On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:48:23 -0500, "P E Schoen"
wrote:


When unrelated animals live together, as is usually the case with a human
and several dogs who may even be different breeds, there needs to be a
"dominant" leader, and that role needs to be taken by the human, since s/he
ultimately provides the needed food, water, shelter, discipline, and
affection that eliminate any real need to compete for scarce resources. But
when the dogs are interacting with each other without the presence of the
human, they will form a hierarchical pack structure. But most dogs are
genetically wired to be cooperative, and usually the pack leadership and
subordinate roles are established without violence.

The pack structure of domestic dogs is much more fluid than that of
wolves. In a multi-dog household, there is an alpha dog, but the
heirarchy can change according to circumstances. Moreover, with a
pack of, say, 6 dogs, the average owner probably knows who the alpha
is, but where the other dogs fall in the hierarchy is much less clear
- and in fact may change from day to day. How dogs interact with each
other within the hierarchy often depends on which resources are
valuable to a particular dog. Domestic dogs living together usually
don't wait for the alpha to eat and often will try to eat from each
others' bowls if given the chance. Really, dog and wolf packs are
probably more different than they are similar, because dogs aren't
wolves.

All of this has little or nothing to do with dogs being dominant
toward people, and people establishing leadership with their dogs.
It's true that a dog will assume the position of leader if the human
doesn't, and that bad things can result from that. But it's also true
that for an alpha human, establishing oneself as leader is really no
big deal and doesn't involve any physical punishment. (For purposes
of this post, an alpha human is the human equivalent of Tasha, our
Siberian Husky, now gone nearly 4 years. Every dog that met her
instantly knew she was the alpha, and any dog that disputed that
regretted it. She ruled with a velvet paw unless she needed to get
tougher. And she never, ever disputed the leadership of her people.)

"sighthounds & siberians" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:48:23 -0500, "P E Schoen"
wrote:


When unrelated animals live together, as is usually the case with a
human and several dogs who may even be different breeds, there
needs to be a "dominant" leader, and that role needs to be taken by
the human, since s/he ultimately provides the needed food, water,
shelter, discipline, and affection that eliminate any real need to
compete for scarce resources. But when the dogs are interacting
with each other without the presence of the human, they will form
a hierarchical pack structure. But most dogs are genetically wired
to be cooperative, and usually the pack leadership and subordinate
roles are established without violence.

The pack structure of domestic dogs is much more fluid than that of
wolves. In a multi-dog household, there is an alpha dog, but the
heirarchy can change according to circumstances. Moreover, with a
pack of, say, 6 dogs, the average owner probably knows who the
alpha is, but where the other dogs fall in the hierarchy is much less
clear - and in fact may change from day to day. How dogs interact
with each other within the hierarchy often depends on which resources
are valuable to a particular dog. Domestic dogs living together usually
don't wait for the alpha to eat and often will try to eat from each
others' bowls if given the chance. Really, dog and wolf packs are
probably more different than they are similar, because dogs aren't
wolves.

All of this has little or nothing to do with dogs being dominant
toward people, and people establishing leadership with their dogs.
It's true that a dog will assume the position of leader if the human
doesn't, and that bad things can result from that. But it's also true
that for an alpha human, establishing oneself as leader is really no
big deal and doesn't involve any physical punishment. (For purposes
of this post, an alpha human is the human equivalent of Tasha, our
Siberian Husky, now gone nearly 4 years. Every dog that met her
instantly knew she was the alpha, and any dog that disputed that
regretted it. She ruled with a velvet paw unless she needed to get
tougher. And she never, ever disputed the leadership of her people.)

Hey, we can actually agree on something, and thanks for the additional
clarification. I think the problem many people have with the concept of
dominance and "alpha" is the assumption that it always involves violence,
threats, and a heavy hand. But in reality, most good leaders, human and
canine, achieve that status by means of their confidence and trusted ability
to provide for the needs of subordinates. And, of course, the situation may
determine leadership and role reversals may be expected.

For example, a dog (or wolf) living in a human environment must be guided by
human leaders because it is not a place where canine instincts are useful or
beneficial. So, of course, a dog who has taken over the position because of
failure of the human to provide the protection and other needs of the pack,
will usually do things that are inappropriate or dangerous. Dogs (in
contrast to wild wolves), are genetically predisposed to cooperation with
humans, and that "domestication" is what separates the species. But there is
some overlap, and some dogs may be more "wild" than some wolves.

Dogs and wolves, being sentient creatures, are also fairly unique in their
similarity to human families, and they often surpass many human families in
their success with keeping harmony and using constructive behavior to assure
their survival. We can and should learn much of that from our canine
friends. And there may even be times where a human may transfer leadership
to a dog or a wolf. If I were lost in a forest and struggling to survive
without having had good wilderness survival training, I would certainly
defer to Muttley or another dog (or friendly wolf) for hunting and obtaining
food in the form of prey. And I would also trust him to use his nose and
sense of direction to guide me to safety.

