GOOD DOG
Daycare & Behaviour
Pack Structure & Dominance in Dogs
This page deals with the ‘stories’ we tell ourselves about dogs and, therefore, what we have come to believe as fact. When dealing with canine behaviour, I have always found it important to deal with facts and truths.
I grew up having a traditional view of dog packs and dominance, that dogs are little wolves that need to live in a pack and are constantly trying to dominate each other. Having now read lots of books and seen how dogs actually behave with one another and with us, my opinions have changed. Typically, however, the truth doesn’t reside in one argument or another but rather in a middle ground.
A male wolf relaxing, knowing he has dominated everyone in his pack
PACK STRUCTURE
Traditionally, the belief has been that dogs are related to wolves and seeing that wolves live in packs, so must dogs. The argument goes further to explain that wolf packs have clear hierarchal structures led by an Alpha male, with all the dogs ‘in line’ constantly trying to climb to the top, while dominating every other pack member that gets in their way. The imagined wolf pack is a dangerous place with constant fighting and scuffles over food, a mate, and the best place to sit. It assumes that wolves (and therefore dogs) have nothing better to do all day but plan their ascent up the ranks.
The hierarchal structure of a wolf pack became a common belief from a book and studies by Konrad Lorenz. In Alexandra Semyonova's The 100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs, she speaks of how the science of animal psychology started in Germany in 1936 when the German Society for Animal Psychology was founded under the sponsorship of the Nazi government. Lorenz was a member of the Nazi party and also of the Nazi Cult of the Wolf. Semyonova suggests that Lorenz wrote about the wolf pack structure as a direct comparison to the structure of the Nazi party. She writes at great length about the comparisons and suffices to say that she believes that Lorenz was influenced greatly by his membership of the Nazi party.
Other research was being conducted at the time but as Lorenz went on to win a Noble Prize, all other researchers and findings faded away.
Later research followed Lorenz’s claims of the linear, hierarchal structure of a wolf pack. The ‘fly in the anointment’ is that all these studies were done on captive wolves. Wolves from different packs throughout a continent were suddenly grouped together without any means of removing themselves from the ‘pack’ and these studies are what form the traditional view. Many now realise this is an unrealistic model. This pack does not have to worry about hunting or any other resource management as the resources are provided without effort. Someone stated that this is like researching a modern human family dynamic by studying refugees in a camp.
In my research, there is a group of researchers that have actually studied wild wolves. David Mech has published 11 books and approximately 380 scientific papers about wolves and other wildlife, all from findings in the animal’s natural habitat. The reading is vast, to say the least. In a nutshell, Mech observed that a wolf pack is different from the traditional view that Lorenz started in the 1940s. A wolf pack consists of a breeding pair who he would rather refer to as the pack leaders (note the absence of the word dominant). The breeding pair have pups who grow through adolescence into adulthood. Hunting is done by a group of wolves that may sometimes change if the pack leader is sometimes not present. Food, as a resource, is not immediately gobbled up by the pack leader but, if scarce, is offered to pups first. It is very common to see several wolves all eating from the same carcass at the same time, without any squabbling. Both male and female wolves are known to leave the pack in search of a mate and will (if successful) start their own pack. Without humanising this behaviour, this seems to be more like a family than a dictatorship.
So, where does this leave us with the dog that is sitting next to me as I write this paper?
Traditionalists would say that she is part of a pack made up of 1 other dog, 1 human adult male, 1 human adult female and 2 female adolescents. In addition to this, the dog is constantly trying to dominate us and so also possesses the brain power to not only rate her own place in the pack but also everyone else’s place so that she can choose who to try and dominate next. This is further complicated when the human ‘pack’ has visitors; the hierarchy now needs re-evaluating and a new strategy for planned dominance. All her ‘bad’ behaviour can be founded in her desire to be the Alpha leader and the advice from the traditionalist camp is that even her desire for affection should be stamped out, as this is considered a ‘win’ for her. When you actually say this out loud, it must be clear what nonsense this must be.
There are huge amounts of genetic information and studies that can prove the ancestry that dogs share with wolves. There are also studies that state that they are now sufficiently removed on a genetic level that they are two distinct species. The birds, an ostrich and a swallow both share an ancestry, but one wouldn’t expect them to behave and live in exactly the same way.
I believe that the dog at my feet has no comprehension of a pack structure. She’ll let us know when she’s hungry and she gets fed; she’s not bothered who feeds her. She’ll come for a cuddle on the sofa when we invite her and leave again when she gets bored or we ask her to. I’m not sure dogs can think past the ‘here and now' to be as focused on dominance as the Traditionalist would have us believe.
