gets the chance or opportunity is disputed in several books and articles. Dogs evolved from the wolf, and even though at a glance dog’s bear a likeness to wolves, there are important differences in form and behaviour. Wolves live in the wild, are wild, avoid people and kill their own prey. Dogs however, live near people and instead of avoiding people, look to them as a source of food. Dogs exhibit body language and behaviour completely alien to those of wolves. Compare to wolves, sled dogs can run much longer, greyhounds can run faster, bloodhounds have a better nose and borzois have a better clarity of vision and a wider field of vision. Some say that because of his cognitive abilities the wolf is the cleverer animal. This could very well be true, but the question then is why we can’t train him to herd sheep, fetch a ball, retrieve a bird or guide a blind person through traffic in a busy town centre.
The dog is an individual biological creature and not a sub species of the wolf. Dogs don’t think or act like wolves, they can’t think like wolves because they don’t have the brain of the wolf. A large part of the research that has gone into the social behaviour of wolves took part with wolves living in captivity and not with wolf packs living in their natural environment in the wild. In the wild, wolves live in a family pack and are related and influenced by natural stimuli. In a wolf pack in the wild the alpha male and female bear their young. The offspring leave the pack between nine months and three years of age so as to minimize and social tension, in a natural living wolf pack, dominance doesn’t seem so important. This means that the alpha position in the pack in the wild does not necessarily have the same meaning as that of a pack living in captivity. Arguments with other wolves, regarding rank or position, are genuinely rare.
A typical wolf pack should be looked on as a family unit, where adult parents lead the activities of the pack and include other wolves in the running of the pack regarding work. The females look after the young, whereas the males function is to hunt. If the prey is big enough and the food plentiful then all members of the pack eat at the same time, regardless of their position or standing. With small prey, the parents eat first; if food is scarce the puppies eat first. In contrast to the family-orientated wild wolf pack, wolves in captivity often argue for higher rankings. The higher the position thereafter, the more energetic becomes the fight.
In captivity wolves are most often not related and total strangers of both sexes and age often meet. Under these circumstances it is often possible that there are some social tensions, especially if it concerns the right to breed. As a result there will be an alpha, beta, and omega member for each of the sexes amongst the strong young pack who re arguing for the alpha position. With this assumption there is an alpha male and female and in all possibility there are often fights amongst young wolves who wish to move up through the ranking positions. If we want to compare the inherited behaviour of our dogs with that of the distantly related wolf, then surely we should be looking at the inherited behaviour of wolves living in the wild and not that of wolves living in captivity.
According to the Coppinger’s a new species develops through slow changes in certain genes, in a population, over a period of time. Even though our dogs show some similarities to that of wolves , for example, that of marking territory by urination, digging and turning around in circles before lying down, it doesn’t mean that we can compare dogs to wolves one to one. A dog is not a wolf. Wolves and dogs have evolved separately and occupy very different ecological niches therefore are separate species.
The access to everything that is needed to survive, the so-called resources, is controlled through ranking position. The higher the ranking in the pecking order the easier the access to the resources. Whoever has the highest rank can have whatever he wants at any time. The privilege of the highest rank, i.e. the parent’s, is respected and accepted by the lower ranking, i.e. the children. Members of the pack accept the dominance of the highest rank without questioning because they have learned through or from experience to accept his superiority. So develops a stable ranking order, whose simple rules are made clear in the interaction with others, this reduces the stress on each individual animal and serves to avoid serious arguments.
DOMINANCE BETWEEN DOGS AND HUMANS
We know very little about how a dominant relationship between man and dog is formed at this moment in time. The fact is that the man can teach a dog through positive reinforcement to show desirable behaviour. It is unclear therefore why the dominance theory is necessary. The real problem, which would be solved with the help of the dominance theory, is dominance aggression. If there is no danger of dominance aggression, dominance would be a less important issue.
