Dog Training is Not Magic

It started with the words of dog trainer Konrad Most, writing in 1910:

"In a pack of young dogs fierce fights take place to decide how they are to rank within the pack. And in a pack composed of men and dogs, canine competition for importance in the eyes of the trainer is keen. If this state of affairs is not countered by methods which the canine mind can comprehend, it frequently ends in such animals attacking and seriously injuring not only their trainers, but also other people. As in a pack of dogs, the order of hierarchy in a man and dog combination can only be established by physical force - that is, by an actual struggle in which the man is instantaneously victorious. Such a result can only be brought about by convincing the dog of the absolute physical superiority of the man."

Many people envision dogs as constantly fighting for control and status. In fact, every study of wolf and wild dog behavior has indicated just the opposite: aggression and violence are the exceptions. The key to the domestication of pet dogs and to humans' working and service relationships with them is based in this social similarity: both social systems are maintained by deference structures and extensive signaling systems that communicate deferential and other behaviors. This means that there is a hierarchy and that some animals in both systems are higher ranking and others are lower ranking, but this hierarchy is relative, not absolute. Status can be affected by the relative age and sex composition of the social group and by performance or skills. Because dogs share so much in common with people regarding social structure, they also share many signals that we can recognize.

Dogs live by rules of dominance and deference communicated by body language that we don't necessarily understand. They may snap or bite when the "rules" are violated. Take, for example, a cocker spaniel that is awakened with a hug from a toddler. While some dogs would yawn and go back to sleep, others might consider this an egregious violation and might respond with a bite.

Both dogs and wolves have a fairly fluid pack structure. There will generally be separate male and female hierarchies, so a pack will thus have an alpha female as well as an alpha male. Within those hierarchies, however, there is a lot of movement, and most dominance behaviour seems to be situational, with the same dog being, for example, dominant with respect to food resources and submissive with respect to social space. Dominance is an attribute of a relationship, not a personality trait.

Dominance may be established and maintained by physical force as David Mech saw when he put disparate wolves together to study. The heirarchy in that sitatuion was maintained by that same force. In a wild pack of wovles or dogs, dominance is established and maintained by the use of threat-appeasement displays. In fact, many canine dominance hierarchies are established and maintained without any force whatsoever, and furthermore, these hierarchies are far more stable and likely to last than those established by means of force.

In fact, it is more accurate to refer to dominance hierarchies as deference hierarchies as they are maintained by the affection and deference of the submissive members toward the alpha rather than by threat displays and violence from the alpha toward the submissive members of the hierarchy. What is important is that the flow of attention and affection should move up the hierarchy rather than down it.

The relationship between you and your dog is far more complex than a dominance hierarchy can explain. There is a surprising amount of evidence to suggest that humans are a supernormal object of affection to dogs, i.e. that dogs love their humans much more than other dogs and relate to them more deeply than they are capable of relating to other dogs. And the reverse may also be true, which might explain why we’re so crazy about our dogs! Certainly it is true to say that your dog probably does not regard himself either as particularly dominant or as particularly submissive in his relationship to you. Where competition between human and dog emerges, it is more likely to be pseudodominance (or obnoxious submission) than true, status-related dominance.

Being the"Pack Leader" is supposed to mimic the role the top dog/wolf plays in a pack, and send the message, I'm the boss of you! But one huge error in this logic is the belief that we can successfully pretend to be dogs in our interactions with our canine companions. Dogs know we're not dogs, and any attempt on our part to mimic their language is doomed to failure.

Dogs are masters at speaking and reading canine body language. Their communications to each other are often subtle and nuanced, a furry ballet designed to keep peace in the pack. Our efforts to use canine body communications are oafish in comparison - and I imagine that our dogs are alternately amused, confused, nonplussed, and terrified by our clumsy attempts to speak their language.

I do not have an issue with the whole alpha/dominance thing, because in a normal household the adult humans are above the dogs in status and that's just the way it is, and that IS the basis of alpha/dominance principles no matter what face people put on it.  It's just that I think in a normal, dog-aware household the things which send the "owner in charge" message happen without any kind of conscious thought and over-emphasising them to the dog is actually confusing and potentially sends the signal that the owner is the insecure one.  The dog winds up thinking "why does she feel the need to show me who's boss all the time?  I know she is, she feeds me.  Maybe she's not happy being the boss, maybe I should take over that role for her so she's more comfortable."  In nature, the alphas of a wolf pack don't generally indulge in petty squabbles and dominance rituals - they are in charge, all the other wolves know it, the alphas get what they want when they want it, they are revered and only challenged by the lower wolves who are hell-bent on taking over the lead role.   I do think there are domestic dogs who fall into that category and those dogs do require firmer handling. 

I think it's possible to get too caught up in those ideas to the detriment of other, equally important issues.  My dogs know I'm in charge, they know that food comes from me, being let outside or walked comes from me, games are initiated by me (much of the time), that they have to behave as I say or accept redirection when they are acting unacceptably.  All of those things are more relevant to living in a peaceful, relaxed dog-owning household than the dominance games some advocate like pretending to eat the dog food before giving it to the dogs. All of those activities and attitudes occur naturally because I'm the one with opposable thumbs and without those, opening the food bin is impossible not to speak of being able to drive the car to the dog park.  These are signals a dog is naturally inclined to understand in his own language. 

When everything in an owner/trainer's conscious thought is about dominance and being alpha over your dog, then interaction with your dog becomes about nothing else.   For lack of a better word, I don't like exclusivity dictating how I train - I want a mind open enough to approach training from all angles in order to better understand what a specific interaction requires.  This is where I think dominance type trainers fall short.