Some thoughts about wolves, dogs, and behavior
I wasn't sure whether to do this as a blog or discussion, but I am hoping some other people will throw in their two cents, so I chose a discussion.
I was on my way home from work the other day and heard the beginning of a story about the loss of the Druid Wolf Pack in Yellowstone. Missing the end, I went online to find more info, since wolves fascinate me.
And the more I learn, the less faith I have in "pack theory" of dog behavior. I think most of us have heard it. Trainers like Cesar Milan (who I do respect) rely on it heavily. The idea is that in a pack, there is a strict structure, and if you behave as the "alpha dog," many of your doggy problems will disappear.
It all makes sense, til I learned that most of the studies of wolves that pack theory are based on were done with captive populations, not wild ones. Turns out that in the wild, a wolf "pack" is most often a breeding pair and their young adult offspring (up to around 2 years old). There are exceptions, and sometimes unrelated adults join, but most often that is not the case. And unlike social prey animals, like horses, the majority of wolves don't stay in a band of unrelated animals. They go off and start their own breeding pair pack. So in many cases, the "alpha" is actually the parent and it's not really natural to have mature adults staying in a submissive role.
The other big thing about pack theory is that wolves (and therefore, theoretically, dogs) respect the established order and the underlings rarely challenge the authority of the alpha to choose resting spaces, food, etc.
In reading about the Druid Pack, many of my ideas of pack theory were challenged. Here's a great link:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/in-the-valley-of-the-wolves...
Some excerpts of things that surprised me:
So much for the idea that the subordinates will respect the pack leader.
Well, apparently alpha males don't even always control breeding rights. Hmmm. This is not what I'd been led to believe at all!
I'd also learned that alphas control the food, but from another study:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/wolf_mech_dominance_alpha_status.htm
Ok, so even if my dog knows I'm dominant, it apparently won't help with food-guarding. It does help with who gets to eat at all if food is scarce, though:
Don't get me wrong, it's not that the study of wolf behavior has no significance. It does seem, though, that as more is learned, perhaps not as much is applicable to dealing with our dogs as I once imagined. The more I think about it the more I think that classical and operant conditioning are the biggest things I use in training my dogs: they are rewarded for desired behaviors, and ignored or (rarely) punished for undesired behaviors. That increases the frequency of the behaviors I like and decreases the frequency of the behaviors I dislike. Even in multi-dog homes, the state of having unrelated sexually mature adults forced to live together and accept subordinate roles does not seem to be the natural order of things, and as the Druid pack exemplifies, in larger packs where resources are abundant and that happens, violence and upheaval seems to follow if the animals are left to their own devices.
And what became of the Druid pack? It appears they have come to a bad end; the natural life of canines is violent and short:
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_14633522
According to the NPR story I heard, the remaining female is half-bald from severe mange and likely won't survive. I know there are a lot of sources out there that romanticize the "natural" lifestyle of canines and talk about how our modern lifestyle is the cause of all sorts of problems. In some cases that may be true, but the fact is that the life of a wild canine is riddled with disease and danger.
What do you think? Is wolf pack theory the model you use in your home for your dogs? Or do you rely more on modern reward-based training styles? Or maybe a bit of both?
I was on my way home from work the other day and heard the beginning of a story about the loss of the Druid Wolf Pack in Yellowstone. Missing the end, I went online to find more info, since wolves fascinate me.
And the more I learn, the less faith I have in "pack theory" of dog behavior. I think most of us have heard it. Trainers like Cesar Milan (who I do respect) rely on it heavily. The idea is that in a pack, there is a strict structure, and if you behave as the "alpha dog," many of your doggy problems will disappear.
It all makes sense, til I learned that most of the studies of wolves that pack theory are based on were done with captive populations, not wild ones. Turns out that in the wild, a wolf "pack" is most often a breeding pair and their young adult offspring (up to around 2 years old). There are exceptions, and sometimes unrelated adults join, but most often that is not the case. And unlike social prey animals, like horses, the majority of wolves don't stay in a band of unrelated animals. They go off and start their own breeding pair pack. So in many cases, the "alpha" is actually the parent and it's not really natural to have mature adults staying in a submissive role.