A scientifically accepted theory on dominance is that the ranking order is about the winning or losing of resources (possessions) and not to gain a higher status. This would explain the aggressive behaviour of some dogs when asked to leave the settee or chair immediately. It would also explain why some dogs defend their food or toys. If the owner tries to remove the dog from the settee and the dog acts aggressively the owner could misunderstand this aggression and assume the dog is dominant, instead of only defending his resources. Dogs don’t understand the human concept of possession, but soon realise the resources, which are in their favor. Without proper training the dogs react very angrily if the owner tries to take these resources away from him. This is a behavioral problem which the owner has to solve.
Dogs are often seen as dominant even though they have learned through operative conditioning to manipulate their surroundings to their benefit. Little or no side effects are seen when positive reinforcement of behaviour, which we would like to see and the absent reinforcement for behaviour that we don’t is used, but if we use the dominance theory, side effects are often seen.
Does the dog really regard himself as a pack member in his human family? There is no question dogs are social creatures, as long as they have been socialized they can live with other species. But, can a dog be a member of a human pack? Through the sensitive phase in the social development of the puppy, the contact with his mother and siblings causes an imprint of his own kind in the young dog. He knows he is a dog, recognizes other dogs as such and will behave accordingly. We humans accept the dog as a member of our family, but due to impressions that the puppy has learned in his first few weeks of life, he feels he is at home with the humans, but not a member of their pack. He doesn’t think like us, behave like us, neither does he smell like us, and hasn’t the same guidelines or values as us. So long as we accept this theory a dog does not accept he is part of our human pack and will not try to get a position in the pack hierarchy that puts him above us humans. We don’t need to be alpha or dominant or pack leaders, all we need to be are responsible dog owners, who guide the dog and teach him through training and good socialisation, a behaviour that enables him to live in harmony with us.
Source
www.gsaireland.com/a_page1.asp?p=1&r=115&t=6
THE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE OF DOMINANCE
By Werner Rapine. SV Performance/Working Judge/LG07
Dominance is a condition known in biology wherein some individuals have a higher social status than others. Those with a lower status will reach in a submissive manner to those with a higher standing. The opposite of dominance is submission. Dominance hierarchies are found amongst many animals, including primates and humans.
In psychology, we talk about dominant behaviour when one individual tries to control or rule the behaviour of one or more other individuals. The word dominance does not describe the character of a single animal. It describes the situation between two individuals. Dominance is not a hereditary condition but one that is earned. It is the result of several interactions, between two partners, where each gathered and stored information about weaknesses and strengths about the other partner. The dominance theory as far as dog behaviour is concerned the most controversial subject at the moment.
Research in the last few years has led to new considerations as to how dogs perceive a human being, especially in terms of the dog/dog handler connection. The theory, that the dog strives to better his position in the human pack as soon as he gets the chance or opportunity is disputed in several books and articles. Dogs evolved from the wolf, and even though at a glance dog’s bear a likeness to wolves, there are important differences in form and behaviour. Wolves live in the wild, are wild, avoid people and kill their own prey. Dogs however, live near people and instead of avoiding people, look to them as a source of food. Dogs exhibit body language and behaviour completely alien to those of wolves. Compare to wolves, sled dogs can run much longer, greyhounds can run faster, bloodhounds have a better nose and borzois have a better clarity of vision and a wider field of vision. Some say that because of his cognitive abilities the wolf is the cleverer animal. This could very well be true, but the question then is why we can’t train him to herd sheep, fetch a ball, retrieve a bird or guide a blind person through traffic in a busy town centre.
The dog is an individual biological creature and not a sub species of the wolf. Dogs don’t think or act like wolves, they can’t think like wolves because they don’t have the brain of the wolf. A large part of the research that has gone into the social behaviour of wolves took part with wolves living in captivity and not with wolf packs living in their natural environment in the wild. In the wild, wolves live in a family pack and are related and influenced by natural stimuli. In a wolf pack in the wild the alpha male and female bear their young. The offspring leave the pack between nine months and three years of age so as to minimize and social tension, in a natural living wolf pack, dominance doesn’t seem so important. This means that the alpha position in the pack in the wild does not necessarily have the same meaning as that of a pack living in captivity. Arguments with other wolves, regarding rank or position, are genuinely rare.