In summary, the traditional view of a domesticated dog belonging to a pack of humans should be questioned. I believe there are ancestral behaviours that exist and a link between dogs and wolves cannot be denied. Behaviourists should take the information in studies and relate them to the real world with real people and real pets, remembering that dogs are animals whose method of communication is very different from ours. Or we can wait until dogs learn to speak and then we can ask them!
DOMINANCE
The word ‘dominance’ means ‘to hold power or influence over others’. In humans, dominance can be used to explain the relationship one has with a boss at work, or the relationship the population has with a nation's government. One tends to dominate another simply as one exert control in one way or another.
In terms of dog behaviour, the word ‘dominance’ has a darker meaning. It would infer there is a constant power struggle between dog and human with each always winning or losing endless ‘confrontations’. As humans we must always be the winner and so must plan a ‘pre-emptive strike’ against our dogs in order to remain in control.
In his book Dominance in dogs: fact or fiction, Barry Eaton suggests a dominance ‘flow chart’ that has formed the 'myth' of dominance. The myth is that the wolf pack structure is entirely explained by a linear hierarchy in which there is a constant battle to be the Alpha leader, and because domestic dogs are descended from wolves, the same must apply to them. Ultimately, this suggests that domestic dogs are trying to dominate humans and that we should imply strict rules so that we are never dominated.
It makes sense if it were true. Eaton goes on to say that (as described briefly above in the essay on pack structure) wolf packs are not structured that way and that domestic dogs are not wolves, so why should the same apply?
With a more open train of thought, Semyonova discusses a self-organising system in which the parts (in this case, dogs) will avoid chaos and move towards a state of stability within their own space. She gives an example of a house party. The guests are the parts of the system and the parts will move around establishing their own equilibrium until the whole system is organised and stable. She admits that the system is constantly changing and adapting, e.g., a person may leave a conversation to get a drink if they are thirsty or join a different conversation if more interesting or sit on their own and watch the group. As long as the ‘parts’ are stable, then the ‘system’ will be stable. There are rules in place that the parts must adhere to in order to maintain the equilibrium of the system and the equilibrium keeps things harmonious. In the case of a party, a troublesome or aggressive guest may be asked to leave because they disrupt this stability and harmony.
She argues that dogs are part of a system and, on an individual level, seek stability while avoiding what they understand to be harmful or disruptive activities. Going back quickly to the above essay on pack structure, this may be a solution to the human/dog ‘pack’. I believe the dog sees itself as neither part of a dog pack nor a human pack, but instead is simply part of a (hopefully) stable system. Most families without a dog are in this state, falling in and out of equilibrium. A dog is just another part of the system.
Returning to the example of a party as a self-organising system, one could argue that the host is the ‘pack leader’, providing food and drink, etc. They may direct the ‘flow’ of the evening, maybe with their taste in music or party games. The party doesn’t, you would hope, have all the guests trying to dominate one another, with some guarding the sausage rolls and not letting anyone else sit on the sofa! In a similar way, a family dog could be considered a guest at the party; it is provided with food and drink and a safe place to rest and stay. The similarities are endless, so I’ll stop there. It suffices to say that perhaps as long as the dog's needs are met and the ‘part’ is stable, then there is no need for the dominance argument, as the dog will only ever seek to maintain the stable and harmonious system.
Dominance theory has been used to explain all kinds of dog behaviour. It has also been used as a method to try and stop certain behaviours. Personally, I have been guilty of some practices and now feel the need to re-examine my thoughts. Perhaps I’ve always felt it but have been encamped in a traditional view? Why should a dog wait for its food until the owner has eaten? Why should an owner push a dog from its bed just to prove it can? There are some things that do make sense. Asking the dog to wait for just a second when walking out the door for a walk is better than being dragged through the door, potentially causing injury. Asking a dog to drop something it has in its mouth may save the dog from eating something potentially harmful or not allowing a dog to chew up your sofa as its expensive and harmful to the dog.
I believe all this can be achieved with understanding and training. As I try not to humanise the theory or our advice as behaviourists, perhaps dogs should be treated as children, with kindness and a guiding hand. Learning how dogs learn combined with a knowledge of their needs and instincts should allow us to move away from a hierarchal dominance approach and more towards one of understanding and safely allows a dog to be a dog.
Thanks for reading,
Paul
​