The other big thing about pack theory is that wolves (and therefore, theoretically, dogs) respect the established order and the underlings rarely challenge the authority of the alpha to choose resting spaces, food, etc.
In reading about the Druid Pack, many of my ideas of pack theory were challenged. Here's a great link:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/in-the-valley-of-the-wolves...
Some excerpts of things that surprised me:
By the end of 1998, the Lamar Valley Druids had seven members, and a growing reputation for conflict. The constant harassment of beta female #42 by her sister, #40, earned #42 the nickname “Cinderella” by the Yellowstone researchers. The put-upon Cinderella created a den and gave birth to pups in 1998, but none survived; the following year #40 attacked #42 in her den, and she again produced no offspring.
Cinderella finally reached the ball in 2000, after a violent turn of events that put her at the head of the pack. She and the other female members of the pack, perhaps tired of #40’s iron-pawed leadership, turned on the alpha female, and killed her.
So much for the idea that the subordinates will respect the pack leader.
The pack expanded to 17 members by the end of 2003, aided by the arrival of a lone black male, #302, formerly of the Leopold pack. #302 may have fathered all of the pups not born to the alpha female. To wolf researchers, he was “Casanova” — a lover, not a fighter, who wooed the females in the group while staying appropriately submissive to alpha male, #21.
Well, apparently alpha males don't even always control breeding rights. Hmmm. This is not what I'd been led to believe at all!
I'd also learned that alphas control the food, but from another study:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/wolf_mech_dominance_alpha_status.htm
Aside from these food deliveries, there appeared to be an ownership zone (Mech 1970) around the mouth of each wolf, and regardless of the rank of a challenger, the owner tried to retain the food it possessed, as Lockwood (1979) also found with captive wolves. Wolves of any rank could try to steal food from another of any rank, but every wolf defended its food (Table 6). Generally, dominant wolves seemed to succeed more at stealing food, but sample size was too small for a definite conclusion to be drawn.
Ok, so even if my dog knows I'm dominant, it apparently won't help with food-guarding. It does help with who gets to eat at all if food is scarce, though:
As for high-ranking animals asserting any practical control over subordinates, the nature of the interaction is highly conditional. For example, with large prey such as adult moose (Alces alces), pack members of all ranks (ages) gather around a carcass and feed simultaneously, with no rank privilege apparent (Mech 1966; Haber 1977); however, if the prey is smaller, like a musk ox calf, dominant animals (breeders) may feed first and control when subordinates feed (Mech 1988; National Geographic 1988).
Don't get me wrong, it's not that the study of wolf behavior has no significance. It does seem, though, that as more is learned, perhaps not as much is applicable to dealing with our dogs as I once imagined. The more I think about it the more I think that classical and operant conditioning are the biggest things I use in training my dogs: they are rewarded for desired behaviors, and ignored or (rarely) punished for undesired behaviors. That increases the frequency of the behaviors I like and decreases the frequency of the behaviors I dislike. Even in multi-dog homes, the state of having unrelated sexually mature adults forced to live together and accept subordinate roles does not seem to be the natural order of things, and as the Druid pack exemplifies, in larger packs where resources are abundant and that happens, violence and upheaval seems to follow if the animals are left to their own devices.
And what became of the Druid pack? It appears they have come to a bad end; the natural life of canines is violent and short:
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_14633522
The pack numbered 11 wolves two months ago, but officials say the alpha female and other members were killed by other packs, the alpha male wandered off, and a skin infection called mange killed others. "They're down to one and that one probably won't make it through the winter," said Doug Smith, Yellowstone's wolf biologist.
According to the NPR story I heard, the remaining female is half-bald from severe mange and likely won't survive. I know there are a lot of sources out there that romanticize the "natural" lifestyle of canines and talk about how our modern lifestyle is the cause of all sorts of problems. In some cases that may be true, but the fact is that the life of a wild canine is riddled with disease and danger.