Paul and Muttley

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:22:03 -0500, "P E Schoen"
wrote:

Dogs and wolves, being sentient creatures, are also fairly unique in their
similarity to human families, and they often surpass many human families in
their success with keeping harmony and using constructive behavior to assure
their survival. We can and should learn much of that from our canine
friends. And there may even be times where a human may transfer leadership
to a dog or a wolf. If I were lost in a forest and struggling to survive
without having had good wilderness survival training, I would certainly
defer to Muttley or another dog (or friendly wolf) for hunting and obtaining
food in the form of prey. And I would also trust him to use his nose and
sense of direction to guide me to safety.

Mushers rely on their dogs' instincts all the time, and in my opinion
you can't go wrong relying on a Siberian Husky. I don't know if you
ever heard the story about my Tasha finding Matty, our spooky
greyhound that got loose and ended up in woods about 5 miles north of
home. Long story short, the police in that town called us to say
they'd seen Matty go into the woods and that they would wait for my
husband to get there so they could show him where he'd gone in.
Something told my husband to take Tasha, and when they got there he
told her to find Matty. Her head went down and off she went, and
after a few minutes my husband figured she was just having herself a
good old time in the woods. But after about 10 minutes, she stuck her
head into some brush, and out popped Matty's head. He was still too
nervous to come to my husband - had run away from us every time we'd
sighted him - so DH and Tasha just sat down for a bit until Matty
calmed down. Tasha had never been trained to track, of course, and
this is a completely factual, unembellished story. I've always been
sure that if Tasha hadn't found him that day, Matty would have died
unless we'd been able to trap him (he was a great dog, but you
wouldn't want to rely on him to survive in the wilderness).

On another occasion, our male Dalmatian was going after a foster
greyhound, completely ignoring our commands to stop. Tasha looked on
for a few minutes and then calmly reached over and put her jaws around
the Dal's neck until my husband could grab and control him. I don't
know it these examples, and the examples of mushers, constitute a
transfer of leadership or just a partnership at a level that most
humans are not fortunate enough to achieve with their dogs, but either
way, they're pretty special.

"sonofdog" wrote
cshenk wrote:


http://www.clickersolutions.com/arti...ngbehavior.htm

Enjoyed that link too! I'm not a 'clicker' sort at all (obviously Mabel
Anne who's deaf can't be trained that way) but the article is loaded with
interesting 'body language' items we do use, often unintentionally.

My pleasure was clear when Sammy started working out with me (physical
therapy stuff, nothing hard) so Cash wanted in. Now Cash is playing with me
and Mabel Anne is still joining in a little bit. Heheh she 'head nods in
time with us' and when we do the neck rolls, she cocks her ears (same side
we turn to) and rocks her head a bit in tandem.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:27:25 -0500, "cshenk" wrote:

"sonofdog" wrote
cshenk wrote:


http://www.clickersolutions.com/arti...ngbehavior.htm

Enjoyed that link too! I'm not a 'clicker' sort at all (obviously Mabel
Anne who's deaf can't be trained that way)

Sure she can.

By the use of a vibrating collar.

Conditioned reinforcers don't have to be sounds.

--
Dogman

"Dogman" wrote
"cshenk" wrote:

http://www.clickersolutions.com/arti...ngbehavior.htm

Enjoyed that link too! I'm not a 'clicker' sort at all (obviously Mabel
Anne who's deaf can't be trained that way)

Sure she can.
By the use of a vibrating collar.
Conditioned reinforcers don't have to be sounds.

Silly me! I had not thought from that angle. You are right, she can use the
'method' but different device if we want to do that.

I think, the current ASL load though is about her level of speed for now.
She doesn't need some huge command list or multiple things to learn at once.
I'm just happy she house trained well (grin, she wasn't when we got her but
it was hidden as she'd been outside all her life we think. By that age, she
wanted to 'go outside' so it was easy peasy).

I think, interest on my part on a link is all well and good but in this
case, it's for a future dog when it comes to clicker training.

Ya just don't stress out an old dog with too much. She's a more gentle
learner at her age. I'm pretty happy she does reliable asl: sit, down,
stand, 'go there', ' heel/come' at this stage and doesn't pee/poop in the
house except rare occasions and even then on her puppy pad tray. (She's an
old grande dame so allow she can't always wait all night hence has her own
little private padded 'in room' privy at need)

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:30:39 -0500, Dogman wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:27:25 -0500, "cshenk" wrote:

"sonofdog" wrote
cshenk wrote:


http://www.clickersolutions.com/arti...ngbehavior.htm

Enjoyed that link too! I'm not a 'clicker' sort at all (obviously Mabel
Anne who's deaf can't be trained that way)

Sure she can.

By the use of a vibrating collar.

Conditioned reinforcers don't have to be sounds.


sound is a vibration

many things ca be conditioned reinforcers

"P E Schoen" wrote in message
...
Yes, of course, and about halfway through his video he confirms my
assertion
that dominance and (sometimes forcibly) established hierarchy among
"unrelated members of an artificially assembled pack", and the the term
"alpha", is appropriate. So, please tell me why a similarly defined pack of
your own dogs should not follow this as well, rather than in the case of
wild wolves, where the pack consists of a breeding pair and their
offspring?