A typical wolf pack should be looked on as a family unit, where adult parents lead the activities of the pack and include other wolves in the running of the pack regarding work. The females look after the young, whereas the males function is to hunt. If the prey is big enough and the food plentiful then all members of the pack eat at the same time, regardless of their position or standing. With small prey, the parents eat first; if food is scarce the puppies eat first. In contrast to the family-orientated wild wolf pack, wolves in captivity often argue for higher rankings. The higher the position thereafter, the more energetic becomes the fight.
In captivity wolves are most often not related and total strangers of both sexes and age often meet. Under these circumstances it is often possible that there are some social tensions, especially if it concerns the right to breed. As a result there will be an alpha, beta, and omega member for each of the sexes amongst the strong young pack who re arguing for the alpha position. With this assumption there is an alpha male and female and in all possibility there are often fights amongst young wolves who wish to move up through the ranking positions. If we want to compare the inherited behaviour of our dogs with that of the distantly related wolf, then surely we should be looking at the inherited behaviour of wolves living in the wild and not that of wolves living in captivity.
According to the Coppinger’s a new species develops through slow changes in certain genes, in a population, over a period of time. Even though our dogs show some similarities to that of wolves , for example, that of marking territory by urination, digging and turning around in circles before lying down, it doesn’t mean that we can compare dogs to wolves one to one. A dog is not a wolf. Wolves and dogs have evolved separately and occupy very different ecological niches therefore are separate species.
The access to everything that is needed to survive, the so-called resources, is controlled through ranking position. The higher the ranking in the pecking order the easier the access to the resources. Whoever has the highest rank can have whatever he wants at any time. The privilege of the highest rank, i.e. the parent’s, is respected and accepted by the lower ranking, i.e. the children. Members of the pack accept the dominance of the highest rank without questioning because they have learned through or from experience to accept his superiority. So develops a stable ranking order, whose simple rules are made clear in the interaction with others, this reduces the stress on each individual animal and serves to avoid serious arguments.
DOMINANCE BETWEEN DOGS AND HUMANS
We know very little about how a dominant relationship between man and dog is formed at this moment in time. The fact is that the man can teach a dog through positive reinforcement to show desirable behaviour. It is unclear therefore why the dominance theory is necessary. The real problem, which would be solved with the help of the dominance theory, is dominance aggression. If there is no danger of dominance aggression, dominance would be a less important issue.
A scientifically accepted theory on dominance is that the ranking order is about the winning or losing of resources (possessions) and not to gain a higher status. This would explain the aggressive behaviour of some dogs when asked to leave the settee or chair immediately. It would also explain why some dogs defend their food or toys. If the owner tries to remove the dog from the settee and the dog acts aggressively the owner could misunderstand this aggression and assume the dog is dominant, instead of only defending his resources. Dogs don’t understand the human concept of possession, but soon realise the resources, which are in their favor. Without proper training the dogs react very angrily if the owner tries to take these resources away from him. This is a behavioral problem which the owner has to solve.
Dogs are often seen as dominant even though they have learned through operative conditioning to manipulate their surroundings to their benefit. Little or no side effects are seen when positive reinforcement of behaviour, which we would like to see and the absent reinforcement for behaviour that we don’t is used, but if we use the dominance theory, side effects are often seen.
Does the dog really regard himself as a pack member in his human family? There is no question dogs are social creatures, as long as they have been socialized they can live with other species. But, can a dog be a member of a human pack? Through the sensitive phase in the social development of the puppy, the contact with his mother and siblings causes an imprint of his own kind in the young dog. He knows he is a dog, recognizes other dogs as such and will behave accordingly. We humans accept the dog as a member of our family, but due to impressions that the puppy has learned in his first few weeks of life, he feels he is at home with the humans, but not a member of their pack. He doesn’t think like us, behave like us, neither does he smell like us, and hasn’t the same guidelines or values as us. So long as we accept this theory a dog does not accept he is part of our human pack and will not try to get a position in the pack hierarchy that puts him above us humans. We don’t need to be alpha or dominant or pack leaders, all we need to be are responsible dog owners, who guide the dog and teach him through training and good socialisation, a behaviour that enables him to live in harmony with us.
Source
www.gsaireland.com/a_page1.asp?p=1&r=115&t=6