What do you think? Is wolf pack theory the model you use in your home for your dogs? Or do you rely more on modern reward-based training styles? Or maybe a bit of both?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Beth on
-
The more I think about it, the more I think that the idea of "being the pack leader", which does work for many people, is successful as much because it creates a framework for our own complex brains to work around as anything. It creates for US a consistent way of being and acting which gives our dogs a consistent expectation of how to behave.
So, for example, pack theory would say that by feeding dogs in order, greeting in order, etc, we are backing up the dogs' own "pack order" and limiting disputes. But from another point of view, one could just as easily argue that what we are doing is creating the expectation in the dog "Fido gets the first treat, I get the second treat, Rover gets the third treat" and so they understand that everyone gets a treat and when and don't feel the need to fight over the first treat.
Your opening statement, about the Druid pack showing us how much we don't know, I guess is where I'm at. Wolves have been persecuted for centuries and many of the wild packs that are in accessible areas are under constant stress from hunting, trapping, poisoning and harassment and so don't behave naturally at all. The packs that are in good habitat but not bothered much are often in isolated areas where they are only studied for short periods of time, so we don't see long-term trends.
I am reminded of the surprise that bird biologists discovered a decade or so back, when DNA testing became affordable: a lot of the chicks in the nests of "monogamous" pairs were actually not fathered by the male on the nest. Close observation showed that the females would sneak off on feeding runs and breed with other males, and so the male who was tending the nest was frequently not the father at all. Things are often not what they appear at first glance. And in free-ranging horses, they have found that he "herd stallion" actually has very little rank; when it comes to finding food, water, moving foraging grounds and fleeing from danger, it is most often the lead mare who makes virtually all the decisions. Because the stallion jealously guards his mares from other stallions, it was assumed he was in charge (because he shows all the bluster and fight) but it seems that most of the time the mares could not give a hoot about who the herd stallion is, since they make their own decisions anyway.
Frequently what we see is colored by our pre-conceived notions of what is there.
-
-
Kerry, what you are describing is basically the "nothing in life is free" program, or a variation of it, which is all about controlling resources. I'm currently reading a book called "The Well Adjusted Dog" by Dr. Dodman from Tufts. For dogs who have a lot of "attitude" with their owner, he recommends getting their food ready and then telling them to "down" or "sit" and giving them exactly three seconds to comply. (of course the dog must know the command first). If the dog does not comply in three seconds, the food gets put away and the next food isn't offered til the next meal, 12 hours away. He says he's seen tough cases go four to five days before they finally cave, but usually dogs get the point after a skipped meal or two. After they master the three-second rule, you drop it to two seconds, then one, so that the dog will instantly sit when you say sit.
He also says that people who make their dogs sit or down before meals and treats, as a part of how they are raised, rarely have problems with insolence in their dogs to begin with.
Controlling resources can be viewed as part of dominance theory in a way, but it can also be viewed as part of basic operant conditioning: Polite dogs get food, rude dogs get ignored, so polite behavior increases and rude behavior drops. I know I raised Jack as a puppy to sit for all food treats, and his fanny hits the floor as soon as I look at him a certain way, treat or no. Of course for a working dog, you would want a different response.
-
Permalink Reply by Sky and Lyla on
-
Beth, you are spot on, at least IMO. The "pack theory" of dog behavior and training is not necessarily correct. The types of dominance training methods that Cesar uses (and to be fair most trainers that learned how to train dogs 40 or 50 years ago) is based on a study of capitive wolves that each came from different wild packs. So basically, it was kind of dysfunctional.
Most people who have spent time studying wolves or wild dogs in their natural habitat will tell you that there is no such things as an "alpha rollover" being forced on a naughty dog. The lower ranking dog will rollover on his own to show "I'm sorry, I'll be submissive now." He may get a correction from the higher dog, but not rolled over. In fact, the Monks of New Skeet, a big supporter of the rollover back in the day, have since taken it back saying it doesn't work, it's not natural, and should not be attempted by the average dog owner.
I really like Tamar Gellar. She studied wild dogs and realized that they determine status largely through play. She says observed she never once observed a dog being forced into a submissive position by the higher ranking dog, but the lower ranking dog always did it willingly after being corrected (with a growl, snap, facial expresion, etc).