That's good question and one that should be asked I understand that
ethology is the study of natural animal behaviour and it's not comparing
unnatural behaviour to the behaviour of possibly another species.
There is information about this the book in Dominance theory and Dogs by
James O'heare.
This is from the first edition but there is later version .
Page 18/19 -
"Stress is prominent in captive animals. Stress is also a significant
component of the experience of an animal losing an agonistic encounter. In
the wild stress is reduced by the animal ability to avoid confrontation and
also by the fact they are not captive. In the wild, stress contributes to
dominance relation formation and it is likely that in a highly stressful
environment dominance relationships would form artificially. none of this
suggest that dominance relationships are only part of captivity and stress
but they influence ,

Are dogs kept as pets in the home "captive" ? Domestication has decreased
flight
distance and ease of socialisation. in that regard we cannot exactly
consider dogs captive animals . stress on the other hand may contribute to
abnormal stress-induced behaviour. dogs living ín multiple -dog households
may experience a crowding stress or perhaps a clashing of personality , it
would seem that stress from various sources could contribute to social
behaviour at hand. This is could promote widely social behaviour that may
not be easy to define and predict also."

I think that last sentence is important.

The Dominance theory is a theory. It isn't just about dogs and in the book
there are 19 catergories of definitions. So clearly dominance isn't that
straight forward and simple.
I don't think that pet dogs form a linear ranking system but it is
interesting on discussing this on a forum there were several people with
mulitple dogs who had a bitch that was assertive and considered
controlling!
It said if we want to understand our pet dogs than study feral or village
dogs.

Roger Abrantes in his book The Evolution of Canine social Behaviour says
with social animals , its about social awareness and compromise.
"They need their conspecifics to survive and selection has favoured those
among them who were best at co operating."
Young individuals become at a certain point aware of "others" and that
"others"
may limit ones access to resources as well as being used to facillate
access to these same resources."

Al

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:15:51 -0000, "Alison"
wrote:

Are dogs kept as pets in the home "captive" ? Domestication has decreased
flight
distance and ease of socialisation. in that regard we cannot exactly
consider dogs captive animals . stress on the other hand may contribute to
abnormal stress-induced behaviour. dogs living ín multiple -dog households
may experience a crowding stress or perhaps a clashing of personality , it
would seem that stress from various sources could contribute to social
behaviour at hand. This is could promote widely social behaviour that may
not be easy to define and predict also."

I think that last sentence is important.

There seems to be an extra word or a missing word so I'm not sure
exactly what it's trying to say?

The Dominance theory is a theory. It isn't just about dogs and in the book
there are 19 catergories of definitions. So clearly dominance isn't that
straight forward and simple.
I don't think that pet dogs form a linear ranking system but it is
interesting on discussing this on a forum there were several people with
mulitple dogs who had a bitch that was assertive and considered
controlling!

"Linear" is the word I was trying to think of when I responded to
Paul's post yesterday. I agree that while there is some sort of
pecking order in a pack of domestic dogs, it is not linear and is
probably more dissimilar than similar to that of wolves.
"Controlling" is a word I'd apply more to humans than dogs. I think
that there is such a thing as dominance in dogs. There are dogs that
will try to be dominant with people if their humans do not exercise
leadership, and that can result in people getting bitten. This
obviously doesn't happen with the majority of dogs and I certainly
don't think that dogs sit around day-dreaming about how to take over
the household.

There are also dogs that are more dominant in their relationships with
each other; they may or may not try to exercise dominance with their
humans. I think that one of the problems with 'dominance theory' is
that people lump it all together, like aggression.

It said if we want to understand our pet dogs than study feral or village
dogs.

I agree. A lot of raw feeders are all about feeding according to the
'whole prey model' because that's how wolves eat. Dogs Are Not
Wolves. Tha'ts why I feed by the 'scavenger model'. (That's a joke,
by the way.)

Roger Abrantes in his book The Evolution of Canine social Behaviour says
with social animals , its about social awareness and compromise.

Yes! Dogs in multidog households compromise all the time. Often it's
the ones whose little pea brains don't seem to get the concept of
compromise that appear to be the most 'dominant'.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 05:57:19 +0000 (UTC), sonofdog
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:30:39 -0500, Dogman wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:27:25 -0500, "cshenk" wrote:

"sonofdog" wrote
cshenk wrote:


http://www.clickersolutions.com/arti...ngbehavior.htm

Enjoyed that link too! I'm not a 'clicker' sort at all (obviously Mabel
Anne who's deaf can't be trained that way)

Sure she can.

By the use of a vibrating collar.

Conditioned reinforcers don't have to be sounds.


sound is a vibration

Carol's dog is DEAF and can't HEAR sounds.

But she can FEEL a vibration collar.

many things ca be conditioned reinforcers

Which is precisely what I said.

Apparently you can't read English either.

What a freakin' maroon.

--
Dogman