If you've read any of my posts on behavior type issues you know that I love Tamar Gellar and really would be happy if Cesar never had another TV show again. I like Tamar because she doesn't totally discount the fact that dogs need to know who's in charge, but her conclusions from her observations were that dogs in the wild determine this through play, not by holding eachother in positions or by other negative interactions. Her training methods are positive (lots of clicker training, which I'm all about) and she teaches you games to play with your dog that are similar to what dogs do in the wild that puts you clearly in the "alpha" position but is not scary or intimidating to your dog.
I also like Karen Pryor quite a bit. Her book "Don't Shoot The Dog" is great, not just for dog training, but for people training too! I wish I had read it when I was still a consultant, I would have had so much more luck with my clients!! But herr book basically details what you said about encouraging the good behaviors and they will become more frequent, and ignoring the bad and they will extinguish (unless they are extremely self-rewarding). It is a basic theory of human psychology and I'm amazed at how well it translates into all species!
-
-
The funny thing about Cesar is that a huge part of the time, he IS practicing basic conditioning, but that is not how he presents it.
The second study I linked to, which was of a traditional wolf pack consisting of a breeding pair and their half-grown offspring, says they saw very few dominance displays except in disputes over food, and submissive posturing was often food-begging.
And the larger Druid pack, which had multiple breeding adults, showed that violence leading to death occurred within the pack (something we certainly don't want to model in our own homes). In other instances, breeding-age adults sick of the constant harassment of others would be forced out or would leave voluntarily (again something we don't want to mimic in our own homes).
On the other hand, I do think the mental imagery of "I'm in charge here" is helpful for many of the humans involved, because otherwise a lot of people have the tendency to tolerate totally unacceptable behavior in their dogs because they see them as perpetual furry "babies" to be coddled and pampered in inappropriate ways.
-
-
I agree that sometimes it's as much for us as it is the dogs! I also agree that Cesar does use a lot of conditioning, but that's not how he presents it and that IMO is the truly dangerous part when handing it over to novice dog owners watching TV. It's kind of the same feelings I have about SuperNanny! ;)
-
Permalink Reply by Joanna Kimball on
-
I've seen my dogs roll each other (and NOT just "ask" for a roll) many, many times. They hit the other dog in the shoulder and force it down and then stand on it until it's still and gives in. The roller is usually snarling at the rollee, who is swearing a blue streak at them from the ground; the roller lets them up when they shut up and relax. My group is very happy, very functional, and they've all been together for their entire lives. So I am an absolute believer in the idea of rolling a dog; it's that everybody except a very, very few trainers does it completely wrong; they fight the dog down and they think that once it's down it's learned something. Cesar does it right, but he doesn't do a great job of explaining what it is that he's doing differently or how to know that the dog has learned anything.
Dogs DO have status differences. It's very wrong to say that research has "disproven" the idea of rank; I was just reading about a study that looked at the correlation between tail position and the likelihood that the dog would overmark other dogs' pee. Some dogs are status-obsessed, to the point that they will hoard food and refuse to eat it just for the sheer pleasure of lording it over the other dogs. Other dogs barely seem to worry about it, but they ALL have various jobs within the group and they ALL look to the oldest bitch to tell them what to do.
Status within the group varies based on what's being dealt with (the oldest bitch may not be the one who gets the food first; the first-eater may not be the one who gets the best sleeping spot), and it's really difficult to TRAIN based on the idea of status. In female societies the individual status rises and falls based on hormones; whoever is in heat, pregnant, or has puppies controls the resources. So it's fallen out of favor as a way to, for example, discipline dogs.
But it is just as incorrect to say that dogs live in an egalitarian world as it is to say that they have a rigid unchanging rank system. Dogs are CONSTANTLY having status-related interactions, correcting each other's behavior, objecting to power being usurped, forcing other dogs to do things that they don't want to do, etc. Older males haze younger maies; adults punish puppies for acting like grownups; the adults take status very seriously and spend a lot of effort and calories "discussing" it.
-
-
Oh, make no mistake, I never would say they are egalitarian. The idea of being egalitarian is a human concept, and a fake one at that.
The wolf studies I have seen do not show much alpha-rolling going on; they talk about a beta-roll. I've seen dogs roll each other in play. The researchers say a dog will roll another one in a fight, but that if the downed dog does not submit (and sometimes even if it does) the roller will progress to attacking or even killing the rollee, which is why it's a risky move for a typical owner to undertake; a dog being rolled knows it might get killed and such a move can escalate behavior as quickly as it can calm it.
And your point about dogs having different statuses depending on the activity illustrates part of the problem. Motivation seems to be as big a factor as actual status. Some dogs could not care less who goes through the door first, others don't care about toys, others care less about food. However, it's important to note that in wild populations, any wolf regardless of status will defend food already in its possession.
In wolves, the breeding male has the most status except when the female has a litter, and then she seems to; the studies show the female greeting the male submissively at all times except when she has pups. As far as marking, in wolves only the breeding pair seem to mark, and the male and female will each overmark the other, depending on who went first. And who marked first depends on physical location and not status (whoever gets there first marks); the researchers observed the male overmarking the female, or the female overmarking the male, about equally. But the immature and subordinate wolves don't mark.
-
-
Oh, and most of the dogs my male plays with regularly (including Maddie) roll over for him when they see him coming and want to play, and that's how Maddie will initiate play with him--- roll over on her back and make rrr-rrr noises and sometimes gently snap her jaws. I've seen him roll many a dog in play, but the only times I've really seen him roll a dog seriously were two occasions when a large adolescent puppy was just being entirely too bouncy and running over the tops of everyone.
Honestly I would say that just about all the disagreements I've seen between my own dogs, including when they are out socializing with other dogs, are resolved with nothing stronger than an air-snap. Both of mine seem to respect when another dog says "back off" and so far nothing has gone farther than that.
-
-
I do like that Cesar promotes exercise and discipline as being the two most important things for dogs. I also watch his show a lot and he rarely uses the alpha roll, and when he does so it's usually only in cases of extreme dominance aggression (I've seen him deal with fear-aggression and take a totally different approach). But yes, people ignore the disclaimer to not use these techniques at home.
-
Permalink Reply by Alice on
-
The woman who taught Finn's puppy class stated from the get go she was a big fan of The Dog Whisperer and It's Me or the Dog but I never expected her to try to mimic their training methods. She was a Petsmart trainer and I know they have their own training techniques which do not involve alpha rolls and yet, she did roll Finn. If I felt confident this woman knew what she was doing it may have been ok but I think she was just one of those people who watched the show and felt empowered and in her eyes, she was the dog whisperer.
I've seen dogs roll each other so I know it happens but it's not to be used for just anything. A person needs to be able to gauge the situation and behavior in order to determine the best plan of action. As you said Beth, Cesar does not roll a fearful dog or use any harsh corrections on them. I do think he reads the dogs well and has a lot of knowledge which is effective in correcting unwanted behavior. Only a couple of times have I disagreed with his approach but it wasn't hurting anyone so it was not a big deal.
-
Permalink Reply by Bev Levy on
-
I really agree that anyone that points out that the people are the main problem with their animals! I like that when Cesar has a difficult case he talks about how much the dog is teaching him. Changing the way we approach someone (dog or human) changes the response we get. I have always felt that all parents should learn how to live and train a dog using positive methods before they have children. As humans I think we always underestimate the complexity of other species. For some reason we tend to think we are the only complex species!
-
-
I saw a recent episode where a woman had a little blind dog who would retreat to his crate, barking madly, whenever there were visitors.
She showed Cesar how she hauled the snarling little guy out of his crate and held him down on his side. Cesar looked at her like she was out of her mind, and proceeded to noisily open a bag of treats to lure the dog out of his crate, then close the door so he couldn't go in! Of course there was more follow-up to make the dog less insecure, but the initial problem was solved with no fuss --- and no rolls.
Rescue Store
Stay Connected
FDA Recall
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recall
Groups
We support...
Badge
© 2024 Created by Sam Tsang.
Powered by
